flaja: from the New York Times article you linked to -



So far violent opposition to America is comparitively small. Beyond the hardline moslem fringe, anger at America is felt by ordinary people, because of America's actions not because those ordinary people are moslem. The same can be said of Britain, where there have been noisy demonstrations accompanying every visit by Bush. The demonstrations over here have involved a handful of extremists but mainly it's been ordinary people, many non-moslems, protesting America's foreign policy.

Do you really believe Moslems hate America, because they are moslem? Do you really believe all moslems are anti-jewish, because they are moslem? You are generalising about a huge percentage of the global population. Not only that you are over-simplifying the reasons why someone might hold those views. America is active in the world, and as such her actions have effects and consequences. Israel's actions also have an effect on the world and the way in which she is viewed by some.


Just to underline the point, here is a quote from the bottom of the article:

Not really different from here.

Give me something other than your opinion as proof of this fact.

Amendment 5 where it says “no person" rather than "no citizen".

I guess by your logic everybody that speaks English must be a German because both languages are in the same language family. And then the French, Spanish and Italians must all be one and the same people because they all use a Romance Language.

But it still exists, thus negating any claim that Indonesia is not anti-America.

In that case, Britain is anti-American, because such opposition exists here. You cannot characterise a country as anti-american because it contains anti-american elements.

You'd also have to say America is anti American, because there are those types here.

Show me where the intent was to include all peoples of the world who are not US Citizens. You can't. That is only your opinion.

srsly?

How much closer to "intent" can you get than the original text? You're right. You can't be shown. But not because *flaja's* opinion is the obstacle.

Why not?

I will accept your opinion that Constitutional legal due process rights do not apply to non-citizens if you can document that the government did not recognize such rights when the first non-citizen (whoever he was) was charged with violating U.S. law under the Constitution.

BTW: You still haven’t clarified whether or not the U.S. can deny non-citizen their inalienable right to life and liberty without extending them legal due process rights.

How could the Constitution make a distinction between citizens and all other persons, in 1787 when it did not define what a citizen is until the 14th Amendment?

And if Constitutional rights applied only to citizens, why does the document have to specify that only citizens can hold federal elective office?

It's true.
The whole world is anti-American.
Even the uncontacted tribes in Brazil/ Peru shake their sticks at you.
Even the water on Mars hates you.

Everybody now:
"Nobody loves me, everybody hates me
Think I'll go and eat wooooorms..."

Yeah...even me. Just ask anyone in 'the clique'.

I have no answer to that.

I hate to say this, but where is Radar????




hmmmm

Imagine that....:rolleyes:

Ok, follow me here, because I know you want to believe it to be something other than what it says.... The opening statement sets the precedent for the document. Everything after this statement follows. You cannot cherry pick each piece and determine it to be something it is not. It begins with an opening statement which sets the stage for the rest of the document. They did not write it to apply to the Brits who were trying to kill them. They did not write it to apply to the black African slaves. They did not write it to apply to the Chinese who came and built our Rail Roads. They did not write it to apply to the Mexicans they had war with..... no.... they wrote it for the people whom they deemed to be people who were to form a new country, a new land, under a new rule of law. Not for the King of England if he came to visit, not for anyone else. Get it?

The Constitution is for US citizens alone.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.

Sure... our friends in England at the time felt like this applied to them....:rolleyes: Give me a frigging break... the answer is NO.

You are correct that the Constitution governs only the United States. Specifically, the United States government. Wherever and with respect to whoever it operates.

Nice try.

Only pertains to legal citizens.

If you think otherwise prove me wrong.

Show me where it states all people of the world outside of the United States. Or anywhere that the govenment operates outside of the US.

Here's what it comes down to for me: Do you want our service men and women who become POWs (in this war or the next) treated the way we're treating the Guantanamo prisoners? If not, then we shouldn't be doing it.

Different from what? WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Name one war in the last 100 years where US prisoners were treated as well as we have historically treated enemy prisoners.

The Preamble to the Constitution was not prepared until the document’s final draft was being made by the Committee on Style. The Preamble is practically an afterthought. The Delegates to the Constitutional Convention had no definite idea what We the People meant when they starting debating what the Constitution would say and whom it would apply to.

Also, if were to examine the Notes that James Madison prepared at the Constitutional Convention, you would find repeated references to the citizens of such and such state, but I have yet to find any reference to the citizens of the United States. The Delegates had no formal understanding of what a citizen of the United States was, so how could they have had any intent of denying any rights to non-citizens?

But at any rate, the 5th Amendment is just that- an amendment. It was meant to alter the document’s original meaning. Even if We the People had originally intended to deny legal due process rights to non-citizens, by saying no person instead of no citizen, the 5th Amendment altered what you We the People had intended to do and thereby gave legal due process rights to all persons and not just citizens.

Furthermore, since the Articles of Confederation did not define citizenship or grant the Confederation government any power to make naturalization laws, there was no legally recognized way for someone to be a national citizen of the United States.

The only way someone who was born outside of the original 13 states could even remotely become a citizen of the United States was to become a citizen of one of the states; foreigners like Baron von Steuben were given citizenship in several different states by legislative acts, but it is questionable whether or not state citizenship meant automatic national citizenship since no one had the formal legal authority to define what a national citizen was, although the Constitution does assume that such national citizens existed (Article II, section 1, clause 4).

I would assume that anyone living in what became the United States who was born a British subject or who became a nationalized British subject prior to July 2, 1776 was given automatic citizenship in the state where they lived once the separate states were independent of Great Britain. But if this was not the case, then there could have been people living in the United States who were not citizens thereof.

And then there are James Wilson, Robert Morris, Thomas Fitzsimons, Alexander Hamilton, William Patterson, James McHenry and Pierce Butler- all of whom were born outside of what became the United States and all of whom signed the Constitution. They were all British subjects living in what became the United States prior to July 2, 1776, but if U.S. citizenship for the foreign-born was not automatic, did every one of these men go through the process to be a naturalized citizen of a state so they could claim to be a national citizen of the United States? Or did they put their name to a document that, as you claim, would have denied them legal due process rights because they were not citizens?

If the Constitution applies only to the United States, how can Congress punish piracies committed on the high seas? And how can Congress define and punish offenses committed against the law of nations, i.e., how can Congress can make laws governing the international community?

The people who are outside of the United States are subject to U.S. law because Congress can punish them if they commit piracy on the high seas or if they do something that Congress says is against the law of nations, i.e., international law.

Just because the United States has had to go to war against thugs, does not justify the United States itself acting like a thug.

BTW: I cannot recall ever hearing about ill-treatment for U.S. POWs held by Germany in World War I. Furthermore, up until 1944, when the Germans decided they had nothing left to lose, Germany went out of its way to observe the Geneva Convention for British and American POWs because Germany wanted to insure that German POWs held by the British and Americans were given good treatment.

and your source for that bit of information is?

So we should be no better than they were? Is that the kind of American values you want your kids to live up to?

Because it list things that the government must, or must not, do, and doesn't say "except outside our borders".
The Constitution applies to the US government, wherever it operates, including the high seas. Treaties governing maritime law are recognized by the Costitution. Our power gives us leverage when making treaties, which has been used positively and negatively.

I've always heard the same thing, so I looked it up.

Hey mercy.... What law does apply at Guantanamo?

Be forewarned, an answer like "the military is in charge" will precipitate another question like this one, "What laws apply to the military?"

So, what do you think? What laws apply?

Note I did not list WW1.

What are you talking about dar? Where did we begin to discuss my values and my family? Where did I say it was ok to torture.

And no where in the document does it say it includes all peoples outside of our borders any more than any other countries constitutional documents apply to US citizens while in their countries. It does not follow logic. All constitutions of all countries do not apply to everyone. All constitutions of all countries are applicable to the people who are citizens of each country. Why are you trying to make the US Constitution a world document? Maybe you think the UN should adapt our Constitution and make it the worlds.

Good question. I don't have the answer. Hence the pickle we are in now going back and forth with the courts. A better question is how do we catagorize the prisoners who are there? Some are known terrorists, others less so. Like I have said plenty of times on this forum in plenty of places, with some exceptions, if I had my way I would close it tomarrow and send them all back to their host countries and make it not our problem anymore. What their host countries choose to do with them is their business.

But you said within the last 100 years. World War I went from 1914 to 1918 and the U.S. was involved from 1917 to 1918. The last time I checked 1918 was within the last 100 years.

When you said that legal due process rights under the U.S. Constitution do not apply to non-U.S. citizens.

By whose standards? If none of the people at Gitmo have been given a fair trial, how do you know which ones are terrorists?

And what right do we have to hold the ones that are not terrorists?

Excellent question.

Flip a coin, perhaps?

Justice should be reduced to a coin toss?

Ever heard of the word factitious?

I looked it up, but what’s your point?

It's not a world document. It's a US. Government document, and it applies to the US Government wherever in the world it operates.

There was no point - it was a joke.

Yea, but like I said I left WW1 off the list on purpose.

I stated:

Any jump you made was your own, not one that I supported or made. Nice try. You fail.

Wherever in the world it operates with US Citizens and it applies to those legal citizens only. So a US citizen captured in the Sudan while in the service of USAID for smuggling hash is subjected to our Constitution?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factitious

1: produced by humans rather than by natural forces
2 a: formed by or adapted to an artificial or conventional standard b: produced by special effort : SHAM <created a factitious demand by spreading rumors of shortage>


So what is the joke?

Because it doesn’t support your claim that American POWs are always mistreated.

humourless much?

What have your values and your family to do with legal due process rights for non-citizens? By denying these rights to non-citizens you make torture a legal option.

You know damn well that classic meant "facetious."

You are going out of your way to be obtuse.

Where in the Constitution does it expressly say that legal due process rights are given only to U.S. citizens and not to anyone else who is subject to U.S. law?

What proof do you have that only citizens are included in We the People and that the expression “no person” in the 5th Amendment means “no citizen”? None. You have no such proof because no such proof exists. You have been shown time and time again that legal due process rights are and have been extended to non-citizens that are subject to U.S. law. You are either too dense to see or too obstinate to admit that you are flat wrong. You are not here to discuss, but rather to argue. You are little more than a bully.

Are you honestly trying to tell me you did not get the gist of my post?

The person isn't subject to the Constitution, the government is. Wherever, and with respect to whoever, it operates. If the US citizen is captured in the Sudan by the Sudanese government, they are subject to the Sudanese government. If they are captured by the US government (putting aside the idea of the US government capturing people in Sudan), they are subject to the US government, which is itself subject to the US Constitution, no matter where it is acting.

LOFL - my spellcheck changed it - Holy crap thats really funny.

thanks Glatt!

No I am not. The so-called joke simply bombed. I did not know the meaning of factitious, and before I looked it up I thought maybe it had something to do with political factions.

BTW: The spellchecker for MS Word does not change factitious to something else.

But in the Firefox web browser, the user is prompted to change "facitious" to "factitious."