SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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.

[dar512]

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by dar512

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.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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.

[lookout123]

and your source for that bit of information is?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by lookout123

and your source for that bit of information is?

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

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Germany and Italy generally treated prisoners from the British Commonwealth, France, the U.S. and other western allies, in accordance with the Geneva Convention (1929), which had been signed by these countries.[11] Nazi Germany did not extend this level of treatment to non-Western prisoners, such as the Soviets, who suffered harsh captivities and died in large numbers while in captivity.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

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.

Note I did not list WW1.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Note I did not list WW1.

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

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.

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

[dar512]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by dar512

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

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.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

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

I stated:

Where did we begin to discuss my values and my family? Where did I say it was ok to torture.

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

[dar512]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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.