S3930 - Detainee bill

[JayMcGee]

that freedom being the freedom to lock up those who disagree with us?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

that freedom being the freedom to lock up those who disagree with us?

Who's this "us"? Got a mouse in your pocket?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

Why, again, are people supporting this? Folks on the right-ish side of the aisle...what's the defense for violating the Constitution?

Please cite the part of the Constitution that protects unlawful alien enemy combatants.

[JayMcGee]

US

[JayMcGee]

so......


what's a lawful alien enemy combatant?

and can you lock up an unlawful alien friendly combatant?

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

so......


what's a lawful alien enemy combatant?

and can you lock up an unlawful alien friendly combatant?

I'm sure George Orwell could explain it all to you if only he were still around. Say! Don't you Brit's have a bunch of North Sea oil?

*Eyes JayMcGee suspiciously*

Just what do you have in the pocket of that cardigan, anyhow? I think the US military needs to take you in for questioning. Don't worry. If you're innocent, you'll be home just in time for your 90th birthday, and we promise we won't do anything - anything that will show scars, anyhow.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Please cite the part of the Constitution that protects unlawful alien enemy combatants.

Amendment Six:

Originally Posted by THE BILL OF RIGHTS

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Please cite the part of the Constitution that protects unlawful alien enemy combatants.

It’s called the Geneva Convention - and ratified according to the US Constitution. It's also called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the US ratified in 1948. Unlawful alien enemy combatant is simply your attempt to pervert them into sub humans or Martians. But then you are posting in directe contradiction to the Supreme Court - and even the Bible. They are humans which mean the Geneva Convention fully applies - as you always knew but somehow forgot.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

It’s called the Geneva Convention...

Ah, yes...the Geneva Convention part of the Constitution. Right.

The Geneva Convention doesn't "apply to all humans" any more than the Constitution does. Nice red herring.

[Ibby]

If theyre actual enemy combatants, theyre protected under Geneva. If theyre not, theyre protected under civil laws.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Ah, yes...the Geneva Convention part of the Constitution. Right.

You're slipping Mag. I saw you palm that card.

TW didn't say the Geneva Convention was part of the Constitution. He said it was ratified according to the Constitution. He obviously means that its ratification was in accordance with the Constitution.

Once you start saying "We all have inalienable rights... except those folks over there", you have started down a slippery slope.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Ah, yes...the Geneva Convention part of the Constitution. Right.

The Geneva Convention doesn't "apply to all humans" any more than the Constitution does. Nice red herring.

First, the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land according to the Constitution, because the Constitution says that if we sign a treaty, then we are bound by it. So yes, the Constitution says that we have to stick to the Conventions (notice the plural, btw).
Second, the Constitution also has this neat little trick in it in Article 1 sections 9 and 10 denying the ability of the Congress to pass ex post facto laws, meaning that the Bush administration can't pass a law that clears them of any wrongdoing in the past (specifically: violating the Conventions by ordering and/or condoning torture).
Coming up with new rules for a new kind of game is just fine. Let's face it, the Conventions were written for conflicts between two states, and are hard to apply when the conflict is between a state and non-state actor. But trying to cornhole the Constitution (especially when it's only for political gain, not actually trying to make any headway catching and prosecuting people) is, quite literally and without hyperbole, anti-American.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by headsplice

anti-American

One of the most catastrophic (and amusing, to me) internet debates I've had involved my contention that someone calling someone else un-American was in itself un-American, for which I was reprimanded, and informed that I cannot use that phrase as a criticism of itself, which I felt was perfectly appropriate. 72 hours later, I "won" becaue the guy went into all-caps.

[headsplice]

I didn't violate Godwin's Law, though: no Nazi's/Hitler/Facism at all. I'm so awesome.

[Griff]

You Rock!