POLL: Extending Constitutional Protections

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I see lots of votes but few "because ... " Come on. Tell us why you think yes or no.

Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive.

CsG

Because...

Let me guess - yes, yes, and yes from you. Now why?

CsG

I think you misunderstand.

The first part of your post that I quoted is calling for others to state "because..." yet in that same post you fail to do the same.

"because ..."
"Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive."

Happy now? Are you going to answer gaard or are you going to skip out again?

CsG

Where's your reason why? If you're saying you agree with Halos's reasons, where did he state his reasons?

How can you call for others to state their reasons if you refuse to do so?

Did you read Halos' post? He answered - which is more than I can say for you. I'll even agree with DM on #1&#2. That most completely reflects my stance.

Where is your stance gaard? Are you going to skip out again?

CsG

Yeah, I read it. He gave no "because" for 1 & 2. Did you mean he nailed it on his answer to Q #3?

My answers are "no", "no", and "I don't know". If by asking the 3rd question you're asking if it's acceptable to torture or abuse or treat inhumanely any terrorists caught, my answer to that question would be no.

:roll: it was cute(not really) the first time but your little game is quite tiresome. Halos answered the questions and gave "because". He thought they should be killed.

Now as to your fake answers - the poll number change at the time of your post doesn't agree with what you claim your answers are - but lets hear why you think no, no, and I don't know.

#3 is not about torture. Torture is not in the question at all.
"Should the Geneva Conventions be changed to include Enemy Combatants?" - That is the question. See? not torture

CsG

I haven't taken the time to answer the poll. Just say the word and I will...at that time you can check your little numbers to make sure I'm telling the truth.

Yes, Halos said "kill them all". Did he ever say why? Show me where. Quote it. Take a sec and quote his reason for "killing them all". Show us all here you're not just, once again, skirting. You know you're just being intellectually dishonest.

My reasons for "no" for 1 & 2 are just as DM (and by extension, you) stated. My reason for the "I don't know" for Q #3 is because I'm not knowledgable on all of the GC 'rules'.

:roll: Wow, whodda thought - gaard trying to obfuscate and play the ignorance game.

Halos = no(it shouldn't be extended), because they should be killed. (does one have to clarify why terrorists and enemy combatants) should be killed?

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, but I'm more than happy to use simpler words if you still need help. Oh, and thanks for finally answering although I know it was tough for you.

CsG

 

[Gaard]

HAHAHAHA, this is too funny...
"Halos = no(it shouldn't be extended), because they should be killed."


What a moron.


"tis only a flesh wound.

 

[Zebo]

And the attitude of "fvck 'em, they're not Americans" is EXACTLY what our problem will be.

they must be forgetting U.S. citizens José Padilla and Yaser Hamdi? The Administration is detaining them as "enemy conbatants" attempt to bypass all criminal procedures and constitutional protections. What for i don't know but it's definity unprecedented and a power grab by executive.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
HAHAHAHA, this is too funny...
"Halos = no(it shouldn't be extended), because they should be killed."


What a moron.


"tis only a flesh wound.

Sorry to hear you think your comprehension problem is so funny. I thought it to be a bit sad, not funny.

CsG

 

[JackStorm]

1. If they are caught in the act or have in some way been proven to be terrorists, no. If they have just been 'accused' (accusing is simple, proving is not) of being terrorists, then I'd damn well expect the accuser to prove his case.

2. If they invaded your country, no. Feel free to shot them or if they surrender, stuff their ass in jail. If you invaded theirs, well, then it would be up to them to deside who has a right to what.

3. Meh...Not an easy one to answer. If they are part of a countries military or a resistance(which usually pop up after the countries official military breaks down) that targets enemy units, then I'd say yes. If they are targeting non-military targets, such as civilans, then no.

In all honesty, I'm going to have to agree with alchemize. The Geneva Conventions really do need to be modified. As it stands, they're vague as hell and countries have been using loopholes in them for ages now.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hey, nice framing, CsG. Have you quit beating your wife? Just answer yes or no, please...

Should America extend Constitutional Protections to foreign terrorists?

Who says they're terrorists, and what are the particulars of these accusations? Oh, wait, there'd have to be some kind of a public trial before that could actually be determined, right?

Should America extend Constitutional Protections to foreign enemy Combatants?

Who invented that particular term, "enemy combatant", and why? What does it mean, exactly?

Should the Geneva Conventions be changed to include Enemy Combatants?

They probably already are, given that the term was invented as an attempt to not have to classify them as POW's...

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
They probably already are, given that the term was invented as an attempt to not have to classify them as POW's...

Aye...It's one of those lovely little loopholes in the Geneva Conventions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Hey, nice framing, CsG. Have you quit beating your wife? Just answer yes or no, please...

Should America extend Constitutional Protections to foreign terrorists?

Who says they're terrorists, and what are the particulars of these accusations? Oh, wait, there'd have to be some kind of a public trial before that could actually be determined, right?

Should America extend Constitutional Protections to foreign enemy Combatants?

Who invented that particular term, "enemy combatant", and why? What does it mean, exactly?

Should the Geneva Conventions be changed to include Enemy Combatants?

They probably already are, given that the term was invented as an attempt to not have to classify them as POW's...

Hey nice try troll. The POLL asked a yes/no question and open-endedly asked for your input. That that is not biased "framing". What is with you people? Next time try a better excuse to get out of having to actually think about things.

CsG

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Should America extend Constitutional Protections to foreign terrorists?
No, kill them all. Take no prisoners and offer no trials.

Should America extend Constitutional Protections to foreign enemy Combatants?
No, kill them all. Take no prisoners and offer no trials.

Should the Geneva Conventions be changed to include Enemy Combatants?
Not Applicable. Terrorists and Enemy Combatants are not militia officially representing foreign nation(s). They are individuals. Kill them all. Take no prisoners and offer no trials.

You forgot a plug for 'America the most moral nation in the history of the world' to go along with this post :disgust:

I don't think the Geneva convention should be changed to include enemy combatants; I think the category is bogus and inapplicable in the first place.

However, constitutional protections are written only for citizens; a suspected terrorist (or whatever) shouldn't be entitled to protection under the American constitution any more than I would be if I were arrested in the US.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your premise is faulty, CsG. Constitutional protection was granted to everybody, citizen or foreigner, by the Constitution, and affirmed over 100 years ago by the SCOTUS in the now famous case, ex parte Milligan-

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

From here-

http://www.constitution.org/col/foreign_rights.htm

Not that it matters to the far Right, who attempt to redefine the law and the Constitution whenever principle fails to suit their purposes at the moment...

 

[wirelessenabled]

Yes because it is too convenient for the powers that be to be able to determine the label and thus the treatment/category of punishment. Take the Gitmo folks. We grab 600 +/- and we only made 4 mistakes and they were all Brits? Give me a break! For the rule of law to endure we need to have everybody under the rule of law. Allowing a Pres or SecDef or a CIA person to be judge, jury and executioner only means that we don;t believe in and are not under the rule of law.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your premise is faulty, CsG. Constitutional protection was granted to everybody, citizen or foreigner, by the Constitution, and affirmed over 100 years ago by the SCOTUS in the now famous case, ex parte Milligan-

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

From here-

http://www.constitution.org/col/foreign_rights.htm

Not that it matters to the far Right, who attempt to redefine the law and the Constitution whenever principle fails to suit their purposes at the moment...

"The full constitutional due process protections apply on U.S. territory to citizens and legal residents or visitors, provided they did not gain legal entry by fraud."

 

[mwtgg]

Should America extend Constitutional Protections to foreign terrorists?
No, because the Constitution applies to citizens.

Should America extend Constitutional Protections to foreign enemy Combatants?
No, because the Consitution applies to citizens.

Should the Geneva Conventions be changed to include Enemy Combatants?
No, because they're not citizens of any foreign nation. They fight for a cause, not a country.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your premise is faulty, CsG. Constitutional protection was granted to everybody, citizen or foreigner, by the Constitution, and affirmed over 100 years ago by the SCOTUS in the now famous case, ex parte Milligan-

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

From here-

http://www.constitution.org/col/foreign_rights.htm

Not that it matters to the far Right, who attempt to redefine the law and the Constitution whenever principle fails to suit their purposes at the moment...

No, I don't have a premise. I was the author of a poll that asked yes/no questions and provided ample latitude for people to commen -(infact I want people to comment so their position is heard.

Now as to the Constitution for non-citizens - I think Ozoned addressed that quite adequately.

CsG

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your premise is faulty, CsG. Constitutional protection was granted to everybody, citizen or foreigner, by the Constitution, and affirmed over 100 years ago by the SCOTUS in the now famous case, ex parte Milligan-

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

From here-

http://www.constitution.org/col/foreign_rights.htm

Not that it matters to the far Right, who attempt to redefine the law and the Constitution whenever principle fails to suit their purposes at the moment...

"The full constitutional due process protections apply on U.S. territory to citizens and legal residents or visitors, provided they did not gain legal entry by fraud."

Pwnage from his own link

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
CsG

Who determines whos a terrorist?

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
CsG

Who determines whos a terrorist?

'a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities'

 

[Rainsford]

I have a question that would make this discussion (and poll) FAR more useful.

How would you guys respond if the word "suspected" was inserted into the poll questions so the "foreign terrorists" became "suspected foreign terrorists" and so on? It's easy to get all pissed off and vengeful when talking about loaded words like terrorist (especially if you are stupid), but I want to hear you guys stand up and say that we should imprison, torture and kill anyone who's suspected of being a terrorist or enemy combatant and that they should have no legal protection under either the constitution or the Geneva convention. I doubt that's what your advocating, right?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I have a question that would make this discussion (and poll) FAR more useful.

How would you guys respond if the word "suspected" was inserted into the poll questions so the "foreign terrorists" became "suspected foreign terrorists" and so on? It's easy to get all pissed off and vengeful when talking about loaded words like terrorist (especially if you are stupid), but I want to hear you guys stand up and say that we should imprison, torture and kill anyone who's suspected of being a terrorist or enemy combatant and that they should have no legal protection under either the constitution or the Geneva convention. I doubt that's what your advocating, right?

No one is advocating torture. Is "torture" anywhere in the poll questions? Didn't think so. Sheesh, I know you want to play apologist for those fighting against us and that want to destroy us but to claim we want to torture them is more than asinine.

CsG

 

[imported_Condor]

Foreign terrorist don't sign treaties and when they have, they haven't kept them - ever! Until they attempt to be come a part of civilization, they should be treated like what they are!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
but to claim we want to torture them is more than asinine.

CsG

Who is 'we'?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Tom
If we got our Constitution from Jesus, did he tell us we can pick and choose who we apply it to ?

This is the first I've heard that we got the constitution from Jesus. I thought that was the bible. Did I miss a burning bush someplace? Biblical law was used as a basis for our legal system, but that is as far as it went.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I see lots of votes but few "because ... " Come on. Tell us why you think yes or no.

Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive.

CsG

Being kind hearted, I would just put them in a cage someplace and release them after the fighting was over. Wait, doesn't that describe Gitmo?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
but to claim we want to torture them is more than asinine.

CsG

Who is 'we'?

If you would have read the post I was responding to you'd know "we" is "you guys". Got anything else you don't understand gaard?

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I have a question that would make this discussion (and poll) FAR more useful.

How would you guys respond if the word "suspected" was inserted into the poll questions so the "foreign terrorists" became "suspected foreign terrorists" and so on? It's easy to get all pissed off and vengeful when talking about loaded words like terrorist (especially if you are stupid), but I want to hear you guys stand up and say that we should imprison, torture and kill anyone who's suspected of being a terrorist or enemy combatant and that they should have no legal protection under either the constitution or the Geneva convention. I doubt that's what your advocating, right?

No one is advocating torture. Is "torture" anywhere in the poll questions? Didn't think so. Sheesh, I know you want to play apologist for those fighting against us and that want to destroy us (everyone else catch this smarmy, you're with us or you support terrorism-type smear? Orwellian misdirection at work.) but to claim we want to torture them is more than asinine.

CsG

This is a perfect example of Sir RoboCAD's classic duhversions. Rainsford brings up a critical, insightful point: the presumption of guilt permeates the Bushies' rationalizations re. our treatment of alleged terrorists and Iraqi insurgents. Instead of considering this point, Sir RoboCAD (SrC) picks out a single word -- "torture" -- to duhvert the discussion away from the substance of Rainsford's comment. SrC doesn't want us to talk about his presumption of guilt.

Cad and his ilk forget -- or simply cannot grasp -- that our Constitutional protections for suspects aren't there to protect the guilty nearly as much as they're intended to protect the presumed innocent. We have due process to help keep innocent people from being punished, to help prevent a police state where any authority with an agenda can ruin the lives of anyone, without cause and without accountability. That is exactly the situation we have now with the suspects in Guantanamo and Iraq. They are denied fundamental rights on the presumption of their guilt. That is contrary to the founding principles of this country. It is an example of how we are becoming what we've fought so hard against.