POLL: Extending Constitutional Protections

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Whelp, nothing has changed I see.

Sure it has. I respect you now...
Edit added

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I am intrigued that you based your posted conclusions on SCOTUS Decisions. In that light:

A simple scenerio.

A Saudi ambassador smuggles in a Nuclear device and detonates it in NYC. 3,000,000 are killed.


What would you do Bow?

Do you honor his Diplomatic Immunity or do you strip him of the rights afforded to him under the constitution?

1. I base my beliefs on a host of different events and factors, including court decisions. I already listed a few of them.

2. You're changing the subject again.

3. You're still evading the information I posted.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned
I am intrigued that you based your posted conclusions on SCOTUS Decisions. In that light:

A simple scenerio.

A Saudi ambassador smuggles in a Nuclear device and detonates it in NYC. 3,000,000 are killed.


What would you do Bow?

Do you honor his Diplomatic Immunity or do you strip him of the rights afforded to him under the constitution?

1. I base my beliefs on a host of different events and factors, including court decisions. I already listed a few of them.

2. You're changing the subject again.

3. You're still evading the information I posted.

1. I understand that you posted that your beliefs are based on hearsay and SCOTUS opinions.

2. If you want to get technical, The thread topic is extending constitutional protection to foreign terrorists & foreign enemy Combatants. My question is as on topic as the information you posted, which deals with citizens and persons that are legally entitled to constitutional protections.

3. See 2.

4. Your post does not address your prior post, Bow and it is consistant with my question.


"There are fundamental rights we must grant everyone, if only because we are a civilized, moral society. The Bush apologists want to deny those rights"

A simple scenerio.

A Saudi ambassador smuggles in a Nuclear device and detonates it in NYC. 3,000,000 are killed.


What would you do Bow?

Do you honor his Diplomatic Immunity or do you strip him of the rights afforded to him under the constitution?

One more, Bow, in line with your beliefs:

What fundamental right do you suggest that we extend to OBL?

 

[Jhhnn]

Forget it, Bowfinger. When a position supporting extra-legal arrest, detention and deportation becomes untenable, always try to derail the thread into discussion of "what would you do if some extremely remote hypothetical" situation were to occur... like "what if flying pigs were to assault the congress with their feces, then what would you do? Huh? huh?"

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Forget it, Bowfinger. When a position supporting extra-legal arrest, detention and deportation becomes untenable, always try to derail the thread into discussion of "what would you do if some extremely remote hypothetical" situation were to occur... like "what if flying pigs were to assault the congress with their feces, then what would you do? Huh? huh?"

Agreed. They aren't interested in real discussion. I will say, however, I especially enjoyed Ozoned criticizing me as off topic for posting information directly addressing his question. That takes chutzpah, but it gets him out of the corner he painted himself into.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Agreed. They aren't interested in real discussion. I will say, however, I especially enjoyed Ozoned criticizing me as off topic for posting information directly addressing his question. That takes chutzpah, but it gets him out of the corner he painted himself into.

I especially enjoyed the part when Bow and Jhhnn engaged in their bi-lateral circle jerk.^^

Heh heh..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Agreed. They aren't interested in real discussion. I will say, however, I especially enjoyed Ozoned criticizing me as off topic for posting information directly addressing his question. That takes chutzpah, but it gets him out of the corner he painted himself into.

I especially enjoyed the part when Bow and Jhhnn engaged in their bi-lateral circle jerk.^^

Heh heh..

Hey Ozoned. Did you happen to watch "24" tonight? Interesting situation there - no?

CsG

 

[miketheidiot]

why would a saudi ambassador bringing a nuclear weapon into the united states is very unlikely, seeing as the suadi government has a vested interest in the survival of the United states. Also where would a saudi ambassador get a nuclear weapon from? Israel?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Agreed. They aren't interested in real discussion. I will say, however, I especially enjoyed Ozoned criticizing me as off topic for posting information directly addressing his question. That takes chutzpah, but it gets him out of the corner he painted himself into.

:laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[Baldeagle76]

CsG I see you didn't even bother to read my first original post, otherwise you would know why I WON'T answer your poll. All I have seen you do is pick one part of an whole entire debate <usually the part that has nothing to do with substance>. P.S. US Congress never ratifies America's participation in the Geneeva conventions.

"Yes. Oh you want to say we didn't because of the two protocols(1977) that we signed but not ratified?" CsG
NOT ratified means NOT participation.

"I addressed the first part of your post for a reason - because it was untrue." CsG
"If you are going to play the Bowfinger/gaard/etc games like you did to start off your post - don't prepare yourself to engage in a debate about the topic because you just changed it to attacking. " CsG
So by your own admission you only want to address one little part of my post rather than having to discuss any ideas presented in my post. I don't see how asking you to consider ideas other than your own is playing a game. Seems to me someone picking out 1% of a post rather then everything in the post is more like playing a game then what I have done. Anyway the "we" "you" speak of has nothing to offer in the way of ideas. that is too bad because I would have loved to have been convinced I was wrong. Just too bad I will have to keep my own views because nothing presented <can't call it debate> here by those who share your beliefs would convince a new born babe. I actually like to listen to see if the other person has a valid point rather then who can repeat the same message over and over again the most. So alas on to other forums.

"Whelp, nothing has changed I see. " WinstonSmith
Very true

"Never argue with an idiot, They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Baldeagle76
CsG I see you didn't even bother to read my first original post, otherwise you would know why I WON'T answer your poll. All I have seen you do is pick one part of an whole entire debate <usually the part that has nothing to do with substance>. P.S. US Congress never ratifies America's participation in the Geneeva conventions.

"Yes. Oh you want to say we didn't because of the two protocols(1977) that we signed but not ratified?" CsG
NOT ratified means NOT participation.

"I addressed the first part of your post for a reason - because it was untrue." CsG
"If you are going to play the Bowfinger/gaard/etc games like you did to start off your post - don't prepare yourself to engage in a debate about the topic because you just changed it to attacking. " CsG
So by your own admission you only want to address one little part of my post rather than having to discuss any ideas presented in my post. I don't see how asking you to consider ideas other than your own is playing a game. Seems to me someone picking out 1% of a post rather then everything in the post is more like playing a game then what I have done. Anyway the "we" "you" speak of has nothing to offer in the way of ideas. that is too bad because I would have loved to have been convinced I was wrong. Just too bad I will have to keep my own views because nothing presented <can't call it debate> here by those who share your beliefs would convince a new born babe. I actually like to listen to see if the other person has a valid point rather then who can repeat the same message over and over again the most. So alas on to other forums.

"Whelp, nothing has changed I see. " WinstonSmith
Very true

"Never argue with an idiot, They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

Actually, like I stated - I addressed the dishonest part of your post because you started off just like gaard and Bowfinger usually do. Not addressing the topic and attacking someone. Ofcourse the rest will be ignored until you understand your tripe was incorrect.
The parts I addressed that you say have nothing to do with substance - is partially correct. I have addressed the off-topic tripe you, gaard, and Bowfinger have tossed out. Don't post that BS and I won't have to address it.
Also we have infact ratified them. Have you forgotten history? Does the fact that the most recent Conventions weren't fully ratified make a difference? No. The others were, and it seems Carter couldn't get the job done in 1977. Does that really matter - do we not voluntarily follow it inspite of that failure?

If you don't want to address the poll, then please find a different thread. The topic is the poll and your answers to it. Yes, discussion can follow - but there is no reason you can't answer the poll and explain your answers in whatever fashion you wish - you(like others) just don't seem to want to let everyone know which side you take.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Actually, like I stated - I addressed the dishonest part of your post because you started off just like gaard and Bowfinger usually do. Not addressing the topic and attacking someone. ...

Sure you want to go there, Sir RoboCAD? If that's the standard, 99% of your posts will be ignored. You're legendary for diversions, personal attacks, and playing fast and loose with the truth. Your first sentence above is a good example. You even admitted recently that you routinely say people support terrorism even though you know they don't. I suggest you take a long, hard look in a mirror before you accuse others.

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Actually, like I stated - I addressed the dishonest part of your post because you started off just like gaard and Bowfinger usually do. Not addressing the topic and attacking someone. ...

Sure you want to go there, Sir RoboCAD? If that's the standard, 99% of your posts will be ignored. You're legendary for diversions, personal attacks, and playing fast and loose with the truth. Your first sentence above is a good example. You even admitted recently that you routinely say people support terrorism even though you know they don't. I suggest you take a long, hard look in a mirror before you accuse others.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Ah yes, and here we have Bowfinger(who still hasn't answered the poll questions and given the "beause...") trying to make claims he can't back up. 99% of my posts are not attacks -but think what you wish.
I'll also note that you obviously have not read my posts here because if you did you'd see that my terrorist apologist line was in response to your asinine attacks. A "tit for tat" if you will. But hey, like always with you - believe whatever you wish.
So yes, while everyone needs to take a peak in the mirror, you Bowfinger need to take a good long gander before you start trying to bleat about what I do. You have failed to answer the questions in the poll and give your answers- heck you haven't even attempted to. You started out by attacking me - boy, that surprises me...:roll:

Are you going to answer the poll questions yet?

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Actually, like I stated - I addressed the dishonest part of your post because you started off just like gaard and Bowfinger usually do. Not addressing the topic and attacking someone. ...

Sure you want to go there, Sir RoboCAD? If that's the standard, 99% of your posts will be ignored. You're legendary for diversions, personal attacks, and playing fast and loose with the truth. Your first sentence above is a good example. You even admitted recently that you routinely say people support terrorism even though you know they don't. I suggest you take a long, hard look in a mirror before you accuse others.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Ah yes, and here we have Bowfinger(who still hasn't answered the poll questions and given the "beause...") trying to make claims he can't back up. 99% of my posts are not attacks -but think what you wish.
I'll also note that you obviously have not read my posts here because if you did you'd see that my terrorist apologist line was in response to your asinine attacks. A "tit for tat" if you will. But hey, like always with you - believe whatever you wish.
So yes, while everyone needs to take a peak in the mirror, you Bowfinger need to take a good long gander before you start trying to bleat about what I do. You have failed to answer the questions in the poll and give your answers- heck you haven't even attempted to. You started out by attacking me - boy, that surprises me...:roll:

Are you going to answer the poll questions yet?

CsG

 

[Ozoned]

For my friend, WinstonSmith, I will answer this question.


"A simple scenario.

A Saudi ambassador smuggles in a Nuclear device and detonates it in NYC. 3,000,000 are killed.


What would you do Ozoned?

Do you honor his Diplomatic Immunity or do you strip him of the rights afforded to him under the constitution?"



To make this more interesting, Let us also assume that I am also the president in this scenario.

I would exhaust all Legal and Constitutional options.

If they fail, I would test the constitution with some options that my Legal staff thinks might stand the test of the supreme court.

If that fails and the only remedy left to me is to let this person go free, I would have this person brought before me and would put a gun to the back of his head and end his existence.

I would do this, knowing that the power that people believe is the constitution, is actually the people that it guides, and ultimately I know that they will probable give me a pass, despite the constitution.

That is How it works, folks. Always has, Always will....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
For my friend, WinstonSmith, I will answer this question.


"A simple scenario.

A Saudi ambassador smuggles in a Nuclear device and detonates it in NYC. 3,000,000 are killed.


What would you do Ozoned?

Do you honor his Diplomatic Immunity or do you strip him of the rights afforded to him under the constitution?"



To make this more interesting, Let us also assume that I am also the president in this scenario.

I would exhaust all Legal and Constitutional options.

If they fail, I would test the constitution with some options that my Legal staff thinks might stand the test of the supreme court.

If that fails and the only remedy left to me is to let this person go free, I would have this person brought before me and would put a gun to the back of his head and end his existence.

I would do this, knowing that the power that people believe is the constitution, is actually the people that it guides, and ultimately I know that they will probable give me a pass, despite the constitution.

That is How it works, folks. Always has, Always will....

In your scenario you cast this person as guilty, then proceed to exact justice by whatever means necessary.

A couple points. If this person were to have clearly done this act, they would not be deported. As I have said, diplomatic immunity is not unlimited. If the Saudis were responsible for this, then it's an act of war, and he has no diplomatic status. If he is not, then the Saudis release him to us, because diplomatic immunity is granted to the representative of a government a foreign nation. The Saudis would let us have him. There is the third option of course, that the Saudis would have completely lost their collective senses and wish to commit Martyrdom en masse by insisting on protecting him. I think their lack of cooperation unlikely in this scenario.

So, now you have this man. Well, if he is clearly responsible, then he will clearly be found guilty. This isn't OJ. If you show him setting the bomb, he's going to hang. I generally oppose the death penalty, but I am no saint. I would pull the switch.

So let's say the evidence is lacking. You believe him to be guilty, but you don't know it. The jury lets him off. Well either you live with it or not.

If you decide to kill him, then you have committed murder. So be it you may say. Well, you are bound by the same laws. You may have killed a guilty person. He may have been innocent. We don't know.

Assuming the details of this adventure become known, you have the option of declaring a dictatorship and hoping the military will back you against the country, fleeing to a foreign land before it's know what has happened, or surrendering yourself. Again assuming you make it known what you did, you may very well wind up in the electric chair, and I am quiet serious here, I would feel sad it came to it, but I would pull the switch.

Presidents cannot place themselves above the law. Once they have, they have declared themselves dictator. That cannot be permitted above all else.

You asked what I would do. I would follow the law if President, in fact and intent. If I do not, please shoot me, because I would not be fit to be Chief Executive. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

 

[g8wayrebel]

No...no and no. The Geneva convention was established in a time when war was direct and conventional. It established civil(if that can be said) rules for engagement as well as internment. The writers could be compared to the writers of the constitution. There is no way for them to have anticipated the direction the world would take. Were they in this day and age it would be a whole different story for each of them as well.
We do not fight direct conventional conflicts anymore. I believe you have to rely on the people in the field to properly identify the enemy and pursue the matter justly from there.If possible kill them , and if not use every measure to obtain any and all information that will save lives and bring a resolution to the conflict. No i don't think they should have rights beyond a reasonable effort to validate their role in the situation.This applies especially to terrorists who prey on the innocent. If some slip through the cracks, sorry they were in a combat arena and did not present themselves in a manner to forego suspicions. Many innocent people are incarcerated in every country in the world wrongly everyday. You certainly have to expect that to happen to an exponential degree in a wartime theatre. We as a nation(The U.S.) are entirely to tolerant as it is. No other nation,including GB ,would even consider the matter to the degree the US does where valuable information being extracted is concerned, let alone the end result of internment. In other words...F*ck'em! If they weren't there they couldn't get captured.