NationStates Jolt Archive

The 5-4 decision to prevent President Bush from using a military tribunal to try terrorists is absurd. Terrorists have no right to trial at all. A military tribunal should be the most liberal approach. I am for throwing away the key at Guantanamo. Here are my 5 reasons as to why the ruling was a bad one and a mistake.

1) There is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution that gives the non-U.S. citizen inmates at gitmo any rights to anything
2) The Geneva Convention does not apply to treatment of terrorists
3) those at Gitmo fight for no army that signed the Geneva Convention
4) The Hamdi decision of 2003 specified that Bush has no legal reason to have to give those held at Gitmo any trials.
5) Congress gave Bush the right to house the inmates and stipped the Court of jurisdiction over this topic.

All in all I think that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have it right.

Actually it was a 5-3 decision. Your cheif justice sat it out. It was also a good decision, because well, they are the top court and thats what they do, decide. It broke the law, your President doesnt get to do whatever he wants, sorry.

Actually it was a 5-3 decision. Your cheif justice sat it out. It was also a good decision, because well, they are the top court and thats what they do, decide. It broke the law, your President doesnt get to do whatever he wants, sorry.

You are right, my mistake...it was 5-3...
What law does Gitmo break? Certainly not the U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Conventions. Certainly not any acts of Congress! I never claimed anyone " could do whatever" they wanted. I just cant see how the Court picks new rights out of thin air.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/diversions/0513/fiore.php

http://www.seattleweekly.com/diversions/0513/fiore.php


Infantile babble that has nothing to do with American law, international law, or serious discussion. Was that shown on the screen in the play pen?

Infantile babble that has nothing to do with American law, international law, or serious discussion. Was that shown on the screen in the play pen?
Who cares, it's funny as hell. :D

Who cares, it's funny as hell. :D


Yeah....funny as a lake of fire. And maybe when cartoon time is over you can act like adults and use "facts".

You are right, my mistake...it was 5-3...
What law does Gitmo break? Certainly not the U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Conventions. Certainly not any acts of Congress! I never claimed anyone " could do whatever" they wanted. I just cant see how the Court picks new rights out of thin air.
gitmo doesnt break any law persay, but that wasnt what the ruling was about. The ruling was about the special tribunials your President set up, which do in fact violate the geneva conventions, which those prisoners are in fact entitled to.

The Constitution and the laws of this country protect everyone in this country equally whether they're citizens of the United States or not.

Unless, of course one can find where in the COnstitution it says otherwise.

FRANK DREBIN: Thank you for honouring me with this award for one thousandth terrorist shot. Actually the last two I didn't shoot, I backed over them with my car. Luckily they just happened to turn out to be terrorists.

Who the hell is the Supreme Court to tell us what is and isn't wrong?

The Constitution and the laws of this country protect everyone in this country equally whether they're citizens of the United States or not.

Unless, of course one can find where in the COnstitution it says otherwise.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger"

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

those are the only relavent passages that I can find. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says that non-citizen combantants deserve jury trials. In fact, it alludes to the opposite!

gitmo doesnt break any law persay, but that wasnt what the ruling was about. The ruling was about the special tribunials your President set up, which do in fact violate the geneva conventions, which those prisoners are in fact entitled to.

Can you source that claim? Where in the Geneva convention to prisoners that are part of no army and have not signed the convention get rights under it?

More spam from this trolling, boring clown act?

Who the hell is the Supreme Court to tell us what is and isn't wrong?

The Supreme Court does not have the role of judging right and wrong. It has the role of judging Constitutional and unconstitutional. I mean, fat chicks wearing bikinis is wrong...that does not mean the Court can rule it unconstitutional. This is basic civics.

More spam from this trolling, boring clown act?


hey guess what, you can participate in the discussion or you can leave. Up, no , you chose option number 3...petty insults. What a waste.

The 5-4 decision to prevent President Bush from using a military tribunal to try terrorists is absurd. Terrorists have no right to trial at all. A military tribunal should be the most liberal approach. I am for throwing away the key at Guantanamo. Here are my 5 reasons as to why the ruling was a bad one and a mistake.

1) There is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution that gives the non-U.S. citizen inmates at gitmo any rights to anything
2) The Geneva Convention does not apply to treatment of terrorists
3) those at Gitmo fight for no army that signed the Geneva Convention
4) The Hamdi decision of 2003 specified that Bush has no legal reason to have to give those held at Gitmo any trials.
5) Congress gave Bush the right to house the inmates and stipped the Court of jurisdiction over this topic.

All in all I think that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have it right.

All reasons that confirm that liberals should never, ever be allowed to get near the levers of power. We are at war, a very different, unconventional kind of war with a non-declared, unaligned enemy. President Bush is the Commander in Chief and the barbarian swine at Guantanamo are Enemy Combatants, to be dealt with by the Military Code of Justice, not subject to our normal civilian justice system. The Supreme Court is overstepping it's bounds, not the President.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

All reasons that confirm that liberals should never, ever be allowed to get near the levers of power.
And that's why we live in a democracy.

Let's draw from a jury pool of civilian 9-11 survivors.

:D

OR just have a BOATING ACCIDENT in the middle of the pacific. All prisoners lost on board, no survivors except navy crew. ETA, skip trials, if you have clear evidence toss a frag in the cell and hose it off with water afterwards.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

But that has nothing to do with why it is illegal to house people at gitmo without trials. It is not about what we would "rather have" " should have" or " is right" , it is about what protections they actualy have under the American Constitution. They have none...unless Teddy Kennedy goes ahead and sponsers an amendment to give them all jury trials.

FRANK DREBIN: Thank you for honouring me with this award for one thousandth terrorist shot. Actually the last two I didn't shoot, I backed over them with my car. Luckily they just happened to turn out to be terrorists.

YAY! :D

http://www.seattleweekly.com/diversions/0513/fiore.php

lol @ putting the "error" in the war on terror

And that's why we live in a democracy.

Wrong. The United States is a Representative Republic. Read your Constitution.

Read your Constitution.

I wish more people would! Then they would find that there is nothing in there that gives the gitmo detainees any rights of any kind.

But that has nothing to do with why it is illegal to house people at gitmo without trials. It is not about what we would "rather have" " should have" or " is right" , it is about what protections they actualy have under the American Constitution. They have none...unless Teddy Kennedy goes ahead and sponsers an amendment to give them all jury trials.
Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Many of those now held in Guantanamo Bay are not easily defined as 'terrorists'. Those picked up during the 2001 Afghanistan war are, by definition, enemy combatants. On July 23, 2003, US Major General Geoffrey Miller, now commander of Abu-Grahib, said that three quarters of the roughly 660 detainees had confessed to some involvement in terrorism. So that's at least one quarter of people ther not defined as terrorists by the US military.

Many, like British citizen Moazzem Begg, have been released without charge.

If Guantanamo Bay is meant to be part of the 'War on Terrorism', which both Bush and Blair have repeatadly stated is part of a spread of democratic ideals, then surely these prisoners, however serious there alleged crimes, must be given a fair trial. Habeas corpus, the right to a trial by jury is an intregal part of any democratic regime. If these detainees are indeed terrorists, then surely the US' lawers, with the correct amount of evidence, would easily be able to prosecute them?

Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.


So......what are you saying? The Supreme Court should invent rights out of their imaginations and give them to the terrorists at Gitmo? That strikes me as....dangerous at best. I do not trust John Paul Stevens to pull new liberties for non-citizen combantant terrorists out of the land of Oz.

The 5-4 decision to prevent President Bush from using a military tribunal to try terrorists is absurd. Terrorists have no right to trial at all. A military tribunal should be the most liberal approach. I am for throwing away the key at Guantanamo. Here are my 5 reasons as to why the ruling was a bad one and a mistake.

1) There is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution that gives the non-U.S. citizen inmates at gitmo any rights to anything
2) The Geneva Convention does not apply to treatment of terrorists
3) those at Gitmo fight for no army that signed the Geneva Convention
4) The Hamdi decision of 2003 specified that Bush has no legal reason to have to give those held at Gitmo any trials.
5) Congress gave Bush the right to house the inmates and stipped the Court of jurisdiction over this topic.

All in all I think that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have it right.

so are you a lawyer or what? Are you saying that you know more about the law than them?

you are willing to let innocent people die? innocent until proven guilty you know. If they are guilty then how come the Bush admin cant come up with charges to try them on? it's been several years... they should have been able to prove their cases by now.

Many of those now held in Guantanamo Bay are not easily defined as 'terrorists'. Those picked up during the 2001 Afghanistan war are, by definition, enemy combatants. On July 23, 2003, US Major General Geoffrey Miller, now commander of Abu-Grahib, said that three quarters of the roughly 660 detainees had confessed to some involvement in terrorism. So that's at least one quarter of people ther not defined as terrorists by the US military.

Many, like British citizen Moazzem Begg, have been released without charge.

If Guantanamo Bay is meant to be part of the 'War on Terrorism', which both Bush and Blair have repeatadly stated is part of a spread of democratic ideals, then surely these prisoners, however serious there alleged crimes, must be given a fair trial. Habeas corpus, the right to a trial by jury is an intregal part of any democratic regime. If these detainees are indeed terrorists, then surely the US' lawers, with the correct amount of evidence, would easily be able to prosecute them?

So if they did not "confess" to being terrorists the army cannot define them as such? That's crazy. Using that logic a murderer is not a murderer unless they confess. People like Moazzem Begg are mere incidents of war that are tragic but necessary. His case does not change American law on the books. Nothing in the American Constitution grants these men trials. In fact, it specifies that they do not need to have trials. Using your way of thinking we were being undemocratic when we took prisoners in WWII and did not give them all trials. There is simply no legal or rational reason to. Then or now.

Wrong. The United States is a Representative Republic. Read your Constitution.
Take everything I say out of context why don't you.

So......what are you saying? The Supreme Court should invent rights out of their imaginations and give them to the terrorists at Gitmo? That strikes me as....dangerous at best. I do not trust John Paul Stevens to pull new liberties for non-citizen combantant terrorists out of the land of Oz.
No great idea in its beginning can ever be within the law. How can it be within the law? The law is stationary. The law is fixed. The law is a chariot wheel which binds us all regardless of conditions or place or time.

so are you a lawyer or what? Are you saying that you know more about the law than them?

you are willing to let innocent people die? innocent until proven guilty you know. If they are guilty then how come the Bush admin cant come up with charges to try them on? it's been several years... they should have been able to prove their cases by now.


I am not a lawyer but I can read ( very well ). And the 5 justices that issued this ruling have bad jurisprudence. They are not lacking knowledge they are lacking the ability to use that knowledge in a rational way. I am not for innocent people dying. Stuff does happen though in a combat situation. None of these men have a presumption of innocence because none of them fall into the jurisdiction of American civil law. The Bush administration can try them, it just does not have any obligation to. It would be a waste of energy because they have no presumption of innocence. There are no cases to prove. There is no trial. They are enemy combatants in a time of danger ( read the fifth Amendment.)

what i cant understand is why liberals always want to help the people who hurt americans so much.:(

Here are some other excepts:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Here is the ENTRE 5th amendment.Notice the semicolons....
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

From Amendment XIV:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...

This is fun. Let's keep playing. :)

Can you source that claim? Where in the Geneva convention to prisoners that are part of no army and have not signed the convention get rights under it?
the source seems to be the high court, I would think that would be fairly obvious. They did cite the geneva con. in their rulings

No great idea in its beginning can ever be within the law. How can it be within the law? The law is stationary. The law is fixed. The law is a chariot wheel which binds us all regardless of conditions or place or time.

So what is your point? You trust 9 Judges with life tenure and little oversight with making up a "great idea" or two? Sounds like that would be outside of the role of the Judiciary. Which is....

" The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

Nothing about making up "good" ideas.

So what is your point? You trust 9 Judges with life tenure and little oversight with making up a "great idea" or two? Sounds like that would be outside of the role of the Judiciary. Which is....

" The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

Nothing about making up "good" ideas.
We must not make a scarecrow of the law; setting it up to fear the birds of prey and let it keep one shape till custom make it their perch and not their terror.

All reasons that confirm that liberals should never, ever be allowed to get near the levers of power. We are at war, a very different, unconventional kind of war with a non-declared, unaligned enemy. President Bush is the Commander in Chief and the barbarian swine at Guantanamo are Enemy Combatants, to be dealt with by the Military Code of Justice, not subject to our normal civilian justice system. The Supreme Court is overstepping it's bounds, not the President.
:rolleyes: Do you actually understand the situation? They weren't tried under the Military Code of Justice, that was the whole point. The Executive made up new rules for military tribunals that included among them, not allowing the prisoners the right to attend their own trials and hear the evidence presented against them.

The Supreme Court said that the prisoners must now be tried under the laws made by Congress regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. And those laws already exist. They didn't have to make up new ones.

The 5-4 decision to prevent President Bush from using a military tribunal to try terrorists is absurd. Terrorists have no right to trial at all. A military tribunal should be the most liberal approach. I am for throwing away the key at Guantanamo. Here are my 5 reasons as to why the ruling was a bad one and a mistake.

1) There is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution that gives the non-U.S. citizen inmates at gitmo any rights to anything
2) The Geneva Convention does not apply to treatment of terrorists
3) those at Gitmo fight for no army that signed the Geneva Convention
4) The Hamdi decision of 2003 specified that Bush has no legal reason to have to give those held at Gitmo any trials.
5) Congress gave Bush the right to house the inmates and stipped the Court of jurisdiction over this topic.

All in all I think that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have it right.
But there is always the possiblity that the person you catched IS NOT A TERRORIST.

what i cant understand is why liberals always want to help the people who hurt americans so much.:(You are obviously a terrorist. You need to be captured & detained, until such time as we, the übermensch of Similization, see fit to find you guilty of whatever we see fit, without due process.

...

What is it with you freedom-hating, anti-human Americans?

is the ENTRE 5th amendment.Notice the semicolons....
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


From Amendment XIV:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...

This is fun. Let's keep playing. :)

The bold button makes playing easy. Nothing in there gives non-citizen terrorists the right to trials.

So if they did not "confess" to being terrorists the army cannot define them as such? That's crazy. Using that logic a murderer is not a murderer unless they confess.
No, a murderer is not a murderer untill s/he is tried by a jury and found guilty.

People like Moazzem Begg are mere incidents of war that are tragic but necessary. His case does not change American law on the books.
Nice. So if you or your own were detained for three years, subjected to multipule forms of torture--including sexual abuse--you'd just shrug it off as 'tragic but neccessary'? Methinks not.

Nothing in the American Constitution grants these men trials. In fact, it specifies that they do not need to have trials.
And? Are there any US citizens in Guantanamo Bay? This is an international issue, and cannot be simplified to wheher or not a single nation has the legal right or not to detain and torture.

Using your way of thinking we were being undemocratic when we took prisoners in WWII and did not give them all trials. There is simply no legal or rational reason to. Then or now.
No, those men were POWs, and were subect to international law and the Geneva Convention. Unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay, which is exactly the problem

the source seems to be the high court, I would think that would be fairly obvious. They did cite the geneva con. in their rulings

NO, I think you misunderstood me. I want you to show me where the Geneva convention gives terrorists ( who fight in no army and under no flag, and who sign no treaties or rules of war) rights. Show me the money.

We must not make a scarecrow of the law; setting it up to fear the birds of prey and let it keep one shape till custom make it their perch and not their terror.


So...what on Earth does that mean? Is that a fancy way of saying that you want the justices to invent new rights that are not found in the text?

So what is your point? You trust 9 Judges with life tenure and little oversight with making up a "great idea" or two? Sounds like that would be outside of the role of the Judiciary. Which is....

" The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

Nothing about making up "good" ideas.

So you are with Stephen Colbert on this one? Banish the Supreme Court forever? They are useless?

And you still never answered the question, I'll put it in a easier to understand way: If there is evidence against these detainees, why hasn't the Bush administration presented it so they could get the trials over with and shut everyone up?
The Bush Administration wanted to send a lot of these detainees back to their home countries but on the condition that they hold them. The respective countries refuses to do that unless the Bush admin can provide them with charges. Why would the B.A. not provide whats needed to get what they want done?

I'd like a clear answer to this and not "WAAAA THEY DONT DESERVE TRIALS>>> WAHHHH" - clearly they do as per this SCOTUS decision.

But there is always the possiblity that the person you catched IS NOT A TERRORIST.


That has nothing to do with the legality of gitmo.

The bold button makes playing easy. Nothing in there gives non-citizen terrorists the right to trials.Either they're subject to US law, in which case they fall under the category of "any persons" you just quoted, or they're not subject to US law, in which case international law applies.

Either way, your argument is dead.

You are obviously a terrorist. You need to be captured & detained, until such time as we, the übermensch of Similization, see fit to find you guilty of whatever we see fit, without due process.

...

What is it with you freedom-hating, anti-human Americans?

I love freedom and people are pretty cool too. The thing is....I cannot fathom how normal due process ( like that of civil law) has anything to do with people who are foreigners that are captured on a battlefield.

So...what on Earth does that mean? Is that a fancy way of saying that you want the justices to invent new rights that are not found in the text?
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

NO, I think you misunderstood me. I want you to show me where the Geneva convention gives terrorists ( who fight in no army and under no flag, and who sign no treaties or rules of war) rights. Show me the money.
show me where it doesnt because the court seems to feel they do have rights otherwise they wouldnt have ruled as they did.

No, those men were POWs, and were subect to international law and the Geneva Convention. Unlike those detained at Guantanamo Bay, which is exactly the problem

So you admit that those at gitmo do not fall under Geneva. ok,good. And the potential abuse of prisoners at gitmo has nothing to do with whether those held there get jury trials. Two seperate issues. Thirdly, there are American citizens being held. Ever heard of the Hamdi case? Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The Court found 8-1 that the Americans held there should have trials. I agree with that, it seems like common sense. Clarence Thomas did make a good point though, in saying that the "public danger" clause of the fifth Amendment may undermine that right.

So you are with Stephen Colbert on this one? Banish the Supreme Court forever? They are useless?

And you still never answered the question, I'll put it in a easier to understand way: If there is evidence against these detainees, why hasn't the Bush administration presented it so they could get the trials over with and shut everyone up?
The Bush Administration wanted to send a lot of these detainees back to their home countries but on the condition that they hold them. The respective countries refuses to do that unless the Bush admin can provide them with charges. Why would the B.A. not provide whats needed to get what they want done?

I'd like a clear answer to this and not "WAAAA THEY DONT DESERVE TRIALS>>> WAHHHH" - clearly they do as per this SCOTUS decision.

The Supreme Court is usefull for all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

The answer to you evidence question is that they have not given them trials because there has never been a Supreme Court ruling or act of Congress mandating that they have them. It is just that simple. They don't need to prove the case because nothing is in place to force them to.

The 5-4 decision to prevent President Bush from using a military tribunal to try terrorists is absurd. Terrorists have no right to trial at all. A military tribunal should be the most liberal approach. I am for throwing away the key at Guantanamo. Here are my 5 reasons as to why the ruling was a bad one and a mistake.

1) There is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution that gives the non-U.S. citizen inmates at gitmo any rights to anything
2) The Geneva Convention does not apply to treatment of terrorists
3) those at Gitmo fight for no army that signed the Geneva Convention
4) The Hamdi decision of 2003 specified that Bush has no legal reason to have to give those held at Gitmo any trials.
5) Congress gave Bush the right to house the inmates and stipped the Court of jurisdiction over this topic.

All in all I think that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have it right.

Either the III or IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War applies. There is no gap.

I wish more people would! Then they would find that there is nothing in there that gives the gitmo detainees any rights of any kind.
I guess that you do not believe in human rights then?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

The fact that many detainees have been released after years of captivity without charge demonstrates that the situation at Guantanamo is seriously flawed.

British Guantanamo Bay detainees released without charge (http://www.smh.com.au/news/Global-Terrorism/British-Guantanamo-Bay-detainees-released-without-charge/2005/01/27/1106415736067.html)

Your brand of "democracy" is dirty and perverted.

You forget that the writ of HB can only be suspended by CONGRESS not the bloody President of the United States. Said writ can be suspended ONLY in a declared war (which this isn't) or in a rebellion. The president overstepped his bounds and it is now up to Congress to fix that issue.

I'd like a clear answer to this and not "WAAAA THEY DONT DESERVE TRIALS>>> WAHHHH" - clearly they do as per this SCOTUS decision.

The Supreme Court decision did not mandate that they all have trials. It came close but it simply did not.

Either they're subject to US law, in which case they fall under the category of "any persons" you just quoted, or they're not subject to US law, in which case international law applies.

Either way, your argument is dead.

They are in our detention. The quotes that you gave involved powers at the state level and the fifth Amendment which states that we need not give them trials. The prisoners are not under the jurisdiction of American civil law. They are under the control of the American military as detainees. Foreign law and international law do not mandate that they get trials ( even if those things applied).

The bold button makes playing easy. Nothing in there gives non-citizen terrorists the right to trials.

YOu need to work on your reading comprehension.

Amendment V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The italicised part is one statement. Notice the semicolon immediately aferward. This denotes the beginning of a separate statement with the same primary subject 'No Person'. The statement on bold thus reads: No Person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[/b].

In the second part, the periods are also the notation for the end of one statement and the beginning of another. The statement that reveals the actual point is: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The fourteenth amendment, by specifically mentioning citizenship and specifying that no PERSON can be deprived of the constitutional right to life, liberty and property until deprived by due process of law makes it clear that the Constitutional rights apply to everyone. Especially the right to trial.

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

The greatest dangers to liberty are the prisoners at gitmo and their pals in Iraq, and the rest of the mess-o-potamia.

I love freedom and people are pretty cool too. The thing is....I cannot fathom how normal due process ( like that of civil law) has anything to do with people who are foreigners that are captured on a battlefield.
How about the ones that are being held that were captured on the "battlefield" that the US created by illegally invading Iraq?

So you admit that those at gitmo do not fall under Geneva. ok,good.
No, I admit that the US government believes that Guantanamo bay resides in a magical place outside of both the US and the rest of the world. If they didn't they'd have to either abide by US law or international law.

There are American citizens being held. Ever heard of the Hamdi case? Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The Court found 8-1 that the Americans held there should have trials. I agree with that, it seems like common sense.
So only Americans should have the right to jury? WTF? Pray tell, is it because American terrorists are not as bad in your books as other terrorists? Or is it that the thought of Americans getting unfairly treated makes you squirm, while any citizen of another country may be left in a legal black hole?

show me where it doesnt because the court seems to feel they do have rights otherwise they wouldnt have ruled as they did.

No, I don' think you get it. You are claiming a positive...that the prisoners have rights under Geneva. I asked you to offer proof. You have given none. You respond by asking me to prove a negative...which I cannot do without posting the entire Geneva accord. Nice try. I want real sources and not how you "feel".

I served in the US military and in Iraq and Afghanistan. My fellow airmen and I had an understand that I will share with you. If we were attacked it there was a great chance that we were going to be captured we would each take a frag and make sure we took as many of them with us as we could before we died. We would never allow a fellow soldier to be captured, ever. What they do to anyone they capture; soldier and civilian, we don’t do to our worst enemy. Yet some people want to give them every right as US citizens when they would kill one in a heartbeat. I have no doubt that if anyone on this forum ever saw firsthand the things these men, and I use the word very loosely, have done you would never want them in our justice system where a small technicality so that they can go right back to killing people. A military tribunal would see if there was any validity to them being terrorists and act in hours, not months or years.

I love freedom and people are pretty cool too.Nope. You love your supremacy over others & you like some people.

The thing is....I cannot fathom how normal due process ( like that of civil law) has anything to do with people who are foreigners that are captured on a battlefield.Normally prisoners of war are considered prisoners of war. However, due to your nation's unique position, you are effectively above the law. That's why you've gotten away with inventing a new type of human being; one that doesn't have the rights of other human beings.

The fact remains, however, that if they are subject to US law, then they are either POWs or civilians, because the only people that aren't civilians according to your laws, are POWs.

If they aren't subject to US law, then they are sunject to international law, and in this particular case, the effect is much the same; either they're POWs or they're civilians.

Don't mistake your longstanding tradition of subverting the law, for having the law on your side.
EDIT: Citizenship has fuck-all to do with it.

No, I don' think you get it. You are claiming a positive...that the prisoners have rights under Geneva. I asked you to offer proof. You have given none. You respond by asking me to prove a negative...which I cannot do without posting the entire Geneva accord. Nice try. I want real sources and not how you "feel".

Barry, you provide such a passionate defense of all things Republican.

I was curious your state of origin and your university status?

The Supreme Court is usefull for all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

yep

The answer to you evidence question is that they have not given them trials because there has never been a Supreme Court ruling or act of Congress mandating that they have them. It is just that simple. They don't need to prove the case because nothing is in place to force them to.

There is now. Guess thats [/thread]

Either the III or IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War applies. There is no gap.

The terrorists are not civilians but I would like to see some quotes please.

I am not for innocent people dying. Stuff does happen though in a combat situation.

Last I heard, being in prison for a few years does not qualify as "combat situation."

None of these men have a presumption of innocence because none of them fall into the jurisdiction of American civil law.

But due process does extend to non-US citizens. I know that certain people dislike that fact, and I know also that certain people feel that non-US citizens are subhumanoid scum who deserve no rights. I find that more "terrible" than this ruling.

It would be a waste of energy because they have no presumption of innocence. There are no cases to prove. There is no trial.

Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Tough titties, fella. If you don't like it, I'm sure they'll have you in some other nation.

The greatest dangers to liberty are the prisoners at gitmo and their pals in Iraq, and the rest of the mess-o-potamia.

Not even by a long shot. AuH2O is spinning in his grave for your abuses.

First I would like to say I applaud the Supreme Court for thei decisions. This just goes and proves to me that the Supreme Court is the only good branch of government. Other branches vary depending on their decisions. (I am not saying the court never makes mistakes, but...)

Anyway, I don't see how sensible people can really not want the Geneva Convention rulings to apply to terrorists. No, they aren't great people, but still they are human beings, and they deserve some rights. They don't deserve to be tortured.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

I served in the US military and in Iraq and Afghanistan. My fellow airmen and I had an understand that I will share with you. If we were attacked it there was a great chance that we were going to be captured we would each take a frag and make sure we took as many of them with us as we could before we died. We would never allow a fellow soldier to be captured, ever. What they do to anyone they capture; soldier and civilian, we don’t do to our worst enemy. Yet some people want to give them every right as US citizens when they would kill one in a heartbeat. I have no doubt that if anyone on this forum ever saw firsthand the things these men, and I use the word very loosely, have done you would never want them in our justice system where a small technicality so that they can go right back to killing people. A military tribunal would see if there was any validity to them being terrorists and act in hours, not months or years.

On the contrary, It's because we're better that we have to give them equal treatment under the law.

The greatest dangers to liberty are the prisoners at gitmo and their pals in Iraq, and the rest of the mess-o-potamia.
I do believe that the Iraqis were going about their business until an uninvited intruder violated their sovereignity. Now, how were these people dangerous to liberty?

I guess that you do not believe in human rights then?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

The fact that many detainees have been released after years of captivity without charge demonstrates that the situation at Guantanamo is seriously flawed.

British Guantanamo Bay detainees released without charge (http://www.smh.com.au/news/Global-Terrorism/British-Guantanamo-Bay-detainees-released-without-charge/2005/01/27/1106415736067.html)

Your brand of "democracy" is dirty and perverted.

The UN human rights declaration does not mandate the giving of trials to terrorists. The number of people released from Gitmo is simply not relavent. Following the exact text of the law is dirt and perverted? Fascinating.

1) There is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution that gives the non-U.S. citizen inmates at gitmo any rights to anything
2) The Geneva Convention does not apply to treatment of terrorists
3) those at Gitmo fight for no army that signed the Geneva Convention
4) The Hamdi decision of 2003 specified that Bush has no legal reason to have to give those held at Gitmo any trials.
5) Congress gave Bush the right to house the inmates and stipped the Court of jurisdiction over this topic.

Just thought I'd respond to your five points:

1. The U.S. Constitution doesn't have to give them rights to anything. As they are not US citizens, and aren't being held on US soil, they're subject to some questionable international law. We'll get to that.
2. True, the Geneva convention doesn't apply to treatment of terrorists. However, it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Geneva convention. It is the interpretation by the judiciary that makes up international law. If the Supreme Court said that it does - then, according to international law, it does. That much is outlined in the ICJ charter, for example.
3. It doesn't matter, again, because the Supreme Court decided that the Geneva convention does apply to them. That is the right of the Supreme Court as the judiciary, and the way international law works.
4. Hamdi sat out on this vote due to that. Of course, if you were really interested in the law rather than being a Bush apologist you would know that the current ruling supercedes the Hamdi ruling.
5. Congress, in no way, has the authority to "strip" the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. Any case that arrives before the Supreme Court gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over it. This is the entire premise of the US system of checks and balances.

So far, no one in congress has made such an absurd claim though, and even Bush admitted that he would work within the Supreme Court decision. Everyone currently recognizes the Supreme Court jurisdiction on this issue. Except you, I guess. Living in your own pseudo-legal world.

Normally prisoners of war are considered prisoners of war. However, due to your nation's unique position, you are effectively above the law. That's why you've gotten away with inventing a new type of human being; one that doesn't have the rights of other human beings.

In WW2 if I was in Germany and out of uniform, even though I was a soldier, I woudl not have PoW status. I would be tried before a militaty tribunal and executed as a spy if cought. PoWs are uniformed military soldiers of a nation. No uniform, no PoW.

You forget that the writ of HB can only be suspended by CONGRESS not the bloody President of the United States. Said writ can be suspended ONLY in a declared war (which this isn't) or in a rebellion.

Read the text of the Constitution. There is no protection to these men under "HB".

The greatest dangers to liberty are the prisoners at gitmo and their pals in Iraq, and the rest of the mess-o-potamia.

Bullshit. The greatest threat to liberty, as the Founding Fathers knew, is government.

The UN human rights declaration does not mandate the giving of trials to terrorists.
Riiiiiiiiiiight. So first, Guantanamo Bay is a magical place where neither US nor International law presides, and second, terrorists are magical people who are outside of humanity? Please...

Read the text of the Constitution. There is no protection to these men under "HB".
Oh? Where does it say that? There's nothing in that clause that says "This only applies to people we like".

The UN human rights declaration does not mandate the giving of trials to terrorists. The number of people released from Gitmo is simply not relavent. Following the exact text of the law is dirt and perverted? Fascinating.

You aren't following the exact text of the law. If you were, you would realize it is subject to the interpretation of soverign states, and that interpretation is international law. The Supreme Court decision, according to the way international law works (see ICJ), equates to that interpretation being international law. The Geneva conventions don't have to explictly say that terrorists are not protected, if the Supreme Court decides that it is implict, it is binding legally.

Now, I'll support Gitmo as long as it's legal. As in, actually legal. Not "OMG, its a crime" like the far left liberals claim. In the same respect, if the Supreme Court decides that it is not legal, I'll condemn it as a crime. I wont try to be an apologist for it like the far right (hint hint, you) is attempting to do. This is called being a moderate and respecting the law. Not using hyperboilic interpretations of the law, which I see from both sides right now.

No, I don' think you get it. You are claiming a positive...that the prisoners have rights under Geneva. I asked you to offer proof. You have given none. You respond by asking me to prove a negative...which I cannot do without posting the entire Geneva accord. Nice try. I want real sources and not how you "feel".
What rights did the US exercize to invade Iraq and imprison the natives and abduct some to another country? Is kidnapping legal in the US? Oh, thats right, the Patriot Act allows kidnapping.

On the contrary, It's because we're better that we have to give them equal treatment under the law.

We do treat them better then they treat us. We don't pick out their eyes. We don't saw off their heads on TV. We feed them, cloth them, and give them access to their religious requirements. We are treating them like humans. That is enough.

YOu need to work on your reading comprehension.

Amendment V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



In the second part, the periods are also the notation for the end of one statement and the beginning of another. The statement that reveals the actual point is: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

the Constitutional rights apply to everyone.

first part makes it conditional that they have due process....the process that they are due is to be held in prison by the armed forces under the authority of the earlier part of the very same paragraph. The entire second paragraph that you quoted is about States. And your last comment......define everyone. Everyone.....everywhere? Using your wording and rationale, 14th Amendment rights apply to Chinese people who are in China. The 14th Amendment is granted to all of ...humanity. That is crazy.

How about the ones that are being held that were captured on the "battlefield" that the US created by illegally invading Iraq?

No court has ever held that we invaded Iraq in an illegal way. Try to be more relavent.

What rights did the US exercize to invade Iraq and imprison the natives and abduct some to another country? Is kidnapping legal in the US? Oh, thats right, the Patriot Act allows kidnapping.

Stuff like this doesn't help the Left case much. If they had been honest and moderate, instead of spouting extremist stuff such as this, Bush wouldn't have been elected a second time. Every state has the right to protect its soverignity under international law. That is where the United States got its legal and moral "right" to invade Iraq.

What rights did the US exercize to invade Iraq and imprison the natives and abduct some to another country? Is kidnapping legal in the US? Oh, thats right, the Patriot Act allows kidnapping.

Iraq violated the 1991 treaty. We were at a defacto state of war once we desided that we wanted to be. Sadam broke the agreement, we did exectly what we said we would do if he did. We liberated his country. Iraq is not a part of the US. It is free.

No, I admit that the US government believes that Guantanamo bay resides in a magical place outside of both the US and the rest of the world. If they didn't they'd have to either abide by US law or international law.


So only Americans should have the right to jury? WTF? Pray tell, is it because American terrorists are not as bad in your books as other terrorists? Or is it that the thought of Americans getting unfairly treated makes you squirm, while any citizen of another country may be left in a legal black hole?

The U.S. government is aware that GITMO is in America. It falls under our terrotorial domain. Only Americans at gitmo have a right to trial by Jury under the American Constitution. The foreigners do not. It is not a matter of who is worse...it is a matter of the letter of the law. it has nothing to do with what I want. It has to do with what the Constitution mandates.

The Supreme Court is an impartial institution when it hand-picked Shrub for 2000, but the moment they make a decision against Dear Leader, all of a sudden they're wrong and out of control.

Busheviks. Will wonders ever cease?

The UN human rights declaration does not mandate the giving of trials to terrorists. The number of people released from Gitmo is simply not relavent. Following the exact text of the law is dirt and perverted? Fascinating.
You don't want to follow the laws. You want to make your own. You disagree with the highest court of law in the US. Yes, your brand of "democracy" is dirty and perverted.

Every state has the right to protect its soverignity under international law. That is where the United States got its legal and moral "right" to invade Iraq.
Where exactly was US sovereignity endangered by Iraq?

And your last comment......define everyone. Everyone.....everywhere? Using your wording and rationale, 14th Amendment rights apply to Chinese people who are in China. The 14th Amendment is granted to all of ...humanity. That is crazy.

I think you're starting to get it. "Define everyone" is the job of the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court says that it refers to prisoners in Gitmo, then it does. And if the Supreme Court says it refers to the Chinese, then it does.

Perhaps you should start respecting the law - all of it - rather than just the select decisions and aspects you want to respect.

Where exactly was US sovereignity endangered by Iraq?

It doesn't have to actually be. It only has to be interpreted as such by a signatory to international law, such as the US government. That interpetation is legally equivalent to objective fact. It may not be objective fact in reality, but to the law it is.

Iraq violated the 1991 treaty. We were at a defacto state of war once we desided that we wanted to be. Sadam broke the agreement, we did exectly what we said we would do if he did. We liberated his country. Iraq is not a part of the US. It is free.
Wrong answer. Read UN Resolution 1441. The Security Council was against the invasion of Iraq, and wanted the UN inspections to continue.

Nope. You love your supremacy over others & you like some people.

Normally prisoners of war are considered prisoners of war. However, due to your nation's unique position, you are effectively above the law. That's why you've gotten away with inventing a new type of human being; one that doesn't have the rights of other human beings.

The fact remains, however, that if they are subject to US law, then they are either POWs or civilians, because the only people that aren't civilians according to your laws, are POWs.

If they aren't subject to US law, then they are sunject to international law, and in this particular case, the effect is much the same; either they're POWs or they're civilians.

Don't mistake your longstanding tradition of subverting the law, for having the law on your side.
EDIT: Citizenship has fuck-all to do with it.

They are enemy combatants. BTW I find it amazing how you know what I "love" and hate without knowing me. I guess I will claim that you love terrorists and hate...ice cream...just to be even. They are subject to U.S. law. The text of U.S. law gives them no rights. End of story. I do not believe that I have ever subverted a law.....that last comment confuses me greatly.

Barry, you provide such a passionate defense of all things Republican.

I was curious your state of origin and your university status?

I am from New York and attend Marist College.

It may not be objective fact in reality, but to the law it is.

This is more or less why people hate lawyers.

Well, that and they profit from crime.

It doesn't have to actually be. It only has to be interpreted as such by a signatory to international law, such as the US government. That interpetation is legally equivalent to objective fact. It may not be objective fact in reality, but to the law it is.
Surley the nation in question must have some proof of its sovereignity being under threat? Or is falsely equating secular Arab nationalism and Islamic fundementalism good enough? :p

EDIT>> And with that, its off to bed. Cheerie-bye-bye.

Wrong answer. Read UN Resolution 1441. The Security Council was against the invasion of Iraq, and wanted the UN inspections to continue.

Where in UN Resolution does it take a stance against the US operation in Iraq? Resolution 1441 refers to the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait.

We do treat them better then they treat us. We don't pick out their eyes. We don't saw off their heads on TV. We feed them, cloth them, and give them access to their religious requirements. We are treating them like humans. That is enough.

I don't know about you, but I didn't serve in the military and do my part to help protect this country so some people could deny other people equal rights.

Once they're convicted, fuck em. I hope they rot and die. Or die and rot. Whichever sounds more fun. But until then, they're people. It's like ME being in there.

Stuff like this doesn't help the Left case much. If they had been honest and moderate, instead of spouting extremist stuff such as this, Bush wouldn't have been elected a second time. Every state has the right to protect its soverignity under international law. That is where the United States got its legal and moral "right" to invade Iraq.
How do you figure what I stated is extremist? The US violated the UN Charter by invading Iraq. Iraq was not an "imminent threat" to the US. The inspectors certainly were not finding any long range missles, nor were they finding any WMD.

Last I heard, being in prison for a few years does not qualify as "combat situation."

last I heard...gitmo was a military prison......


But due process does extend to non-US citizens. I know that certain people dislike that fact, and I know also that certain people feel that non-US citizens are subhumanoid scum who deserve no rights. I find that more "terrible" than this ruling.

well, I have spent a great amount of time in foreign nations and i value human life greatly as a result of strongly held religous beliefs. Another person who thinks they know me.... Due process does apply to those under U.S. jurisdiction. The thing is...there is nothing to process and be "due" about. Enemy combatants have no rights under the Constitution, as you can see by the first part of the fifth amendment.


Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Tough titties, fella. If you don't like it, I'm sure they'll have you in some other nation.

The Supreme Court never said that everyone at gitmo needs a trial.

Surley the nation in question must have some proof of its sovereignity being under threat? Or is falsely equating secular Arab nationalism and Islamic fundementalism good enough? :p

Well, it had enough "proof" to just get by. The whole WMD thing. Of course, we now know that it was virtually all untrue.

Wrong answer. Read UN Resolution 1441. The Security Council was against the invasion of Iraq, and wanted the UN inspections to continue.

That is because the Security Council could care less what we want. I would have loved for the inspections to continue. I lost friends in Iraq and would love for them to be alive. But Iraq was doing everything it could to prevent inspections for a long time. Iraq had WMDs when we attacked. We found them. It's true that we found less then expected but that just means Sadam was good at hiding. After all, he hid himself for a long time.

We also had the support of enough nations on the Security Council to attack. However, when it came time to vote they changed their minds. They said, "Screw you America." and we replied with one of the most bloodless assults on a country in history.

Anyway, I don't see how sensible people can really not want the Geneva Convention rulings to apply to terrorists.




It has nothing to do with what you "want" , "wish" or "desire". It has to do with what the Geneva convention and the U.S. Constitution's text say.

On the contrary, It's because we're better that we have to give them equal treatment under the law.

says who?

Where in UN Resolution does it take a stance against the US operation in Iraq? Resolution 1441 refers to the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait.
Read the Resolution (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement) and then you might have a better understanding.

Bullshit. The greatest threat to liberty, as the Founding Fathers knew, is government.

So SCOTUS should make up new rights every couple of years....give me a break.

first part makes it conditional that they have due process....the process that they are due is to be held in prison by the armed forces under the authority of the earlier part of the very same paragraph. The entire second paragraph that you quoted is about States. And your last comment......define everyone. Everyone.....everywhere? Using your wording and rationale, 14th Amendment rights apply to Chinese people who are in China. The 14th Amendment is granted to all of ...humanity. That is crazy.

Even if it DID apply to all of humanity, we're not exactly in a position to enforce it. But it definitely applies to everyone in U.S. custody or authority.

Riiiiiiiiiiight. So first, Guantanamo Bay is a magical place where neither US nor International law presides, and second, terrorists are magical people who are outside of humanity? Please...

GITMO is in America. Terrorists have no rights.

How do you figure what I stated is extremist? The US violated the UN Charter by invading Iraq. Iraq was not an "imminent threat" to the US. The inspectors certainly were not finding any long range missles, nor were they finding any WMD.

It didn't violate the UN charter. This is the extremist misinterpretation (or misunderstanding) of international law that I see on a daily basis.

The United States viewed Iraq as an imminent threat, and its legislative bodies decided that it was. As a soverign state and signatory to international law, the United States is the one that determines that. As a soverign state, the United States is also the one that determines how to interpret "imminent threat." The UN cannot impose its interpretation of "imminent threat" over the United States unless the US were to willingly give jurisdiction to the ICJ, which it didn't.

In all reality, there was no "imminent threat." But from a legal persepctive, there was.

So SCOTUS should make up new rights every couple of years....give me a break.

There's no need. We have all the rights we need. The SCOTUS just needs to make sure they're protected. That's their job; Interpreting law.

Read the Resolution (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement) and then you might have a better understanding.

You keep repeating yourself. I've read the resolution, I have a hard copy of it. :rolleyes:

I'm asking you to show me where it refers to a solid stance against the US invasion of Iraq. I'm not seeing it here.

says who?

Says me.

I don't know about you, but I didn't serve in the military and do my part to help protect this country so some people could deny other people equal rights.

Even in a tribunal they would have rights. Just not the full rights that belong to US citizens. If you were accused of some crime in another country you would not be entitiled to the same rights as you would be in the US.

Once they're convicted, fuck em. I hope they rot and die. Or die and rot. Whichever sounds more fun. But until then, they're people. It's like ME being in there.

I agree, but I would convict them out of civilian court. They are not civilians.

Oh? Where does it say that? There's nothing in that clause that says "This only applies to people we like".


The clause does not say anything about who it applies to. It merely says that Congress can revoke it.

I don't know about you, but I didn't serve in the military and do my part to help protect this country so some people could deny other people equal rights.
Someone with some moral decency!! :cool:

Once they're convicted, fuck em. I hope they rot and die. Or die and rot. Whichever sounds more fun. But until then, they're people. It's like ME being in there.
Agreed!!

The clause does not say anything about who it applies to. It merely says that Congress can revoke it.
I do believe that Cat Tribe would feast on your protestations.

Now, I'll support Gitmo as long as it's legal. As in, actually legal. Not "OMG, its a crime" like the far left liberals claim. In the same respect, if the Supreme Court decides that it is not legal, I'll condemn it as a crime. I wont try to be an apologist for it like the far right (hint hint, you) is attempting to do. This is called being a moderate and respecting the law. Not using hyperboilic interpretations of the law, which I see from both sides right now.

And the Supreme Court will never rule that we have no right to have a prison camp that is under the military's jurisdiction. So...I guess.....gitmo is great!

Even in a tribunal they would have rights. Just not the full rights that belong to US citizens. If you were accused of some crime in another country you would not be entitiled to the same rights as you would be in the US.



I agree, but I would convict them out of civilian court. They are not civilians.

There's a strong argument for court martial. Either way, they'll have their day in court and access to legal counsel. That's what they deserve.

What rights did the US exercize to invade Iraq and imprison the natives and abduct some to another country? Is kidnapping legal in the US? Oh, thats right, the Patriot Act allows kidnapping.

Detaining enemy combatants is not "kidnapping". The Patriot act does not allow it either. Oh, should'nt have said that...this allows you to go off on a tangent about the Patriot act. Spare me.

And the Supreme Court will never rule that we have no right to have a prison camp that is under the military's jurisdiction. So...I guess.....gitmo is great!

It doesn't make it "great." It just makes it legal. Even the village idiot Dubya doesn't believe its "great." He's backpeddling hard on it and wants to shut it down due to tainting his reputation, but he is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Where exactly was US sovereignity endangered by Iraq?

This is not relavent at all. Why do you keep bringing up the Iraq invasion?

Perhaps you should start respecting the law - all of it - rather than just the select decisions and aspects you want to respect.

I respect that law. I do not respect activist judges ( Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) who make up new rights without consulting the text of the Constitution in a literal way.

Wrong answer. Read UN Resolution 1441. The Security Council was against the invasion of Iraq, and wanted the UN inspections to continue.

This has nothing to do with GITMO. Good job folks.

I respect that law. I do not respect activist judges ( Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) who make up new rights without consulting the text of the Constitution in a literal way.

If you respected the law, you would respect the decisions of the activist judges, which are, by definition, the law itself.

Nor does the Constitution need to be interpreted in a literal way. In fact, Constitutional Literalism went out back with slavery.

Once they're convicted, fuck em. I hope they rot and die. Or die and rot. Whichever sounds more fun. But until then, they're people. It's like ME being in there.

You are a non-U.S. citizen who was captured on a battlefield?

You keep repeating yourself. I've read the resolution, I have a hard copy of it. :rolleyes:

I'm asking you to show me where it refers to a solid stance against the US invasion of Iraq. I'm not seeing it here.
If you have a hard copy and you don't understand the limitations that are in place then I cannot help you.

The relevant provisions:

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with
inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

The US and the UK could not convince France, Russia, and China of the need for armed invasion.

How do you figure what I stated is extremist? The US violated the UN Charter by invading Iraq. Iraq was not an "imminent threat" to the US. The inspectors certainly were not finding any long range missles, nor were they finding any WMD.

yeah......and this has to do with GITMO....how?

The terrorists are not civilians but I would like to see some quotes please.


Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.
Commentary: IV Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. International Commit-
tee of the Red Cross: Geneva 1958, p. 51.

This is not relavent at all. Why do you keep bringing up the Iraq invasion?

Because they can't comment on Afghanistan, where most of thise in Gitmo came from. Noone says going into Afghanistan was illegal because of 9-11. If we had another attack on US soil and weapons were traced back to Iraq, oh wait, Iraq helped train terrorists. They even had a plane that they could pratice hijacking.

Even if it DID apply to all of humanity, we're not exactly in a position to enforce it. But it definitely applies to everyone in U.S. custody or authority.

But the 14th Amendment is talking about the states. What state should the GITMO guys get trials in? Come on.

Yeah....funny as a lake of fire.


:D

last I heard...gitmo was a military prison......


That's nice. A prison is not a combat situation, military or otherwise. Care to try again?

well, I have spent a great amount of time in foreign nations and i value human life greatly as a result of strongly held religous beliefs.

Yeah, sure. You value human life except when you think someone is an enemy combatant. I smell horseshit.

Another person who thinks they know me....

You poor baby. So misunderstood. Perhaps someone could find a cross you could climb up on and nail yourself to.

Due process does apply to those under U.S. jurisdiction. The thing is...there is nothing to process and be "due" about. Enemy combatants have no rights under the Constitution, as you can see by the first part of the fifth amendment.

Nonsense. I'll let the more lawyerly folks here argue this point, though. Then you can say they must be wrong because you say so and babble stupidly about "activist judges."

There's a strong argument for court martial. Either way, they'll have their day in court and access to legal counsel. That's what they deserve.

The Court said this? Or is that just your opinion?

If you respected the law, you would respect the decisions of the activist judges, which are, by definition, the law itself.

Nor does the Constitution need to be interpreted in a literal way. In fact, Constitutional Literalism went out back with slavery.

So you would have respected Plessy v. Ferguson? How about Dred Scoot v. sanford? Bush v. Gore too? Fascinating.

You are a non-U.S. citizen who was captured on a battlefield?

No. I'm a person. They're people too. Where they were caputured and what they were allegedly doing doesn't change that.

Can you source that claim? Where in the Geneva convention to prisoners that are part of no army and have not signed the convention get rights under it?

What does thair signing or not singing of it have to do with anything. We signed it and we can't keep POW's or any other international prisoners without a trial

This has nothing to do with GITMO. Good job folks.
Then you don't know as much as you think you do.

Iraqis in Guantanamo (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7AF6D9CA-C897-4636-AFCA-44C93A66A9DA.htm)

Also part of the same article:

Iraqi women, children in US custody

Nice touch!!

If you have a hard copy and you don't understand the limitations that are in place then I cannot help you.

The relevant provisions:

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with
inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;



The US and the UK could not convince France, Russia, and China of the need for armed invasion.

HELLO? AH, YOU THERE. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GITMO. THANKS.

There is a way around this decision, release everyone detained at Gitmo and have a few foreign governments pick them up as we let them out the gate. We are not going to win this unless we make our enemy fear us. They won’t fear us if we give them a lawyer when they are captured. They already laugh at us for how we treat them and we just gave them another reason to continue.

Commentary: IV Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. International Commit-
tee of the Red Cross: Geneva 1958, p. 51.

The geneva convention does not apply because of the very passage that you quoted. These men are not POW's, not civilians, and not medical related civilians. They are extra-Geneva combatants.

Enemy Combatants… I love fancy new words that lawyers make up.

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/juris.html

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/simple.html

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/hide.html

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/greater.html

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/decider.html

Detaining enemy combatants is not "kidnapping". The Patriot act does not allow it either. Oh, should'nt have said that...this allows you to go off on a tangent about the Patriot act. Spare me.
Just because the US wants to label captured warriors as "enemy combatants" doesn't make them "enemy combatants". Why should the US be above international laws?

SCOTUS got it right. Let's hope it's a trend.

That's nice. A prison is not a combat situation, military or otherwise. Care to try again?

hello. It is a military detainment camp.



Yeah, sure. You value human life except when you think someone is an enemy combatant. I smell horseshit.



You poor baby. So misunderstood. Perhaps someone could find a cross you could climb up on and nail yourself to.



Nonsense. I'll let the more lawyerly folks here argue this point, though. Then you can say they must be wrong because you say so and babble stupidly about "activist judges."

mean and disorderly. You better watch your attitude or face serious consequences.

There is a way around this decision, release everyone detained at Gitmo and have a few foreign governments pick them up as we let them out the gate. We are not going to win this unless we make our enemy fear us. They won’t fear us if we give them a lawyer when they are captured. They already laugh at us for how we treat them and we just gave them another reason to continue.
Yeah, to hell with justice? For you, "democracy" is just a bad word?

mean and disorderly. You better watch your attitude or face serious consequences.
Are you issuing threats now?

Then you don't know as much as you think you do.



Why we invaded Iraq ( which is what you were discussing) has nothing to do with the legality of GITMO.

The 5-4 decision to prevent President Bush from using a military tribunal to try terrorists is absurd. Terrorists have no right to trial at all. A military tribunal should be the most liberal approach. I am for throwing away the key at Guantanamo. Here are my 5 reasons as to why the ruling was a bad one and a mistake.

1) There is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution that gives the non-U.S. citizen inmates at gitmo any rights to anything
2) The Geneva Convention does not apply to treatment of terrorists
3) those at Gitmo fight for no army that signed the Geneva Convention
4) The Hamdi decision of 2003 specified that Bush has no legal reason to have to give those held at Gitmo any trials.
5) Congress gave Bush the right to house the inmates and stipped the Court of jurisdiction over this topic.

All in all I think that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have it right.

The problem here is that you can then designate anyone to be a terrorist and incarcerate them without due process of the law. Shouldn't there are least be a trial to prove that they are terrorists before taking denying them all rights and basically reducing them to subhumans?

Enemy Combatants… I love fancy new words that lawyers make up.

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/juris.html

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/simple.html

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/hide.html

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/greater.html

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/decider.html

Up, its cartoon time again kids!

mean and disorderly. You better watch your attitude or face serious consequences.

HELLO? AH, YOU THERE. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GITMO. THANKS.

Nice one.

blah blah blah military camp

Still not a combat situation.

mean and disorderly. You better watch your attitude or face serious consequences.

Yeah? What serious consquences are those gonna be? Let's talk about it. Cuz I like it when you have to resort to lame threats when your arguments fail to convince anyone.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger"Yep. "Person," not "citizen."

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"From the Fourteenth Amendment. The "privileges or immunities of citizens," by the way, was held NOT to have anything to do with the Bill of Rights. That is incorporated by way of the due process clause... which, of course, says "person."

those are the only relavent passages that I can find. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says that non-citizen combantants deserve jury trials. In fact, it alludes to the opposite!

Does it? If so, why does it use the word "person" instead of "citizen"?

So you would have respected Plessy v. Ferguson? How about Dred Scoot v. sanford? Bush v. Gore too? Fascinating.

You know what was incredibly about Bush v. Gore? It was both respected and followed.

The Court occassionally (perhaps more often than occassionally) makes terrible, even horrific rulings, such as Dred Scott. Nonetheless, these rulings must be overturned by either another ruling or an Ammendment. Until then, the rulings must be respected. Its not a perfect system. But its a hell of a lot better than the majority dictatorship that would potentially result from not having the Supreme Court to check the legislative and executive branches.

And while you may think the Supreme Court should take a literal interpretation of the Constitution, that still leaves a lot of room. The Constitution is not the 10 Commandments written by God, and handed down to the Founding Fathers. It is a political document, full of phrases that are deliberately vague, so that enough states would sign it. The writers of the Constitution were politicians, not gods.

Just because the US wants to label captured warriors as "enemy combatants" doesn't make them "enemy combatants". Why should the US be above international laws?

So we could call them "enemy warriors" too. That sounds pretty good, I would use it. The USA is not above the international laws, but the situation that it faces is outside of them. International code from 1945 and 1958 simply does not concieve of Al-queda, etc.

Up, its cartoon time again kids!

And all the points made are very relevant.

The Court said this? Or is that just your opinion?
From CNN.com: "The ruling means the Bush administration will have to adopt a military commission system for trying accused terrorists that meets international standards.

The court's ruling also establishes that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals involving "enemy combatants" held overseas in U.S. military custody. The Bush administration had argued they lacked it."


The Supreme Court did NOT rule out military tribunals. They said that the Executive(Bush) does not have the authority to set up a military commission outside of the existing military or civilian legal systems to prosecute them unless:

a) Congress legislates it,

b) It meets international standards and

c) Federal appeals courts can hear the cases.

In other words, Bush cannot create his own military commision. COngress has to, or they must be tried through existing military or civilian courts.

HELLO? AH, YOU THERE. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GITMO. THANKS.
You do not need to yell. :D

It has everything to do with Gitmo. If the US doesn't invade Iraq, then it doesn't capture Iraqi citizens and throw them in Gitmo? Why can't you see that?

The ruling means the Bush administration will have to adopt a military commission system for trying accused terrorists that meets international standards.

The court's ruling also establishes that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals involving "enemy combatants" held overseas in U.S. military custody. The Bush administration had argued they lacked it.


The Supreme Court did NOT rule out military tribunals. They said that the Executive(Bush) does not have the authority to set up a military commission outside of the existing military or civilian legal systems to prosecute them unless:

a) Congress legislates it,

b) It meets international standards and

c) Federal appeals courts can hear the cases.

In other words, Bush cannot create his own military commision. COngress has to, or they must be tried through existing military or civilian courts.
I am glad to see that someone has a handle on the correct course of action. :)

Are you issuing threats now?

I am saying that if posts like the one that I responded to by calling it "mean" and "disorderly" continue I may request a forum ban for that...individual. Long winded acid tongued factless fluff simply cheapens the entire forum. It was mean too. Very impolite.

The clause does not say anything about who it applies to. It merely says that Congress can revoke it.
No, re-read it, it says that it cannot be revoked except by Congress is extraordinary situations. Since it doesn't say who, one MUST assume that it is applied to everyone in the United States and its posessions because that is the jurisdiction of said constitution.

Trying to ignore that does not make it so. They cannot have their rights to apear before a court taken away except by Congress which is, if I read the news right, the whole point of the ruling.

Now this is straight from the Geneva Convention text:

"Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

It matters not if who we're fighting isn't in the Geneva convention. Like I said before the U.S. was, so regardless, we must abide by it.

Yeah, to hell with justice? For you, "democracy" is just a bad word?

I love democracy, I would die for democracy. I put my life on the line so that everyone here can say what they want without fear of being locked up in prison. This is what democracy is, fighting on a forum. This is what you are allowed to do.

As for justice, they would get it in foreign courts. American justice is not the only justice in the world. it would be wrong of us to hog all the terrorists to ourselves after all.

The problem here is that you can then designate anyone to be a terrorist and incarcerate them without due process of the law. Shouldn't there are least be a trial to prove that they are terrorists before taking denying them all rights and basically reducing them to subhumans?

They had not rights to begin with. There were none to take away. You cannot designate "anyone" a terrorist. People who are captured by specific intel and for the most part...on actual battlefields...are housed at GITMO. WE are not sending Michael Moore and Al Franken there ...( no matter how tempting).

I am saying that if posts like the one that I responded to by calling it "mean" and "disorderly" continue I may request a forum ban for that...individual. Long winded acid tongued factless fluff simply cheapens the entire forum. It was mean too. Very impolite.
There is nothing like belittling another poster's opinions to prove a point about mean and impolite posts.

Yeah? What serious consquences are those gonna be? Let's talk about it. Cuz I like it when you have to resort to lame threats when your arguments fail to convince anyone.


Look, just try to stop with the insults and stick to facts instead. I don't name call you.

I am glad to see that someone has a handle on the correct course of action. :)

It's a funny thing; I understand Law much better when I've been drinking. Is that my oddity, or the law's? :)

So we could call them "enemy warriors" too. That sounds pretty good, I would use it. The USA is not above the international laws, but the situation that it faces is outside of them. International code from 1945 and 1958 simply does not concieve of Al-queda, etc.
IF it was simply just Al-queda detainees at Gitmo, you might have a point, mind you, not much of one though. The fact is that there are non Al-queda detainees at Gitmo.

Yep. "Person," not "citizen."

From the Fourteenth Amendment. The "privileges or immunities of citizens," by the way, was held NOT to have anything to do with the Bill of Rights. That is incorporated by way of the due process clause... which, of course, says "person."



Does it? If so, why does it use the word "person" instead of "citizen"?


The fifth Amendment says right in it that the "person" part is canceled in times of public danger when the jurisdiction is military based. The entire portions that you refer to in the 14th Amendment talk about what a "state" can do. This has nothing to do with GITMO>

Let's draw from a jury pool of civilian 9-11 survivors.Actually, in every poll I've seen residents of New York are more likely than any other citizens to oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and 9-11 survivors are even more firmly opposed.

The usual rationale is that people who have experienced mass destruction wouldn't wish it on anyone.

(If I have a chance, I'll look for these polls... but I don't know that anyone's cared much to find out what these people think for a few years now, so they'll be older and possibly harder to find.)

(EDIT: correction as discussed below.)

It's a funny thing; I understand Law much better when I've been drinking. Is that my oddity, or the law's? :)
Perhaps the laws were written by a bunch of drunks? :D

And while you may think the Supreme Court should take a literal interpretation of the Constitution, that still leaves a lot of room. The Constitution is not the 10 Commandments written by God, and handed down to the Founding Fathers. It is a political document, full of phrases that are deliberately vague, so that enough states would sign it. The writers of the Constitution were politicians, not gods.

The Constitution is a legal document. No legal document changes with time without being amendmended. Yet, the 5 wacko justices seem to think that they can go around inventing things that are not in the original text or the amendments.

Actually, in every poll I've seen residents of New York are less likely than any other citizens to oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and 9-11 survivors are even more firmly opposed.
Less likely to oppose or more likely???

The fifth Amendment says right in it that the "person" part is canceled in times of public danger when the jurisdiction is military based. ... right.... right...

Except that the Fifth Amendment clause to which you refer guarantees a grand-jury indictment for capital offenses. The right to a trial is in the Sixth Amendment, which makes no such exception.

The entire portions that you refer to in the 14th Amendment talk about what a "state" can do.
Then why did you cite the Fourteenth Amendment's priviliges and immunities clause?

Less likely to oppose or more likely???Ah, more likely.

:)

It's getting late.

You do not need to yell. :D

It has everything to do with Gitmo. If the US doesn't invade Iraq, then it doesn't capture Iraqi citizens and throw them in Gitmo? Why can't you see that?

The idea that whether or not the men at GITMO get trials is based on the legal status of Iraq is sketchy at best.

The Constitution is a legal document. No legal document changes with time without being amendmended. Yet, the 5 wacko justices seem to think that they can go around inventing things that are not in the original text or the amendments.
So, Bush will be filing a counter suit against the SCOTUS?

Perhaps the laws were written by a bunch of drunks? :D

I suspect so. :)

The 5-4 decision to prevent President Bush from using a military tribunal to try terrorists is absurd. Terrorists have no right to trial at all. .
Wow. You seem to have more information than you're letting on.
How exactly do you know that they are terrorists, hmm?

Oh. right. Cause Bush has said so. And Lord knows we can believe everything a politician says, right?

Heaven forbid we actually have trials to decide exactly what these people are.

Look, just try to stop with the insults and stick to facts instead. I don't name call you.

Sure, okay. Tell me how being in a military prison is the same situation as soldiers fighting on the battlefield.

No, re-read it, it says that it cannot be revoked except by Congress is extraordinary situations. Since it doesn't say who, one MUST assume that it is applied to everyone in the United States and its posessions because that is the jurisdiction of said constitution.

Trying to ignore that does not make it so. They cannot have their rights to apear before a court taken away except by Congress which is, if I read the news right, the whole point of the ruling.

Congress passed the 911 use of force resolution. This allowed Bush to do everything that he has done. The act passed unanimously.

Can you source that claim? Where in the Geneva convention to prisoners that are part of no army and have not signed the convention get rights under it?
Try this from the other thread about the ruling:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11267883&postcount=141

The idea that whether or not the men at GITMO get trials is based on the legal status of Iraq is sketchy at best.
Maybe sketchy for you, but it is crystal clear to me.

If I invade your country, capture you and detainee you in some God forbidden part of my country, charge you as an "enemy combatant" because you shot at me, then that is okay with you?

It's a funny thing; I understand Law much better when I've been drinking. Is that my oddity, or the law's? :)

I have found that drinking increases my lucidity. It is a fact of life.

The Constitution is a legal document. No legal document changes with time without being amendmended. Yet, the 5 wacko justices seem to think that they can go around inventing things that are not in the original text or the amendments.
Inventing things, like what?
Declaring ppl captured during an armed struggle aren't POWs?
You mean shit like that?

IF it was simply just Al-queda detainees at Gitmo, you might have a point, mind you, not much of one though. The fact is that there are non Al-queda detainees at Gitmo.

Who cares what organization they fight for...They could be fighting for re-runs of the tonight show for crying out loud. The motivation is not the point. A terrorist is a terrorists. Al-queda or not.

I'm not a big fan of reading, so im not entirely up to date on this, but I remember reading that Bush said he took the decision very seriously. It seemed to be implied that he would try to adjust it so that the military tribunals or whatever court system they do end up using would be legal.

I think its a great decision. I hope it will improve our image abroad.

I have found that drinking increases my lucidity. It is a fact of life.

It's like Drunken Boxing but with your mouth(or fingers in this case). :p

Heaven forbid we actually have trials to decide exactly what these people are.

You don't have to be a citizen to have a trial. They would have had a tribunal, military trial.

Actually, in every poll I've seen residents of New York are more likely than any other citizens to oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,

(EDIT: correction as discussed below.)

That's because New York is the 4th most liberal state in the Union. Pre 911 and post 911.

... right.... right...

Except that the Fifth Amendment clause to which you refer guarantees a grand-jury indictment for capital offenses. The right to a trial is in the Sixth Amendment, which makes no such exception.


Then why did you cite the Fourteenth Amendment's priviliges and immunities clause?

First....."No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"

and second......I cited the 14th Amendment to show how it did not ive any rights to those at GITMO.

The problem here is that you can then designate anyone to be a terrorist and incarcerate them without due process of the law. Shouldn't there are least be a trial to prove that they are terrorists before taking denying them all rights and basically reducing them to subhumans?
Someone else with common sense and some human decency!! :)

Wow. You seem to have more information than you're letting on.
How exactly do you know that they are terrorists, hmm?

Oh. right. Cause Bush has said so. And Lord knows we can believe everything a politician says, right?

Heaven forbid we actually have trials to decide exactly what these people are.

President Bush did not decide who goes to GITMO. The soldiers who find these bastards do. So I really am not sure what you are getting at. We know perfectly well who they are.

Who cares what organization they fight for...They could be fighting for re-runs of the tonight show for crying out loud. The motivation is not the point. A terrorist is a terrorists. Al-queda or not.
There are terrorists and there are insurgents. How many insurgents are being illegally detained in Gitmo?

That's because New York is the 4th most liberal state in the Union. Pre 911 and post 911.Then it should still be impressive that their opposition to the war exceeded that even of the first three liberal states, no?

Congress passed the 911 use of force resolution. This allowed Bush to do everything that he has done. The act passed unanimously.
Really now?

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Now where in there does it say that President Bush is allowed to create his own damn courts and that Congress has the athority to give the president athority to override the Constitution?

I don't see ANYTHING that says that and I have NEVER heard of anything that suspends the Constitution on the say so of the government.

Sure, okay. Tell me how being in a military prison is the same situation as soldiers fighting on the battlefield.

I never said that. That does not even make sense for me to say. All I said is that the men at GITMO were captured in a combat situation and while they are inside a military detainment camp they are combatants. Anything else that I said you can consider to be an error.

Maybe sketchy for you, but it is crystal clear to me.

If I invade your country, capture you and detainee you in some God forbidden part of my country, charge you as an "enemy combatant" because you shot at me, then that is okay with you?

This has nothing to do with the law.

First....."No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"Again, this just says that if you are charged with a capital crime, there must be a Grand Jury indictment. It says nothing about the actual trial.

Now, Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"... and no exception for the military, or for war.

I cited the 14th Amendment to show how it did not ive any rights to those at GITMO.What would it matter? As you pointed out, it applies to the States, not the federal government.

Inventing things, like what?


Making up new rights that never existed before in the text. That's what.

So, Bush will be filing a counter suit against the SCOTUS?
This being an election year and all, GOP senators are falling over themselves to toady up to Bush and appear strong on terrorism.
Bill Frist has declared that he would press for a law giving the president the power to do what the Supreme Court said he could not.
Another one (Arlen Specter) has already introduced an "Unprivileged Combatant Act" which would legally declare them all non-POWs.

And of course the Whitehouse is playing the ruling up, not as a significant step towards giving these people a fair trial, but implying that it'll will allow terrorists to go free.

At the White House, spokesman Tony Snow underlined the administration's resistance to abandoning the special courts.
"Nobody gets a 'get out of jail free' card,"
Where in the ruling it states that these people must go free is beyond me, but it shows the typical tact that the Bush Admin does when faced with criticism: Ignore the actual criticism, instead just make up what you want the criticism to be and then parrot that it's totally unreasonable. Oh, and throw in the bogeyman of terrorists/killers somewhere in the mix.

The American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street.
whoop. There we go.

It's like Drunken Boxing but with your mouth(or fingers in this case). :p

I find that the ability to articulate is improved by drinking like few other activities.:D :p

There are terrorists and there are insurgents. How many insurgents are being illegally detained in Gitmo?

Good question. I have no idea. I am assuming that by insurgents you mean...terrorists...though?

President Bush did not decide who goes to GITMO. The soldiers who find these bastards do. So I really am not sure what you are getting at. We know perfectly well who they are.
Apparently not all detainees were obtained in a normal fashion. Some were offered up for reward?

I like this bit of slam dunk (http://www.hindu.com/mag/2004/03/14/stories/2004031400090200.htm):

Freedom from captivity clearly doesn't always bring the desired effects. One hopes that the human prisoners now being bartered across nation boundaries won't suffer Willy's captive mentality and succumb to a similar fate. The situation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay has irked a battalion of defence lawyers, solicitors, and the general global public to question how such pockets of limbo-land can exist, where normal legislative processes and interrogations in the absence of any safeguards of due process — enshrined tenets of democratic societies — are simply absent and just don't apply.

Good question. I have no idea. I am assuming that by insurgents you mean...terrorists...though?
No, I mean Iraqis that took up weapons to fight against an illegal intruder, in this case the US.

Really now?

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

.

Enough said.

Are the persons being held at Gitmo PoW's?

what i cant understand is why liberals always want to help the people who hurt americans so much.:(


What I don't understand is why conservatives feel the need to silence anyone who dares voice an opinion they disagree with by throwing around bogus and insulting charges of treason. I'm not the one of us that hates America, asshat. After all, I'm not the one that would like to see everything we stand for abandoned.

Now, Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"... and no exception for the military, or for war.



And...yeah...thats because they jsut said in the fifth Amendment that they don't get trials. What good is a speedy trial if you don't deserve one according to the very previous amendment.

No, I mean Iraqis that took up weapons to fight against an illegal intruder, in this case the US.
What Court has said that America is an illegal intruder in Iraq?

Are the persons being held at Gitmo PoW's?

Nope. To be a prisoner of war there must be a war.

Enough said.
No, it's not. Not by a long shot. Nowhere in there does it say he can set up courts on his own. Nowhere in there does it say he can overrride the constitution. And it DOES say that said resolution is bound by the war powers act which mentions specifically that nothing in that superceeds the constitution.

No, he was not granted such powers by the Congress and Congress did not suspend the writ of HB.

Now either show where you're pulling this from or else I must conclude that the were is the place where the sun shines not.

After all, I'm not the one that would like to see everything we stand for abandoned.

Who is..."the one"?

Most of those fighting us in Iraq are not from Iraq.

Enough said.
You must be missing the fact that this clause, while it says the President can attribute responsibility for 9/11, does not give him the power to do "anything."

In fact, it specifies that he must use only "necessary and appropriate" force.

Now, in the language of the law, the word "necessary" actually means something; namely, it indicates that under challenge, the burden of proof is the President's to show that his actions actually further the end that he is authorized to pursue.

"Appropriate," meanwhile, carries with it the sense of both decency and proportionality. For example, a judge would recognize that this language prevents the President from, say, bombing a country merely because they supplied some money to Al Qaeda. It also prevents him from, say, dropping a nuclear bomb on Iraq or Afghanistan.

Legalese actually can be translated for those unwilling to decipher it themselves.

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

I don't know if I'm being overlooked or deliberately ignored but what has all of the constitution and bill of rights stuff have to do with this. That only pertains to US, has nothing to with Citizens of another country, and is not international law. The Geneva convention does however state that what we're doing is illegal and a war crime. Now I know that people are going to say now, like they did the first few pages that these 'terrorists' countries didn't sign the treaty.

THAT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

We were there, so we must pertain by the rules! An argument against this is going to be that they're aren't POW's and aren't in a war with us but only 'terrorists'. But again Bush has screwed himself on that by calling the whole ordeal the Global War on Terror! So because of this, we have declared war on the 'terrorists'. Now wether the 'terrorists' agree on fact that we're in a war or not doesn't matter because of the first point in article two.

And to top it all off there's the almighty article one. The simplest, yet most powerful:

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

So no matter what some of you have said, it must be obeyed IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES

It couldn't be anymore goddamned simple.

And...yeah...thats because they jsut said in the fifth Amendment that they don't get trials.
Read the Fifth Amendment again.

It does NOT say that they do not get trials. Rather, it says that they may be taken to trial without a grand jury indictment.

Are you really this stupid?

No, it's not. Not by a long shot. Nowhere in there does it say he can set up courts on his own. Nowhere in there does it say he can overrride the constitution. And it DOES say that said resolution is bound by the war powers act which mentions specifically that nothing in that superceeds the constitution.



.

It says "necessary and proper". Guess who they let decided what is "necessary and proper"? Bush. That is why they took away the Court's jurisdiction over the matter.

This has nothing to do with the law.
Nice evasive answer.

The US can't just make up rules and then try to enforce them on the international community. This is what is happening at Gitmo. Yeah, the US laws may be the supreme laws of the US, but they mean squat in Canada.

This is why the US is looking so bad on the international front. At least your Supreme Court is trying to lessen the embarassment.

Who is..."the one"?


The author of the post I quoted. So stay out of it, troll.:upyours:

President Bush did not decide who goes to GITMO. The soldiers who find these bastards do. So I really am not sure what you are getting at. We know perfectly well who they are.
Not sure what I'm getting at. huh?
How to put it simply:
We don't know what or who these people are. That's why we need trials to determine and decide.
Do you understand that?

If they were captured commiting a terrorist act, then that evidence would be brought up in court. Keeping them imprisoned simply cause based on what a soldier supposedly said or saw is wrong.
Would you accept someone being imprisoned for 4 years without a trial simply because a cop said he saw him doing something bad?
Nope. Wait. Not even that. Imprisoned without a trial because you were told that a cop possibly saw him doing something bad. We don't even have the testimony from the soldiers, so everything is heresay.

Incidently, the soldiers didn't find most of these 'bastards', as you so eloquently put it (showing your prejudices and troll-mind there btw). Lots of them were handed over by mercenarcies and/or locals and/or criminals who were paid a bounty for each one captured.
You happy to trust those sorts of people?

It says "necessary and proper". Guess who they let decided what is "necessary and proper"? Bush.
No, don't be stupid.

If they meant for Bush to decide what "necessary and proper" means, they would not have bothered to include the language in the first place. They would have simply said, "do whatever you want."

Nope. To be a prisoner of war there must be a war.

Let me go liberal for a min and say they are PoWs. Here is a quote from a US book on what to expect if captured.

"You are not going anywhere, because there is no rotation of prisoners of war. You are their for the duration."

If we grant them PoW status then we can hold them till the war on terror is over.

I
THAT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

We were there, so we must pertain by the rules! An argument against this is going to be that they're aren't POW's and aren't in a war with us but only 'terrorists'. But again Bush has screwed himself on that by calling the whole ordeal the Global War on Terror! So because of this, we have declared war on the 'terrorists'. Now wether the 'terrorists' agree on fact that we're in a war or not doesn't matter because of the first point in article two.

.

There is no declared war. What Bush calls it has nothing to do with it. Congress has not declared this to be a war. Therefore there are no "POW"s.

I don't know if I'm being overlooked or deliberately ignored but what has all of the constitution and bill of rights stuff have to do with this. That only pertains to US, has nothing to with Citizens of another country, and is not international law. The Geneva convention does however state that what we're doing is illegal and a war crime. Now I know that people are going to say now, like they did the first few pages that these 'terrorists' countries didn't sign the treaty.

THAT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

We were there, so we must pertain by the rules! An argument against this is going to be that they're aren't POW's and aren't in a war with us but only 'terrorists'. But again Bush has screwed himself on that by calling the whole ordeal the Global War on Terror! So because of this, we have declared war on the 'terrorists'. Now wether the 'terrorists' agree on fact that we're in a war or not doesn't matter because of the first point in article two.

And to top it all off there's the almighty article one. The simplest, yet most powerful:



So no matter what some of you have said, it must be obeyed IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES

It couldn't be anymore goddamned simple.


Thank you!

Read the Fifth Amendment again.

It does NOT say that they do not get trials. Rather, it says that they may be taken to trial without a grand jury indictment.

Are you really this stupid?

As in....a MILITARY TRIBUNAL????? I KNOW!

What Court has said that America is an illegal intruder in Iraq?None. But only because no court has the military might to force you lot to abide by the laws you yourself helped write.

Nice evasive answer.

The US can't just make up rules and then try to enforce them on the international community. This is what is happening at Gitmo. Yeah, the US laws may be the supreme laws of the US, but they mean squat in Canada.
.

GITMO is on American territory...not ...Canada.....how strange....

As in....a MILITARY TRIBUNAL????? I KNOW!Just go read the rest of the rights in the Sixth Amendment before you start shouting about things that confuse you so.

So you would have respected Plessy v. Ferguson? How about Dred Scoot v. sanford? Bush v. Gore too? Fascinating.

Well lets see, I wasn't alive during Dred Scott. Wasn't alive during Plessy v Ferguson either. Bush v Gore isn't even in the same category as those two.

In retrospect, we can all look back and acknowledge that the Dred Scott case was based on discrimination and the same for Plessy v Ferguson. We do that based on modern ethics, and based on modern law from the very same court that interpreted them. The fact that they were based on discrimination does not mean that they were not the law. Nor is it wholesale excuse to dismiss the law in this case.

How you arrive at the conclusion that you are justified in dismissing this Supreme Court decision because Plessy v Ferguson was racist as was the Dred Scott case I'll never know.

You know Barry, for a claimed constitutional literalist, you seem to be taking this whole doctrine of undeclared war nicely in stride.

The author of the post I quoted. So stay out of it, troll.:upyours:


Classy.Notice the middle finger I get after being called a "troll" for asking a non-insulting question...:p

There is no declared war. What Bush calls it has nothing to do with it. Congress has not declared this to be a war. Therefore there are no "POW"s.

I like how you only use one small snipet to make it sound like you're right, but look at the first point in article two again. it says: ANY WAR OR OTHER ARMED CONFLICT. As far as I and the rest of the world is concerned, this is an armed conflict.

I don't know if I'm being overlooked or deliberately ignored but what has all of the constitution and bill of rights stuff have to do with this. That only pertains to US, has nothing to with Citizens of another country, and is not international law. The Geneva convention does however state that what we're doing is illegal and a war crime. Now I know that people are going to say now, like they did the first few pages that these 'terrorists' countries didn't sign the treaty.

THAT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

We were there, so we must pertain by the rules! An argument against this is going to be that they're aren't POW's and aren't in a war with us but only 'terrorists'. But again Bush has screwed himself on that by calling the whole ordeal the Global War on Terror! So because of this, we have declared war on the 'terrorists'. Now wether the 'terrorists' agree on fact that we're in a war or not doesn't matter because of the first point in article two.

And to top it all off there's the almighty article one. The simplest, yet most powerful:



So no matter what some of you have said, it must be obeyed IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES

It couldn't be anymore goddamned simple.
You have certainly have presented powerful stuff here. However, I warn you that those who don't believe in "democracy" will argue with you tooth and nail.

Those who would pervert "democracy" and make their own rules to suit themselves are the ones to be feared.

It says "necessary and proper". Guess who they let decided what is "necessary and proper"? Bush. That is why they took away the Court's jurisdiction over the matter.
It says that the above does not superceed the war powers act. The war powers act says that it does not superceed the constitution. The constitution says Congress and Congress alone can suspend HB.

It's that simple. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Would you accept someone being imprisoned for 4 years without a trial simply because a cop said he saw him doing something bad?
Nope. Wait. Not even that. Imprisoned without a trial because you were told that a cop possibly saw him doing something bad. We don't even have the testimony from the soldiers, so everything is heresay.

Incidently, the soldiers didn't find most of these 'bastards', as you so eloquently put it (showing your prejudices and troll-mind there btw). Lots of them were handed over by mercenarcies and/or locals and/or criminals who were paid a bounty for each one captured.
You happy to trust those sorts of people?

Well, the silly cop example holds no water because that person would be a citizen. If they were not..tough grapes...

Now calling terrorists "bastards" makes me a "troll". Classy. I will say classy from now on every time sombody makes a personal insult to me ( this makes it easy to keep track and play along). This is what happens when people run out of facts. They insult me. I'm used to it. Well, why did the Americans offer a bounty to mercenaries if they had no evidence that the person was a terrorists? hmmm?

An argument against this is going to be that they're aren't POW's and aren't in a war with us but only 'terrorists'. But again Bush has screwed himself on that by calling the whole ordeal the Global War on Terror! So because of this, we have declared war on the 'terrorists'. Now wether the 'terrorists' agree on fact that we're in a war or not doesn't matter because of the first point in article two.

On this logic were those detained during the War On Drugs also POW's? To say nothing of the War On Poverty...

Nope. To be a prisoner of war there must be a war.
Obviously you couldn't be bothered clicking the earlier link, or just suffered cognitive dissonance when you read it:

Geneva Convention, Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Where does it say war?
Where does it say they have to be members of a regular armed force?
Where does it say they have be wearing emblems/signs recognising themselves as being part of an armed force?
Where does it say they have to be members of a regular armed force operating under a recognised Government?

No, don't be stupid.

If they meant for Bush to decide what "necessary and proper" means, they would not have bothered to include the language in the first place. They would have simply said, "do whatever you want."

Classy. Now I am stupid. dughhhhh...

BUsh decides what necessary and proper means. The Congress took away the power of the Courts on this issue. Congress controls the money flow. Thats about all.

q: what court has found that America invaded Iraq in an Illegal way?


A: None..

Therefore...you cannot make your claim that Iraq was an illegal war.

Just go read the rest of the rights in the Sixth Amendment before you start shouting about things that confuse you so.

"by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"

and that would be relavent how? wow.

oh and I am so confused....I like that classy comment. The latest of several.

GITMO is on American territory...not ...Canada.....how strange....
Somehow, I think the point sailed right over your head. Many points have sailed over your head. You refuse to accept the SCOTUS ruling as fair and adequate, along with all the other brilliant arguments that have buried the case that you are trying to present.

Now calling terrorists "bastards" makes me a "troll". Classy. I will say classy from now on every time sombody makes a personal insult to me ( this makes it easy to keep track and play along). This is what happens when people run out of facts. They insult me. I'm used to it. Well, why did the Americans offer a bounty to mercenaries if they had no evidence that the person was a terrorists? hmmm?

Calling a terrorist a bastard is fine. And people from the far Left today who defend the terrorists explictly or implictly are morally reprehensible.

On that note, in the the United States, in every free country, and in the international community (in general), people have the right to either be innocent until proven guilty or show that they are innocent. We can't say that any suspect in Gitmo who hasn't been tried is a terrorist by this standard.

Well lets see, I wasn't alive during Dred Scott. Wasn't alive during Plessy v Ferguson either. Bush v Gore isn't even in the same category as those two.

In retrospect, we can all look back and acknowledge that the Dred Scott case was based on discrimination and the same for Plessy v Ferguson. We do that based on modern ethics, and based on modern law from the very same court that interpreted them. The fact that they were based on discrimination does not mean that they were not the law. Nor is it wholesale excuse to dismiss the law in this case.

How you arrive at the conclusion that you are justified in dismissing this Supreme Court decision because Plessy v Ferguson was racist as was the Dred Scott case I'll never know.

Logic:

1) you have stated that you support whatever the Court rules
2) the Court supported overt racism for decades
3) had you been around .....you see this goes to a not nice place

Classy. Now I am stupid. dughhhhh...

BUsh decides what necessary and proper means. The Congress took away the power of the Courts on this issue.
Really? When did that happen?

And if Congress took away the power of the courts on this issue, and gave all decisive power to the President... why has Bush resigned himself to abiding by this very damaging Supreme Court decision?

The level of inconsistency that you can manage is... well, truly astounding.

None. But only because no court has the military might to force you lot to abide by the laws you yourself helped write.
Most excellent point!!

I like how you only use one small snipet to make it sound like you're right, but look at the first point in article two again. it says: ANY WAR OR OTHER ARMED CONFLICT. As far as I and the rest of the world is concerned, this is an armed conflict.

What clause are you talking about?

"by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"Obviously, some allowance needs to be made when the crime is not committed in any State... as the courts have held with respect to military personnel.

But they have never held, nor should they, that the basic right to a trial by jury (whether it is a public jury or a military court-martial) does not extend to military personnel (who are often stationed outside the states) or to aliens.

You have certainly have presented powerful stuff here. However, I warn you that those who don't believe in "democracy" will argue with you tooth and nail.

Those who would pervert "democracy" and make their own rules to suit themselves are the ones to be feared.

The SCOTUS has ruled. What they have said is currently law. I am disapointed that they did this but I won't go and break that law. All I am trying to do is explain that they mad the wrong decision and they have done before. The SCOTUS has violated the Constituion in the past. They have done things that we now consider stupid by our current standards. In the future I believe that this will be one of those things that will be considered a mistake. A mistake born of our wanting to be nice and give people rights under our laws that are were not entilted to until now. It is the mentailty that we are so powerful that we should bend over backwords to even up the playing field. Guilt at our power should not be a reason to give others rights.