Obama Thinks Too Much of Himself (And everybody else does too)

[f3lix]

Originally Posted by TwoBlackEyes

Your tinfoil hat is on crooked.

That's a Bush stunt there. He's not president anymore.

That was on the national news tonight. But go ahead and continue ignorance.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

The president demands that he still use his favorite blackberry. He is just like us!

[Mr. Blonde]

The Obama/Blackberry thing is old as balls and pretty stupid as far as the Presidential situation is concerned. Please, jeopardize national security for fucking brickbreaker. That being said, yes I understand that you're joking with your e-tone, Dork

I cannot fucking believe how big of a deal the media is making of little shit like this blackberry issue and Michelle's outfit on Tuesday. Gimme a fackin break.

[f3lix]

He's a media icon. THEY created him. On policy alone, he'd have been laughed out like many of the candidates are at the beginning.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Blonde, why would you take away my internets for sarcastically complaining about the fucking blackberry, because its "old" news (even though I heard about it 3 times today on television). then go on in your post complaining about it as well?

You wanna talk about it?

[Mr. Blonde]

It's adorable how you add stereotypical pseudo-psychological prompts at the end of your posts, but no, i'm okay. ty.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

BarackBerry Please don't niggerep me

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by TwoBlackEyes

Fine to pen them up, but I believe he intends to actually charge them and try them for real crimes first. That's kinda the point. Habeus corpus and all.

You can't exactly apply habeus corpus to enemy combatants; whose laws did they break? What court are you going to try them in? They aren't POW's either; they weren't taken prisoner during war.

Basically we had the right to blow a justice sized hold through their head the moment they decided to take up arms against us, anything short of that is simply out of convience for us.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by Beebs

You can't exactly apply habeus corpus to enemy combatants; whose laws did they break? What court are you going to try them in? They aren't POW's either; they weren't taken prisoner during war.

Basically we had the right to blow a justice sized hold through their head the moment they decided to take up arms against us, anything short of that is simply out of convience for us.

I think what we are looking for is the Geneva Convention, we want our captured soldiers to be returned intact, not decapitated, mutilated, or left in a prison indefinitely so we have to do the same. We are breaking some major treaties that we signed with most other countries in the world stating we would treat enemies in a certain manner and so would they.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by DDTempest

I think what we are looking for is the Geneva Convention, we want our captured soldiers to be returned intact, not decapitated, mutilated, or left in a prison indefinitely so we have to do the same. We are breaking some major treaties that we signed with most other countries in the world stating we would treat enemies in a certain manner and so would they.

Nope, Geneva convention specifically excludes enemy combatants of the type found at Gitmo.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Nope, Geneva convention specifically excludes enemy combatants of the type found at Gitmo.

Using a loophole doesn't make it right.

[TwoBlackEyes]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Nope, Geneva convention specifically excludes enemy combatants of the type found at Gitmo.

Yeah, but our Constitution doesn't.

If they are not prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva convention, they are covered by our constitution the minute they are taken into our custody.

Yeah, it's "inconvenient" to have to find crimes and proof and all that, but that's the price of freedom. You don't get to change the rules for convenience. Otherwise, why not just get rid of the 4th amendment altogether!

[hfam95]

Originally Posted by TwoBlackEyes

Yeah, but our Constitution doesn't.

If they are not prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva convention, they are covered by our constitution the minute they are taken into our custody.

Yeah, it's "inconvenient" to have to find crimes and proof and all that, but that's the price of freedom. You don't get to change the rules for convenience. Otherwise, why not just get rid of the 4th amendment altogether!

Citation please.

[TwoBlackEyes]

Originally Posted by hfam95

Citation please.

From the constitution:

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.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

What part of the above says that you can decide to name a defendant something else and then treat them differently under the law?

The ONLY way that this would not apply is if they fall under the Geneva conventions, in which: Common article three states that noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even though no one is classified as a prisoner of war.

That last sentence is particularly important, by the way.

The constitution specifically does not mention citizenship as a requirement for a fair trial under the law. If they are being held by our government, they MUST be tried through a "Regularly constituted court" which, by definition, means that it must follow the requirements of our constitution. Including the right to trial by jury, a speedy trial, and proper indictments.

[f3lix]

I hate to say it, but the Bill of Rights have ALL Been violated in the past decade. There's a post somewhere on here about it. The Patriot Act raped 3 amendments alone.

[TwoBlackEyes]

Originally Posted by f3lix

I hate to say it, but the Bill of Rights have ALL Been violated in the past decade. There's a post somewhere on here about it. The Patriot Act raped 3 amendments alone.

Yeah, but fixing that is one of the major things that Obama has campaigned on. Which is why it's cool that he's moving decisively to do just that so soon in his presidency.

[hfam95]

Damn, I've just been pwned. I'll inform the journals of TBE's work for proper publication. (10)

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by TwoBlackEyes

Yeah, but our Constitution doesn't.

If they are not prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva convention, they are covered by our constitution the minute they are taken into our custody.

Yeah, it's "inconvenient" to have to find crimes and proof and all that, but that's the price of freedom. You don't get to change the rules for convenience. Otherwise, why not just get rid of the 4th amendment altogether!

Wow, there are some really large holes in your line of thought; first and foremost, the constitution applies to US citizens only.

I'm all for treating people ethically, but there is no legal mandate in the geneva convention or the constitution to close guantanamo.

It's a detention center for people at war with the US who are not traditional or accepted soldiers, and with that in mind, it is far more than they are owed ethically and especially legally.

[TwoBlackEyes]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Wow, there are some really large holes in your line of thought; first and foremost, the constitution applies to US citizens only.

Citation?

I quoted above where it clearly states that all PEOPLE, not citizens specifically, are entitled to the rights of the constitution. The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing by choosing the word "people" rather than "citizen." The intent was clearly to extend the protections of the constitution to all PEOPLE within its territories. By taking these people into our custody, the penumbra of the constitution covers them as well.

[TwoBlackEyes]

Originally Posted by Beebs

It's a detention center for people at war with the US who are not traditional or accepted soldiers, and with that in mind, it is far more than they are owed ethically and especially legally.

They ARE covered under the Geneva Convention. Per Article 44,

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

( a ) During each military engagement, and

( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by TwoBlackEyes

Citation?

I quoted above where it clearly states that all PEOPLE, not citizens specifically, are entitled to the rights of the constitution. The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing by choosing the word "people" rather than "citizen." The intent was clearly to extend the protections of the constitution to all PEOPLE within its territories. By taking these people into our custody, the penumbra of the constitution covers them as well.

Seriously? I can think of a few people the constitution did not apply to, and they lived in the country.

The constitution is US Law, it is also civilian law, neither of which are applicable to non US citizens engaged in warfare against the US, most notably for people captured outside of the US.

This is really, really, really, fucking basic day 1 stuff.

[SittinOnDubsWGW]

Beebs, you're wrong.

Constitution applies to anyone inside the U.S. Or else my job would be a lot easier and I would never need probable cause to search stash-houses/cars/etc used by illegals You know, that whole 4th amendment and all.

EDIT: This is more regarding your earlier post. there are always situations where things don't apply, but overall, its thought that all people have those rights whenever they are in our country.

[SittinOnDubsWGW]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Seriously? I can think of a few people the constitution did not apply to, and they lived in the country.

The constitution is US Law, it is also civilian law, neither of which are applicable to non US citizens engaged in warfare against the US, most notably for people captured outside of the US.

This is really, really, really, fucking basic day 1 stuff.

What are your examples of your first statement?

Bold part is important, obviously, and I agree with you on that part.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by TwoBlackEyes

They ARE covered under the Geneva Convention. Per Article 44,

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

( a ) During each military engagement, and

( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.

Now go and see what article 5 of the 3rd convention says.

[TwoBlackEyes]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Seriously? I can think of a few people the constitution did not apply to, and they lived in the country.

The constitution is US Law, it is also civilian law, neither of which are applicable to non US citizens engaged in warfare against the US, most notably for people captured outside of the US.

This is really, really, really, fucking basic day 1 stuff.

Really? I suppose that's why the Supreme Court held in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S., At 212 that the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment " 'are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction ...' "

Not to mention "A five-justice majority in Boumediene v. Bush held that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) violated the U.S. constitutional right of the detainees to meaningful habeas corpus review by federal civilian judges. According to the Court, the Constitution prevents the government from barring detainees from rigorous habeas review and instead substituting military fact-finding followed only by a limited right of review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Notably, the Supreme Court did not decide which specific habeas review procedures are required by the Constitution, but instead sent the cases back to the federal district court to litigate that and related issues. The four dissenting justices would have upheld the constitutionality of the MCA's withdrawal of habeas jurisdiction."

But I guess you probably learned about such precedents on day 1 of "making shit up as I go along law academy"