Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Our Constitution

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.
Post a reply

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 15:09:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', ' ')they have 2 front runners who stand the LEAST chance of winning the repug swing votes.


Thats your opinion. Most politicos think Hillary is a very strong and well-funded candidate. Personally, I think Obama is a very exciting candidate. I've read both his books and he is a very very bright and interesting guy.

IMHO, the dugs should stop worrying about the repugs, and just vote for the best person to be president. The dugs turned their back on Howard Dean and tried picking Kerry the war hero last time to attract non-dug voters and it didn't work. 8)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby seahorse2 » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 16:23:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
') this abuse of power has reduced the power of the citizens of the U.S. substantially, since this time.


How does the CIA wiretapping a foreign terrorist in a foreign country "reduce the power" of U.S. citizens? 8)


You assume the domestic wiretapping program does not listen in on US citizens. It is an assumption I'm unwilling to make without verification. Again, as a citizen, I say trust but verify.

Your assumption that the domestic spying program, which we know nothing about bc the Executive refuses to divulge anything about it, assumes it must be Constitutional, simply bc the Executive says it is. Thus, your assumption only shows how meaningless the Constitution is at limiting the power of the gov't. Your assumption shows that the only thing the Constitution limits is the will of the people to take back control of their government.

When the gov't has openly passed laws that do not define a terrorist, when those same laws allow the gov't to suspend the rights of those same undefined people, rights like the right to habeas corpus and the the right to counsel, the right to be free from search and seizure, then it is time to quit assuming the gov't is acting in your best interest. Its time to quit assuming the gov't is acting Constitutional when the gov't will no longer divulge, not even to Congress, the details of things like the domestic spying program. The Constitution was not intended to be a shield for government actions, it was intended to be a limitation, but those limitations have been breached.

What people like Jefferson could not have imagined was how quickly people would automatically assume that, since gov't power was limited on paper, that the gov't would respect the limitations on that paper. But power only respects only power, and, left unchecked, will seek more power. The gov't formed was formed and limited by the power of the people opposed to it, reflected in the fact that the people were opposed to a strong Federal Gov't virtually couldn't agree to form any gov't. So, initially anyway, our Federal gov't was very restricted by a people opposed to a strong Fed gov't.

But, as is the nature of things, Fed power increased over the years and generations. Its the nature of things. Gov't power expanded in the vacuum of power left by a people who now mistake freedom with their right to shop in the store of their choice. I have no doubt that in the vacuum left by the people, facism has taken its place, much, apparently, to the satisfaction of a people who's way of life is no longer negotiable. Unfortunately, that way of life is no longer about the exportation and preservation of democratic ideals, but the culture of excess and greed reflected in the SUV, a culture so ripe for the fascist corporate state that has now taken over.
User avatar
seahorse2
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 17:34:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Seahorse2', '
')You assume the domestic wiretapping program does not listen in on US citizens.


Nonsense. I made no such assumption.

Try re-reading my words that you just quoted. They say nothing like that.

A wiretapping program tapping phones in the US is a domestic wiretapping program while a tap on a phone in a foreign country is a foreign wiretapping program. There is a difference between domestic and foreign in terms of US law. Are you with me so far?

There is no domestic wiretapping program involving the CIA.....Is your distress caused by the fact that the CIA is placing taps on the phones of foreigners in foreign countries without getting prior judicial approval? The CIA has NEVER been required to get prior US judicial approval for spying overseas. :roll:
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby threadbear » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 17:39:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
') this abuse of power has reduced the power of the citizens of the U.S. substantially, since this time.


How does the CIA wiretapping a foreign terrorist in a foreign country "reduce the power" of U.S. citizens? 8)


I was referring to more than one type of undermining of citizens's rights. The CIA has wiretapped domestically AND illegally in the past, though. Legally speaking, the NSA is allowed to wiretap domestically, but have required a warrant to do so. I believe the current concern is that the administration will push to have that basic requirement and protection deleted from law.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 17:42:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
') this abuse of power has reduced the power of the citizens of the U.S. substantially, since this time.


How does the CIA wiretapping a foreign terrorist in a foreign country "reduce the power" of U.S. citizens? 8)


The CIA has wiretapped domestically AND illegally in the past


It is against the law for the CIA to wiretap anyone in the U.S. Anyone doing so should fired and prosecuted to the limit of the law. 8)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby threadbear » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 17:46:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', ' ')they have 2 front runners who stand the LEAST chance of winning the repug swing votes.


Thats your opinion. Most politicos think Hillary is a very strong and well-funded candidate. Personally, I think Obama is a very exciting candidate. I've read both his books and he is a very very bright and interesting guy.

IMHO, the dugs should stop worrying about the repugs, and just vote for the best person to be president. The dugs turned their back on Howard Dean and tried picking Kerry the war hero last time to attract non-dug voters and it didn't work. 8)



You're about as subtle as a narc at a rock concert. Your posts don't resonate. They lack any really kind of conviction. Weird. Howard Dean was destroyed by MSM (Dean scream) because he wasn't an "endorsed" candidate. They will NEVER allow a grass roots populist to get ahead. Never.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby seahorse2 » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 17:47:07

Plantagenet,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')onsense. I made no such assumption.

Try re-reading my words that you just quoted. They say nothing like that.

A wiretapping program tapping phones in the US is a domestic wiretapping program while a tap on a phone in a foreign country is a foreign wiretapping program. There is a difference between domestic and foreign in terms of US law. Are you with me so far?


I'm with you, you keep saying the same thing, that the US isn't listening in on calls in the US. You assume they aren't tapping US phones. This is an assumption, unless you work for the NSA and are willing to go on record here about the domestic wiretap program, and provide the necessary documents to verify your claims. Its the old trust but verify. Without verification, which you haven't provided, there is no trust.
User avatar
seahorse2
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 18:07:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', ' ')You assume they aren't tapping US phones. This is an assumption, unless you work for the NSA and are willing to go on record here about the domestic wiretap program, and provide the necessary documents to verify your claims. Its the old trust but verify. Without verification, which you haven't provided, there is no trust.


You assume the CIA is tapping US phones. This is an assumption, unless you work for the NSA and are willing to go on record here about the CIA domestic wiretap program you are assuming exists, and provide the necessary documents to verify your claims. Its the old trust but verify. Without verification, which you haven't provided, there is no trust. 8)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 18:13:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')
You're about as subtle as a narc at a rock concert. Your posts don't resonate. They lack any really kind of conviction. Weird. Howard Dean was destroyed by MSM (Dean scream) because he wasn't an "endorsed" candidate. They will NEVER allow a grass roots populist to get ahead. Never.



You're about as subtle as vice cop on the make. Your posts are empty and hollow and meaningless. Bizarre. Howard Dean was destroyed because he was hit by nasty attack ads in Iowa funded anonymously by Kerry backers, and he lost in Iowa and never recovered. There have been plenty of "grass roots populists" who were nominated, the most recent being McGovern. Obama may very well be the next.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby threadbear » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 18:21:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '[')
You're about as subtle as vice cop on the make. Your posts are empty and hollow and meaningless. Bizarre. Howard Dean was destroyed because he was hit by nasty attack ads in Iowa funded anonymously by Kerry backers, and he lost in Iowa and never recovered. There have been plenty of "grass roots populists" who were nominated, the most recent being McGovern. Obama may very well be the next.


Many grass roots populists nominated. The most recent being....are we ready for this? McGovern??? Wait a minute, grab your history books!

And you absolutely support my premise that a populist will NEVER be allowed to rise above the marginal in national politics, by either party. You're splitting hairs.

Obama is endorsed because he's a made man of the Matrix and one of the few candidates, including Hillary, who CAN be defeated by Ghouliani.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 18:25:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '[')
Obama is endorsed because he's a made man of the Matrix and one of the few candidates, including Hillary, who CAN be defeated by Ghouliani.




Have a great day! Don't let the Matrix get you!!1 8)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby seahorse2 » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 19:02:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', ' ')You assume they aren't tapping US phones. This is an assumption, unless you work for the NSA and are willing to go on record here about the domestic wiretap program, and provide the necessary documents to verify your claims. Its the old trust but verify. Without verification, which you haven't provided, there is no trust.


You assume the CIA is tapping US phones. This is an assumption, unless you work for the NSA and are willing to go on record here about the CIA domestic wiretap program you are assuming exists, and provide the necessary documents to verify your claims. Its the old trust but verify. Without verification, which you haven't provided, there is no trust. 8)


No Plantagenet, there's a big difference between my assuming the gov't is tapping its citizens and your assuming it isn't. You assume against my rights, I assume for them. The first difference between you and I is the fact that our Constitution is, by definition, a limitation of gov't power. It was a novel attempt to limit gov't power in writing, bc the framers believed that the gov't would exceed its power if not expressly limited in writing. I also share this Constitutional assumption, that, if given the chance, gov't will exceed its authority.

So, has the gov't exceeded its Constitutional powers by violating the rights of its citizens? Yes. This isn't an assumption. We know the Constitution grants us all the right to habeas corpus and the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the 5th Amendment right to counsel. We also know that the gov't has recently passed various laws saying these rights can be taken away in this undeclared war on terrorism against anyone it deems an unlawful enemy combatant, a yet another undefined term. What this means is that the gov't can arrest citizens now, and there would be no public record of it. If you don't think this can happen, it already has. Just look at what happened in the Padilla case where he was locked away for over a year without being charged and without the right to speak to an attorney, and this was done before the gov't even had a statute allowing it to take the position it could legally do so. So, we know it has happened once, why hasn't it happened other times. If it did, we would never know about it. I'm not willing to assume the best, when the worst has already happened.

We also know that there is a domestic wiretapping policy in this ongoing war on terror, a policy that that the Executive refuses to disclose the details on, even to Congress (arguably representatives of the people). I'm unwilling to assume the best, when the Constitution itself assumes that the gov't will exceed its powers if not limited, especially when we have proof in the case of Padilla and the other laws like the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act that the gov't believes it can arrest citizens, hold them, not charge them, and never let them see an attorney.

So, taken in context, the Constitution assumes with me that a gov't will act beyond its powers if not limited, and that is exactly what we see happening in this war on terror.

You and I are talking about the rights of citizens. You assume they the gov't will limit itself and not act outside the limitations of the Constitution, which flies in the face of having a written constitution in the first place. I assume with the Constitution, and also based on the best available evidence, the gov't is infringing on the people's rights. In the end, the burden of proof is on the gov't, not me, because the Constitution is a limitation on their power, not mine. Again, the Constitution is not a shield for their actions, it is a limitation on them.

The Constitution assumes the very worse about the abuses of gov't power, and so do I. My position is one which would have the Executive, at a minimum, verify this new use of power, not countenance hiding it in the dark from the people it is sworn to protect. With your assumption, you risk losing right under your Constitution, or do you care? In fact, you've already lost, but you won't see that until you've boarded the train to nowhere. You may not care about your rights, but I care about mine. I'm not boarding that train with you. Go ahead, and shield your government. You are a willing fascist.

There are only two sides in this issue, and you're not on mine. I'm at that point. Its fortunate for you and people like you, that you can hide behind the internet and not be held accountable, just like the Executive can hide behind its layers of Executive orders and other b.s. laws and not be held accountable to the people. That day is coming though. Its only a question of time.

Maybe I will see you someday, when that day of accountability comes. We need to come up with a phrase or code word, so that we will recognize each other when we come face to face.

Like I said earlier, I'm not here to debate this anymore. There are only two sides, and we are opposites. Nothing personal I assure you.
User avatar
seahorse2
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby seahorse2 » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 19:25:10

There is one last thing, as a history major, much has been written about why Germans did nothing to stop the rise of the Nazis. For example, clearly even non-Nazis were aware and contributed to the building of concentration camps, but still it happened, why?

In my mind, the Germans enjoyed their rise out of poverty, their growing economy, their rising status as a world power too much to worry about people's rights. For them, like us, their way of life became nonnegotiable.

You may believe that its unfair to compare Nazi Germany to our present gov't, but, we are also building "detention facilities" in this new war on terror, and surprise surprise, Halliburton got the contract.

Halliburton Press Release
User avatar
seahorse2
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 19:36:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '[')
Obama is endorsed because he's a made man of the Matrix and one of the few candidates, including Hillary, who CAN be defeated by Ghouliani.




Have a great day! Don't let the Matrix get you!! 8)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 20:43:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', '
')So, has the gov't exceeded its Constitutional powers by violating the rights of its citizens? Yes. This isn't an assumption. We know the Constitution grants us all the right to habeas corpus and the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the 5th Amendment right to counsel. We also know that the gov't has recently passed various laws saying these rights can be taken away in this undeclared war on terrorism against anyone it deems an unlawful enemy combatant, a yet another undefined term.


Again, you seem confused by the different between domestic criminal law and international military law.

An "unlawful combatant" is not an undefined term, as you claim. The rules defining Lawful combatants and unlawful combatants are laid out in the Geneva Conventions governming international military justice.

POWs (i.e. "lawful combatants" captured during war) have NEVER been subject to habeus corpus. Captured unlawful combatants such as saboteurs and terrorists who target innocent civilians are entitled to even lower levels of protection under the Geneva Conventions. In fact, unlawful combatants who murder unarmed civilians simply to terrorize the other side are considered war criminals. The Geneva Conventions say that unlawful combatants like spies and terrorists can be summarily executed when captured.

Let me repeat that. Unlawful combatants are not entitled to habeus corpus under the Geneva Conventions. In fact, they can be summarily executed when captured or they can be transferred into civilian courts and tried for murder or other crimes.

Uniformed soldiers are lawful combatants. They cannot be tried for carrying out their duty according to the Geneva Conventions. Soldiers cannot be tried as murderers for the casualties produced by their past military attacks. Unlawful combatants can be tried for murder and other crimes according to the Geneva Conventions, and a few of the captured Al Qaida terrorists have indeed been tried in the US justice system.

The fact that a few unlawful combatants were tried in US courts evidently has confused you and other people with similar views into thinking that they all must be tried in the US justice system. That doesn't follow. The folks at Guantanamo are, in effect, POWs.

The reality of the situation is that the US has graciously chosen to treat the unlawful combatants captured from Al Qaida as POWS, and we've treated them in the same way we would treat uniformed soldiers (i.e. lawful combatants) who were POWs.

Unless you are in league with Al Qaida and plotting to carry out domestic attacks, I don't think you have to worry about being detained as an unlawful combatant!! :P :P :P :P

Cheers! 8)
Last edited by Plantagenet on Tue 11 Dec 2007, 20:50:45, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby threadbear » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 20:48:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', '
')So, has the gov't exceeded its Constitutional powers by violating the rights of its citizens? Yes. This isn't an assumption. We know the Constitution grants us all the right to habeas corpus and the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the 5th Amendment right to counsel. We also know that the gov't has recently passed various laws saying these rights can be taken away in this undeclared war on terrorism against anyone it deems an unlawful enemy combatant, a yet another undefined term.


Again, you seem confused by the different between domestic criminal law and international military law.

An "unlawful combatant" is not an undefined term, as you claim. The rules defining Lawful combatants and unlawful combatants are laid out in the Geneva Conventions governming international military justice.

POWs (i.e. "lawful combatants" captured during war) have NEVER been subject to habeus corpus. Captured unlawful combatants such as saboteurs and terrorists who target innocent civilians are entitled to even lower levels of protection under the Geneva Conventions. In fact, unlawful combatants who murder unarmed civilians simply to terrorize the other side are considered war criminals. The Geneva Conventions say that unlawful combatants like spies and terrorists can be summarily executed when captured.

Let me repeat that. Unlawful combatants are not entitled to habeus corpus under the Geneva Conventions. In fact, they can be summarily executed when captured.

The reality of the situation is that the US has graciusly chosen to treat the unlawful combatants captured from Al Qaida in the same way we would treat uniformed soldiers (i.e. lawful combatants).

Cheers! 8)


"Enemy combatants" is a designation that has been broadened to include citizens of the U.S. You're a bit behind the times. This was passed in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 20:58:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')"Enemy combatants" is a designation that has been broadened to include citizens of the U.S. This was passed in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/


You're a bit behind the times. Nothing was "passed" in 2003 and the designation wasn't "broadened" in 2003. The concept of what we are variously calling "unlawful combatants" and "enemy combatants" has existed in US law for over a century. An Appeals Court judge made a ruling to that effect in 2003, consistent with 150 years of past US court rulings.

There is absolutely nothing new about detaining "enemy combatants". Roosevelt declared captured German-Americans saboteurs to be enemy combatants in WWII, and Lincoln declared various spies and saboteurs for the south to be enemy combatants and ordered them detained during the Civil War. :roll:
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby threadbear » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 21:04:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')"Enemy combatants" is a designation that has been broadened to include citizens of the U.S. This was passed in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/


You're a bit behind the times. Nothing was "passed" in 2003. An Appeals Court judge made a ruling to that effect in 2003. That ruling just confirmed 150 years of past US court rulings.

There is nothing new about "enemy combatants". Roosevelt declared captured German-Americans saboteurs to be enemy combatants in WWII, and Lincoln declared various spies and saboteurs for the south to be enemy combatants and ordered them detained. :roll:


Why did the broadened inclusions have to be passed in a court of law if it was already on the books?
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 23:20:29

Courts don't "pass" laws.

Cheers! [smilie=occasion14.gif]
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Our Constitution

Unread postby seahorse » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 23:24:20

Plantagent,

You're ignorance is overwhelming. Where do I begin, how about this:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou're a bit behind the times. Nothing was "passed" in 2003 and the designation wasn't "broadened" in 2003.


So, nothing has changed since 2003? You knuckle head, The Military Commissions Act, which we've been discussing, was passed in 2006. It does away with habeas corpus, 4th and 5th Amendments for an unlawful enemy combatant. It has never been interpreted by a US court. It applies to US citizens and non US citizens alike.

Military Commissions Act wiki

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')oosevelt declared captured German-Americans saboteurs to be enemy combatants in WWII, and Lincoln declared various spies and saboteurs for the south to be enemy combatants and ordered them detained during the Civil War.


There is a big difference between WWII, the Civil War, and now. First, in both previous cases Congress passed declarations of war, unlike here. Second, in both previous cases, they were wars against political states, unlike here. Neither situation exists now in this undeclared war on "unlawful enemy combatants" which is you.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')gain, you seem confused by the different between domestic criminal law and international military law.


No, I'm not confused, you are. The Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act are domestic criminal laws and have nothing to do with international law as you suggest. They are not part of the Geneva Convention or part of some recognized treaty with other countries. You're ignorant to think otherwise, but you are good concentration camp guard material.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Geneva Conventions say that unlawful combatants like spies and terrorists can be summarily executed when captured.

Let me repeat that. Unlawful combatants are not entitled to habeus corpus under the Geneva Conventions. In fact, they can be summarily executed when captured or they can be transferred into civilian courts and tried for murder or other crimes.


Well, I say again, this time with a bullhorn so maybe you will listen, THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT AND THE PATRIOT ACT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GENEVA CONVENTION. THEY ARE DOMESTIC LAWS APPLYING TO U.S. CITIZENS.

Plantagenet, its become obvious to me that the gov't would never view you as a threat. They don't view you as a threat, bc you're not a threat. Me, on the other hand, that blanket of democracy just doesn't provide the warmth that it used to on these cold December nights. After all, without people like you, I would have nothing to worry about.
User avatar
seahorse
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2275
Joined: Fri 15 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Arkansas
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron