Posting Towards Gomorrah

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we can kill people by targeted assination, but we can't hold on to them while we decide if we should kill them?

I ain't a smart man spanky, and these guys make my head hurt when I try and read their posts. I guess I should feel better that they confuse you too.

Can you please suppress your sig line when posting on this board? Thanks.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The provision I quoted from the Constitution also says nothing about whether the writ is available only to citizens, nor does it say it is only available to petitioners in the US.

The whole constitution is limited to US citizens. Or does the bill of rights extend all human being in the world? As far as I know the Constitution does not say that the Bill of Rights only extends to US citizens. Does anyone human being any where in the world have the right to come to the US and demonstrate here. Or demonstrate at one of our emabssies? Do all human beings in the world get to vote in our elections?

Originally posted by taxwonk
If you read it again, you'll see that it is the ability of the executive to suspend the writ that is limited by actions in the US. So, you are again, wrong.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Originally posted by taxwonk The conversation was also about foreign persons under custody of officers and agents of the United States, which is subject to the Constitution no matter where it operates.

That may be true, but was does the constitution say about it. Does the constitution mention how foreign nationals are to be treated by the US government? Does the Constitution mention how prisoners of war are to be treated by officers of the US government?

Originally posted by taxwonk Finally, I was responding to a statement you made where Ty had clearly stipulated the petitioner was innocent. Once again, that would make you...wrong.

How would the fact of whether or not the detainee was innocent or not affect their rights or lack of rights under the US constitution?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
The whole constitution is limited to US citizens. Or does the bill of rights extend all human being in the world? As far as I know the Constitution does not say that the Bill of Rights only extends to US citizens. Does anyone human being any where in the world have the right to come to the US and demonstrate here. Or demonstrate at one of our emabssies? Do all human beings in the world get to vote in our elections?

what about the space aliens we're holding in Roswell? Taxwonk. Constitutionally ok?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Furthermore, I'm not saying that all hostile combatants are entitled to the full range of protections of the Constitution. What I said was, that the executive branch of the US government cannot avoid its obligation to follow the laws of the US and the Constitution simply by carrying out actions that would be unlawful here on foreign soil.

So if Hostile combatants are not entitled to the full range of protections of the Consitution, what protections are they entitled to and which one are they not?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
The whole constitution is limited to US citizens. Or does the bill of rights extend all human being in the world? As far as I know the Constitution does not say that the Bill of Rights only extends to US citizens. Does anyone human being any where in the world have the right to come to the US and demonstrate here. Or demonstrate at one of our emabssies? Do all human beings in the world get to vote in our elections?



I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

In addition to defining the rights of citizens, the Constitution also helps to define the powers of the various branches of the federal government. I am not talking about whther or not a foreign citizen is protected by the Constitution, I am talking about whether or not the military has the power under the Constitution to sieze and detain anyone it chooses anywhere in the world. That is part of what the writ of habeus corpus is about - not merely whether or not someone is innocent or guilty, but whether or not the government has the power to hold them.

That may be true, but was does the constitution say about it. Does the constitution mention how foreign nationals are to be treated by the US government? Does the Constitution mention how prisoners of war are to be treated by officers of the US government?

Among other things, the Constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war. It also provides that the executive has the power to enter into treaties, upon the advice and consent of the Senate, and that once these treaties ared entered into, neither the executive nor the several states can abridge rights granted under such treaties.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what about the space aliens we're holding in Roswell? Taxwonk. Constitutionally ok?

I have no idea what you're talikng about. It was nice knowing you, Hank. Does someone here know your real identity so they can explain to your wife and kids?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
So if Hostile combatants are not entitled to the full range of protections of the Consitution, what protections are they entitled to and which one are they not?

Let's try to simplify this by taking the discussion into another hypothetical.

Can we agree that US soldiers cannot rape civilian women in Iraq? I am talking about the law that prohibits the soldier from raping. Whether or not the woman has a legal right of relief under US law has nothing to do with this side of the equation.

Okay, by the same token, the writ of habeus corpus is not based upon any rights per se a foreign person has or doesn't have under the Bill of Rights. the writ is brought solely to determine whether or not the military acted within its rights and powers in taking the foreign person into custody.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I have no idea what you're talikng about. It was nice knowing you, Hank. Does someone here know your real identity so they can explain to your wife and kids?

Just fringey, but I am not allowed to say she is my friend on the PB

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
All I was saying is that it is a bit inconsistent for you to assert simultaneously that human rights are based on a universal moral code but that the US need not respect the human rights of people if their own government doesn't.

You don't find those two positions at odds?

Well if there is no univeral moral code, why do we care about how we treat prisoners at all.

So if you are worried about how we treat prisoners you believe that there is certain morality that should be applied to all human beings.

But if you think that, what morality do we apply to foreigners and what morality do we not apply?

You stated: "Furthermore, I'm not saying that all hostile combatants are entitled to the full range of protections of the Constitution."

So clearly you think some of our morality applied to them but not all.

I believe that all human beings should be afforded certain rights by their governments. That is the world we want to achieve. That is the best way to make the Universal Moral Code a reality. Many governments now respect human rights and we want to extend that. But when trying to extend those human rights, placing restriction on the United States in an arena where in that same arena the enemy doesn't have those restrictions doesn't help the cause for universal human rights.

From a practical point of view, for example, giving German prisoners of war full access to our constitutional protections (which are part of the UMC) would have made it more difficult and may have stopped our effort in bringing the priviledge of living under a government that provides the UMC to millions of people.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Just fringey, but I can't say she is my friend on the PB

A shame. Oh well, c'est la vie. Well, c'est ma vie, anyway.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well if there is no univeral moral code, why do we care about how we treat prisoners at all.

So if you are worried about how we treat prisoners you believe that there is certain morality that should be applied to all human beings.

But if you think that, what morality do we apply to foreigners and what morality do we not apply?

You stated: "Furthermore, I'm not saying that all hostile combatants are entitled to the full range of protections of the Constitution."

So clearly you think some of our morality applied to them but not all.

I believe that all human beings should be afforded certain rights by their governments. That is the world we want to achieve. That is the best way to make the Universal Moral Code a reality. Many governments now respect human rights and we want to extend that. But when trying to extend those human rights, placing restriction on the United States in an arena where in that same arena the enemy doesn't have those restrictions doesn't help the cause for universal human rights.

From a practical point of view, for example, giving German prisoners of war full access to our constitutional protections (which are part of the UMC) would have made it more difficult and may have stopped our effort in bringing the priviledge of living under a government that provides the UMC to millions of people.

I wasn't discussing how I would treat prisoners. I was pointing out a discrepancy in how you say you would treat prisoners and what you say about how human rights are based on a universal moral code.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In addition to defining the rights of citizens, the Constitution also helps to define the powers of the various branches of the federal government. I am not talking about whther or not a foreign citizen is protected by the Constitution, I am talking about whether or not the military has the power under the Constitution to sieze and detain anyone it chooses anywhere in the world. That is part of what the writ of habeus corpus is about - not merely whether or not someone is innocent or guilty, but whether or not the government has the power to hold them.

I think you are wrong here. I don't think the writ of habeas corpus laid out in the constitution applies to how the officers of the federal government can treat foreign citizens.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Among other things, the Constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war. It also provides that the executive has the power to enter into treaties, upon the advice and consent of the Senate, and that once these treaties ared entered into, neither the executive nor the several states can abridge rights granted under such treaties.

I said: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That may be true, but was does the constitution say about it. Does the constitution mention how foreign nationals are to be treated by the US government? Does the Constitution mention how prisoners of war are to be treated by officers of the US government?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you really think the above quote answered my question?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Let's try to simplify this by taking the discussion into another hypothetical.

Can we agree that US soldiers cannot rape civilian women in Iraq? I am talking about the law that prohibits the soldier from raping. Whether or not the woman has a legal right of relief under US law has nothing to do with this side of the equation.

No they can't but that is because they are restricted from doing so by the Congress, not by the US Constitution. And their redress is through the military courts, and such redress was created by Congress, not a right created through the Consitution. Congress is the protector of the rapees here, not the US Constitution or court system.

Originally posted by taxwonk Okay, by the same token, the writ of habeus corpus is not based upon any rights per se a foreign person has or doesn't have under the Bill of Rights. the writ is brought solely to determine whether or not the military acted within its rights and powers in taking the foreign person into custody.

I don't believe the writ of Habeas Corpus applies at all to its conduct when dealing with foreign citizens over seas. Any restriction placed on the army's conduct, or priviledges it must give foreign citizens, is placed on it by congress. Not by the Constitution.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I wasn't discussing how I would treat prisoners. I was pointing out a discrepancy in how you say you would treat prisoners and what you say about how human rights are based on a universal moral code.

I think Congress should decide how we treat prisoners and what is done with them. But they are not provided any protection under the US constituion. And I would not like Congress to extend oversight to the courts. I think they should keep the oversight themselves. Extending it to the courts would make it to difficult to fight the war on terror.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Of course they are inalieable. But that doesn't mean it is the US government jobs to enforce such rights for all human being. The Declaration of Independence gave people the right to rise up against governments that abuse rights. It did not place an obligation on US citizens to extend these rights everywhere.

As far as the obligations of the US government they are alienable. That is why the US government doesn't have to go around enforcing such rights all over the world every time another govenrment abuses them.

Jefferson did send the marines to Tripoli. Do you think that all the "world citizens" that our armed forces faced off against when we invaded Tripoli were given the full protections of the US constitution as if they were US citizens, or that Jefferson expected our armed forces to extend them such protections?

We're not talking about any obligation on the part of the US government when, e.g., Libya jails Libyans. We're talking about what happens when the US government jails, e.g., Libyans. You are suggesting that the US government can jail (e.g.) Libyans indefinitely, without giving them the chance to challenge this in court, just so long as it happens outside the 50 United States. (Or maybe you think that foreigners in the United States should be jailed in this way, too.)