Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)


No bureaucracy has ever had such a perfect record. I doubt this is the first.

I agree with that 100%. However, you all are applying the standard of our domestic legal system. It is generally believed that in our criminal justic system it is better to have 100 guilty men go free than have one innocent man go to jail. When it comes to combating terrorism outside of our domestic criminal justic system, I would drop it down to one v. ten. Maybe even lower.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Perhaps You All Have Discussed This Already (I'm not going back to catch up), but I've been wondering all week - -

Why do John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham, and Colin Powell hate America?

Second question -- what do those men all have in common that many of the folks on the other side of the debate do not share?
They all served honorably in our military -- where the rubber met the road.

That is something that really highlights the difference between the U.S. and many other countries (i.e. the professional military and law enforcement tend to be less enthused about the various special methods being employed in the "War on Terror", and more concerned about civil liberties, than are the enthusiastic amateurs.) I think that speaks well for the training -- keeps them from just taking over.

S_A_M:seenno:

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is false, and what is annoying is that we have had this discussion before -- and I have told you that you're wrong -- but it seems you prefer your own conception of the Constitution to reality.

if there is ever another democratic president I hope he makes Ty a Federal Judge. his level of conceit is pathetic, and simply off putting from anyone who does not sit in such a chair.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Same thing if people are being tortured? They get no ability to go to court, and just have to hope that Congress "implements some oversight"?

Yes

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

S_A_M:seenno:

Good use of Smilies. I have no problem with congress making sure our military doesn't run amuck. They wanted these things stopped and the laws changed. But did any of them suggest that the prisoners in Iraq be given access to our court system?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are talking about domestic issues. We fought the revolution so our own government could not discard our rights. Not so our government had to respect someone in Russia's rights. The executive has unchecked power when it comes to foreign policy or military matters. The only check on this power is the Congress not the courts. That is the way it has always been.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal.

Not American citizens. All men. You don't have rights because your country gave them to you.

Moreover, your notion that the executive has always had "unchecked power when it comes to foreign policy or military matters" -- while consistent with GOP talking points of the last five years -- has never been the accepted view of the Constitution. We have a government of checks and balances. That, too, is one of the most fundamental aspects of our government. We do not trust government, and we give it limited powers, not unchecked authority.

Man. You just don't get it. This is a blanket statement that is so general it is meaningless. You say "if the executive branch is unchecked by the judisiary or the legislature we have no rights." That is true but that is not what we are talking about. We are not saying the the executive branch is unchecked - it is check domestically just no internationally. That is a huge distinction you are ignoring, and the fact that you won't acknowledge that makes all your comments ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting that denying foreigners habeas corpus will mean that the rest of us will be living in a totalitarian regime. I'm saying that if you don't think that foreigners deserve basic human rights, then you don't have much business trying to export your view of democracy to the rest of the world, for it is a hollow one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
No I explained why your wrong. You never explained why my conception of the Constitution is wrong.

But maybe I am wrong. Why don't you lay out which constitutional rights apply equal to aliens. In other words, which constitutional rights apply to all people all over the world.

(And not offline - my experience is people try to go off line when they realize their argument is lame and just don't want it subject to the general public. If it is not worth posting, it is not worth my reading).

I go off-line when I don't want to talk about substantive law that will out me. So I'll keep it more general. The First Amendment, I think you will find, applies to aliens and non-aliens alike. Only citizens get to vote, and to hold some sorts of government jobs (police officer?). All aliens get some sorts of due process protections, even in immigration proceedings relating to their attempted entry into the country. Aliens have a right to due process -- e.g., adequate notice -- in immigration proceedings. The Equal Protection Clause allows the federal government to distinguish between legal permanent residents and more transient aliens in giving government benefits. The Equal Protection Clause forbids states from discriminating between citizens and non-citizens in many types of hiring decisions and in giving government benefits.

And so on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ok. So then we agree these people have no rights under the US constitution.

No, I said earlier why I didn't want to have that discussion. Do you read selectively?

I think Congress should pass laws restriciting the Executive branch from doing whatever the hell it wants with prisoners. I also think that Congress should make sure the Executive branch is following its directives. But I don't think Congress should give these people acess to the domestic court system. The military court system, maybe, but not the domestic court system.

If you are a Chinese citizen (e.g.) being tortured in U.S. custody overseas, you're just SOL unless the Chinese government or Congress takes some interest in your plight? You just can't go to court to try to get it to stop?

eta: You already answered this above. So how about this: What if Congress passes a law that says that federal courts have no jurisdiction over any takings claim brought by or on behalf of foreign nationals? If a foreign citizen's property is taken by the government, it's wrong -- in theory -- but they can't sue. They have to hope that Congress or their own government brings the issue up.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal.

Not American citizens. All men. You don't have rights because your country gave them to you.

Constitution = law of the land.

Declaration of Independence = statement of Natural Law principles.

And as irrelevant for this discussion as the Magna Carta.

[Spanky]

You said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The I asked:

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?

Why don't you answer this question? I am really curious to know.

Over dinner the other night (Less's birthday) Slave was blabbing on and on what a smart guy you are and how well you elucidate the liberal position (I would have argued with him but I was stealing mash potatoes off Slave’s plate). His significant other (and I am not sure how he landed her - the only reason I can think a quality dame like that would hang out with him is if he has something on her - or is holding her parents hostage) agreed with that assessment. Less also agreed. You have quite a fan club. Less and Slave are nothing to brag about, but Slave's significant other is.


So assuming your fan club is right, I am interested to know what rights you think these people should have and how much access we shold give them to our court system?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
If you are a Chinese citizen (e.g.) being tortured in U.S. custody overseas, you're just SOL unless the Chinese government or Congress takes some interest in your plight? You just can't go to court to try to get it to stop?

Cite please.

Otherwise, once again, you are screaming "fire" in the theatre.

PS - nice example, BTW, given as how the Chinese treat mere political dissidents.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Constitution = law of the land.

Declaration of Independence = statement of Natural Law principles.

And as irrelevant for this discussion as the Magna Carta.

I was kinda suspecting that conservatives think that the principles upon which this nation was founded are irrelevant to the way that we choose to treat foreigners, but I am happy to have you put it so bluntly.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if there is ever another democratic president I hope he makes Ty a Federal Judge. his level of conceit is pathetic, and simply off putting from anyone who does not sit in such a chair.

If I ever became president, I would put you, Hank, Slave, Ty, Sidd and Taxwonk all on the Supreme court (obviously I would have my operatives rubb out a few justices). How much fun would that be. It would be my gift to future law students so they wouldn't have to read that dull tripe the current Supreme Court calls opinions and dissents.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Cite please.

Otherwise, once again, you are screaming "fire" in the theatre.

PS - nice example, BTW, given as how the Chinese treat mere political dissidents.

Cite for Spanky's view that the law should permit this?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
If I ever became president, I would put you, Hank, Slave, Ty, Sidd and Taxwonk all on the Supreme court (obviously I would have my operatives rubb out a few justices). How much fun would that be. It would be my gift to future law students so they wouldn't have to read that dull tripe the current Supreme Court calls opinions and dissents.

Being a Supreme Court justice could be a really cool job, but it could also suck. It would so much depend on the other eight justices. No offense to Justice Souter, who surely is a jurisprude, but I don't think he'd be a hoot to work with.