DescentBB

Well the liberals, along with their allies in the courts, have forced the military to abide by their wishes of ending the so called prisoner abuse in Gitmo.
The military has decided to send the prisoners back to Afganistan, Iraq or what ever country these morally upstanding rights deprived individuals hail from.
Now the self same anti-abuse bunch are complaining that the prisoners may face torture in their country of origin. So on the one hand the prisoners were being abused in our militaries hands and now the prisoners may face even worse conditions once they are repatriated. So what did the libbies think? Somehow the Gitmo residents were going to be transferred to a American civilian jail where they could get free lawyers, be bailed out and then get to roam the American landscape at will until their court date?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha

I think the liberals were just thinking that it was time for the military to stop humiliating and abusing their prisioners and treat them like human beings who have inalienable rights.

Doesnt that little phrase appear a few times in some of our most important documents?

Better than keeping them there with absolutely no legal status. This is by no means a "liberal" issue; it's a constitutional one. Besides, whatever happens to them now back home, it's not our problem.

woodchip wrote:....So what did the libbies think? Somehow the Gitmo residents were going to be transferred to a American civilian jail where they could get free lawyers, be bailed out and then get to roam the American landscape at will until their court date?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Well of course they did! How else could the media elites get access to them so they could run 24/7 news updates across our television screens so as to "report" on the abuse we put them through.

PS: Avder and Top Gun, where in the constitution does it offer rights to foreign spys and prisoners of war?

Will Robinson wrote: PS: Avder and Top Gun, where in the constitution does it offer rights to foreign spys and prisoners of war?

Or for that matter, since when does the Constitution apply to non-Americans? That's the heart of this debate.

Arguing that the Constitution applies to people who are not citizens and have not obtained visas is esentially violating the sovereignty of our country and other countries. When I leave America, I am expected to abide by the laws of other countries. To say that America's Constitutional rights protect non-Americans is a violation of the other countries' autonomy. In some ways that counters the whole "America should not be exerting its will on other countries". It's a very sticky situation... supporting American Constitutional rights for all people tramples on the autonomy of of other countries' domestic policy. Supporting only Constitutional rights for Americans violates the revolutionary spirit embodied in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal". At the same time, the argument is strong that the sense in which that line was written is totally different from the way it is interpreted today, and/or that our country is NOT governed by the Declaration but the Constitution.

Personally, I think if you read the preamble to the Constitution, it is clear that the document is construed to apply only to this country and its citizens.

The Forefathers wrote: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, [...] insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [...] and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The constitution only applies to Americans.

The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal", and the specific rights it refers to (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) apply to those who are not Americans as well as those who are.

BUT... just as Americans can lose their rights if they infringe upon the rights of others (see, for example, the thread about felons voting), non-Americans can also lose their rights if they infringe upon the rights of others.

The real debate is over this question: what rights do people retain even after committing certain crimes? Really, a lot of debates we've had here come down to that -- do people retain the right to life after committing murder (death penalty)? Do people retain the right to self-determination after committing certain crimes (felons voting)? Do people retain the right to be comfortable even after they've been involved in attacks on civilians from another country (Gitmo, etc.)? And so on...

In this case, both sides have to give a little -- but the side whining about prisoner abuse, and then whining when the prisoners are let go, has to give a lot more.

The bottom line I think is that if we want the world to believe that were an enlightened nation outr representitives abroad and at home need to start acting in a superior manner.

The rights of the Constitution may not apply to non-citizens, but from what I've heard, this is an issue that has been debated to some extent. Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that some of the prisoners there were actual US citizens. Has there been any word about them? And wouldn't you agree that indefinitely detaining US citizens without pressing charges is blatantly unconstitutional?

Yes I would, in which case they should have been brought back to the states and kept in high-security isolation. AFTER being charged with treason.

The others are foreign POW's.

Avder wrote:I think the liberals were just thinking that it was time for the military to stop humiliating and abusing their prisioners and treat them like human beings who have inalienable rights.

Care to tell me just how these prisoners were humiliated? Abused?

The bottom line I think is that if we want the world to believe that were an enlightened nation outr representitives abroad and at home need to start acting in a superior manner.

You mean like charging the perpetrators in the Abu Ghraib "torture" situation and putting them in front of a Court Martial? In what way can our "representatives abroad" improve the methods for how they are handling this MSM-manufactured "scandal?" In any large group of individuals, there are going to be people like those that perpetrated Abu Ghraib. AG being one of God knows how many prisons operated by our military. Read the Church report.

There was no mandate from the top authorizing those events, these situations are isolated incidents, the violators are being punished. Short of simply executing them without trial, what more can be done?

In the meantime, what difference does it make if "the world" thinks we are an "enlightened" nation or not? What does that even mean? The saintly United Nations' "representatives abroad" are busy gang-raping those that they have been sent to protect. Should we look there for our example? France (an actual "imperialistic" nation) only recently opened fire on a large crowd of their subjects in Ivory Coast as they were demonstrating. Not only that, they were there without UN authorization (the Holy Grail of military operations), should we take a cue from them?

All we have to do to render this point moot is to simply follow the Geneva Conventions to the letter. Enemy combatant isn't wearing a uniform or representing any nation? Simply declare them a spy and put a round into their head on the spot. Would we then be enlightened enough to pass muster in the eyes of our European bretheren?

i think rape and murder is a good start for humiliation woodchip.

it is still funny to me to see you people defend torture. you sit here and bash these people for having no values, for killing everyone they want, for 9/11, then you say it's ok for us to kill them or hold them without any kind of charge.

case in point, jose padilla. American citizen, maybe he tangled with the wrong people, but he's being held without charge in a navy brig and will never see the light of day again. He's an AMERICAN CITIZEN, if he did something wrong, bring it out. Treason, murder, terrorism, that's fine, but let a jury of his peers decide his fate. It's sickening that nobody finds that bothersome, I don't like the fellow, I don't know him, but I know he should have his day in court. That is a right Americans were supposed to be given no matter what. But you have an administration that alters the wording to enemy combantant so that they don't have to follow any set of rules. I'm glad he's a man of God, I'd hate to see what he'd be like as an atheist.

Zuruck wrote:i think rape and murder is a good start for humiliation woodchip.

I believe those happened at other palaces, not Gitmo.

Zuruck wrote:it is still funny to me to see you people defend torture. you sit here and bash these people for having no values, for killing everyone they want, for 9/11, then you say it's ok for us to kill them or hold them without any kind of charge.

No one here defends torture in its most egregious form. On the other hand posing for group pics....

Zuruck wrote:case in point, jose padilla. American citizen, maybe he tangled with the wrong people, but he's being held without charge in a navy brig and will never see the light of day again. He's an AMERICAN CITIZEN, if he did something wrong, bring it out. Treason, murder, terrorism, that's fine, but let a jury of his peers decide his fate. It's sickening that nobody finds that bothersome, I don't like the fellow, I don't know him, but I know he should have his day in court. That is a right Americans were supposed to be given no matter what. But you have an administration that alters the wording to enemy combantant so that they don't have to follow any set of rules. I'm glad he's a man of God, I'd hate to see what he'd be like as an atheist.

I would agree that a american citizen should be allowed all due rights. In Padilla's case there may be conditions that we are unaware of that mandates his being held in a naval brig. Don't forget the the other american John whatshisname(?)that was turned over to the court system. So for now lets give the military the benifit of the doubt until we learn the full particulars.

Why should we give anyone who holds an american citizen in a US Naval brig without charges and without the due process granted him by the constitution the benifit of the doubt?

If you were suddenly taken into custody and held basically in limbo as an enemy combatant would you still be giving the military the benifit of the doubt?

If they have charges they would do well to bring them. If they cant, then they should be obligated to let him go. It really is that simple.