Guantanamo bay

[Whaleboy]

If we're arguing philisophically, we might as well start a new thread

I disagree, its the same topic. A philosophically relevant topic would be one of my first questions which is "what is innocence before guilty, and why?". Dont take that to mean that I dont believe in it btw, that is not the case.. I wanna hear other arguments.

[Kuciwalker]

MtG

[KrazyHorse]

My argument is with your assertion that they are so obviously not under section 6...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by skywalker

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Foreign nationals who visit the US are protected by it.

Why? You keep telling me that it's true. Tell me why.

Because the SCOTUS has decided that.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by skywalker
MtG

elijah probably has him on ignore. He still hasn't dealt with MtG's first post.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't know, but maybe they wouldn't fall under six because it was an occupied territory?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse



Because the SCOTUS has decided that.

Ok then. Thank you.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


My dear sir, you are quite full of ****e on this subject. There is no standard regarding "proof" of unlawful combatant status at all - the only requirement, is that a military tribunal, of unspecified form or composition, must determine the status of each individual.

IIRC the standard applied is that of being competent and impartial.

The executive orders regarding what standard was to be applied limit by definition the competence of the board making the decision.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

If you don't like that, TFB.

Nice attitude, no wonder even your 'allies' are starting to think twice

[Whaleboy]

My dear sir, you are quite full of ****e on this subject.

Thats not very nice is it? *runs crying into toilet*

There is no standard regarding "proof" of unlawful combatant status at all

There is no standard for proof full stop! Beyond reasonable doubt, good evidence for the proposition etc etc. Usual stuff.

Prisoners of war have no legal rights to courts of law

They have no right to a fair trial? That sounds fishy.

Let's not forget that these *******s weren't entitled to more than a quick bullet in the head

My dear sir, you are negating your right to be taken seriously with **** like that.

If you get caught with weapons in someplace like Iraq or Afghanistan, without distinguising markings, ignoring the laws and customs of war, and hanging out with like-minded, similarly armed folks, yes

Theres no legal barrier to that being the case for me, yet I can be captured and placed in terrible conditions like Guantanamo, tried under an unfair military tribunal and if found guilty (unfairly), executed, yet I have committed no crime?? It may be legal, but it sucks!!

Believe it or not, honeybuns, but international law does not require that the United States of America put on a show for you personally, or for every other little whiner out there who thinks you're entitled to proof.

Then they cannot expect me to take them seriously. Of course, they say big deal, but wait 20 years

[David Floyd]

MtG,

(a) Warfighting is an executive branch business (since the President is also Commander in Chief) and is not otherwise regulated by the Constitution.

Except, of course, insofar that Congress has the sole authority to declare war and the sole authority to either fund it, or not to fund it. Because of this, Congress can also extract varying amounts of oversight.

And for everyone,

Wouldn't a better question be whether the treatment of the prisoners is RIGHT, rather than wheter it is LEGAL?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by skywalker


Why would it apply to noncitizens? I understand it applying to residents, but foreign nationals?

Because, my dear Watson, at the time the Constitution was ratified, it enacted the United States of America as a distinct sovereign state, essentially consisting of a federation (or Confederation ) of previously existing sovereign states. The Constitution expressly acknowledges duality of citizenship, in the form of citizenship of a state, and of the United States.

Prior to ratification, there was no vslifly existing "United States of America" and thus no citizenship thereof. The Framers were also smart enough to figure that in the course of commerce, trading or acquiring territory, banking, etc., that non-citizens might become citizens, and that non-citizens would also have normal contact with the US government and legal system.

It's generally much simpler to have one recognized legal system with uniform rules for all before it - the two areas of exception that have long been recognized are military law and admiralty or maritime law.

[Whaleboy]

elijah probably has him on ignore. He still hasn't dealt with MtG's first post.

I answered the five words in the post worth answering much earlier.

[Kuciwalker]

Wouldn't a better question be whether the treatment of the prisoners is RIGHT, rather than wheter it is LEGAL?

No, for two reasons:

a) whether or not it is right is pretty subjective, whereas whether or not it is legal is pretty objective

b) you can't really enforce something just because it is "right"; you can, however, enforce something because it is "legal"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Because, my dear Watson, at the time the Constitution was ratified, it enacted the United States of America as a distinct sovereign state, essentially consisting of a federation (or Confederation ) of previously existing sovereign states. The Constitution expressly acknowledges duality of citizenship, in the form of citizenship of a state, and of the United States.

Prior to ratification, there was no vslifly existing "United States of America" and thus no citizenship thereof. The Framers were also smart enough to figure that in the course of commerce, trading or acquiring territory, banking, etc., that non-citizens might become citizens, and that non-citizens would also have normal contact with the US government and legal system.

It's generally much simpler to have one recognized legal system with uniform rules for all before it - the two areas of exception that have long been recognized are military law and admiralty or maritime law.

Ok, thanks.