Proof that the UN is evil

[BeBMan]

Merkels look may have confused you, but's still a woman AFAIk

[Arrian]

OFITG - You realize, of course, that my post wasn't supportive of my government's stance, right?

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian
OFITG - You realize, of course, that my post wasn't supportive of my government's stance, right?

-Arrian

sure sure I remember that much

just kind of discussing this from "powerplay" perspecive which doesn't make sense either when you look at it (ie some "power" gain for ignorance of legal treties, and diplomatic hit) but I can't really see it either.

[Odin]

9/11 was a criminal act, not an act of war. The people at Gitmo are civilians and should be treated like any other civilians that commitied a crime.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Okay, 9/11 wasn't an invasion, it was... an act of war... Gee, an act of war perpetrated on our soil. Sounds like an invasion.

The US CIA tried to kill Castro, a foriegn head of state, which is an act of war (imagine if Iran tried to kill President Bush). OH NOES! WE INVADED CUBA!! Er... many times!

An 'invasion' requires some attempt at occupation, not just a hit and run away. The US was attacked, not invaded.

And besides, where does the public safety require not trying those at Gitmo? If they are guilty, it'll be obvious.

And whats this about "our rights", POWs are not afforded the same protections we have.

And you can pinpoint where the Constitution says this?

[Berzerker]

9/11 was a criminal act, not an act of war. The people at Gitmo are civilians and should be treated like any other civilians that commitied a crime.

Al Qaeda had been attacking the US for a decade before 9/11 and we responded with a declaration of war against Aghanistan and AQ.

The US CIA tried to kill Castro, a foriegn head of state, which is an act of war (imagine if Iran tried to kill President Bush). OH NOES! WE INVADED CUBA!! Er... many times!

An 'invasion' requires some attempt at occupation, not just a hit and run away. The US was attacked, not invaded.

And besides, where does the public safety require not trying those at Gitmo? If they are guilty, it'll be obvious.

If someone breaks into your home and murders your family but leaves, they didn't invade your home because they didn't move in? Just give it up and climb out of the hole

[Imran Siddiqui]

If someone breaks into your home and murders your family but leaves, they didn't invade your home because they didn't move in?

States = individuals?

Can individuals have formal alliances and declare war as well?

Did Isreal invade Iraq when it bombed nuclear sites in 1982? If it did, then wouldn't Iraq would have been within its rights to declare a war of self-defense against Isreal?!

But go on... keep streaching definitions to give the government more power. It just makes you look more and more like a hypocrite.

Btw, didn't answer my statement that under your definition, we've "invaded" Cuba a number of times when the CIA tried to kill Castro (though I do agree the US tried to invade in proxy in the "Bay of Pigs".. but that's different than what I'm saying).

[Berzerker]

invasion = invasion regardless of who was invaded

Did Isreal invade Iraq when it bombed nuclear sites in 1982? If it did, then wouldn't Iraq would have been within its rights to declare a war of self-defense against Isreal?!

Yup, and yup

You really think the Framers believed habeas corpus could be suspended only upon occupation? Thats kinda funny since Congress wouldn't be in power to suspend habeas corpus, or at least enforce it. You're confusing a common goal of invasion - occupation - with the invasion. If the Framers wanted to give Congress the power to suspend habeas corpus in case of occupation they would have said so.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If someone breaks into your home and murders your family but leaves, they didn't invade your home because they didn't move in? Just give it up and climb out of the hole

In that case that someone has to steal something for it to be called a home invasions

[Imran Siddiqui]

You really think the Framers believed habeas corpus could be suspended only upon occupation?

I believe they allowed a suspension of habeas corpus to be reserved only for the most trying of times, basically when an enemy actually invaded the country (ie, with the intent to occupy area for some time). At that point public safety may demand some suspension of rights when the actual state itself was at risk.

Unfortunetly you have a REALLY stange view of invasion as it pertains to countries.

Dictionary.com says it is:

in·vade Audio pronunciation of "invade" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vd)
v. in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing, in·vades
v. tr.

1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: “The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval” (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: “About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco” (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.

You'll note that 3 of the 4 definitions involve entering and staying. And the #2 definition is intended to be used in the personal sense (you'll note it doesn't say anything about force, so if you use that as to apply to countries or groups, you'd be saying that Al Queda invaded the US when the first members showed up in its borders.. which is just absurdly silly).

#1 is the definiton that is used for invade among countries. A hit and run doesn't apply (and neither does Isreal's attack on Iraq, sorry).

[PLATO]

Okay, several things here:

1.) Prisoners have been released from Gitmo.

2.) 500 or so hard core AQ members doesn't seem like an overwhelming number to me. It seems like a reasonable number of hard core members to have been caught.

3.) Trial at this point could compromise some intelligence sources as we have to tell how we know what we know.

4.) The UN is full of crap issuing a report on heresay.

5.) The WTC attacks were an act of war that was at the very least sanctioned by a state (i.e. Afghanistan). Their support of and protection of AQ, particularly during the post WTC period, was a defacto declaration of war against the US. The use of force vote by the Congress certainly was a declaration of war against Afghanistan. It is clear that a state of war existed. It is equally clear that a state of war exists with the political entity known as AQ. In a state of war, it is assumed that occupation of an enemies territory is a goal of each combatant. Therefore the right of Habeous Corpus can rightfully be suspended until a cesation of hostilities by both parties.

Now, Imran...quit being silly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In a state of war, it is assumed that occupation of an enemies territory is a goal of each combatant.

And what does that have to do with the Constitution's mandate that habeas corpus can only be suspended when there is an invasion or rebellion, neither of which has happened?

And if you really think AQ's goal is occupation of the US, then you are as ****ing nuts are Berzerker is.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

In a state of war, it is assumed that occupation of an enemies territory is a goal of each combatant.

And what does that have to do with the Constitution's mandate that habeas corpus can only be suspended when there is an invasion or rebellion, neither of which has happened?

And if you really think AQ's goal is occupation of the US, then you are as ****ing nuts are Berzerker is.

Haha...you have obviously never read any of AQ's manifestos. There goal is most definately occupation of the US. In fact, their goal is worldwide hegemony.

Further, as a lawyer, you should be well versed in the concept of intent. With the stated goal as our destruction as a nation and forced conversion to their religion, one can quite easily see the intent of the initial attack on our soil. Further, the right of Habeous Corpus was suspended during WWII and (other than two tiny Aluetion Islands) no enemy ever stood on our territory. You are way off the mark as well as out of tune to precedent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Further, the right of Habeous Corpus was suspended during WWII and (other than two tiny Aluetion Islands) no enemy ever stood on our territory. You are way off the mark as well as out of tune to precedent.

Um... the Philipines were not independant at that time, you realize?

you should be well versed in the concept of intent. With the stated goal as our destruction as a nation and forced conversion to their religion, one can quite easily see the intent of the initial attack on our soil.

Oh please

Yeah... the 9/11 attack was intended to occupy the US.

Yes, you are as nuts as Berz


Though all of this is moot because the US Supreme Court did rule in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that detainees do have a right to habeus reviews. Though they only allowed detainees to challenge whether they were illegal combatants. What I do disagree with is their ideas on who is subject to Constitutional protections (like I said, I'm with Scalia on this one).

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Further, the right of Habeous Corpus was suspended during WWII and (other than two tiny Aluetion Islands) no enemy ever stood on our territory. You are way off the mark as well as out of tune to precedent.

Um... the Philipines were not independant at that time, you realize?

I don't recall Germany invading the Phillipines...or are you suggesting that Habeous Corpus was only suspended for the Japanese.

you should be well versed in the concept of intent. With the stated goal as our destruction as a nation and forced conversion to their religion, one can quite easily see the intent of the initial attack on our soil.

Oh please

Yeah... the 9/11 attack was intended to occupy the US.

Yes, you are as nuts as Berz

Oh please is right! Perhaps you should read my entire post? What a novel concept!!

Though all of this is moot because the US Supreme Court did rule in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that detainees do have a right to habeus reviews. Though they only allowed detainees to challenge whether they were illegal combatants. What I do disagree with is their ideas on who is subject to Constitutional protections (like I said, I'm with Scalia on this one).

Hamdi had citizenship. Foriegn combatants has yet to come before the court...and for good reason if they have intelligent lawyers.