Proof that the UN is evil

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Germany and Japan were... allied .

Perhaps you should read my entire post?

I did. It doesn't indicate anything about 9/11 being intended to occupy the US. Hell, the attackers all killed themselves and Osama and co. stayed in the 'Old World' side. Where was the invasion?!

Oh right... there wasn't any.

And I have yet to see anything other than empty rhetoric that AQ has a goal to conquer the US, as opposed to causing havoc in the homelands of its enemies (ie, 9/11, 7/7, Madrid). I mean do you REALLY think that the 9/11 bombings were to start an occupation of the US?!

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

Yes they have and the SCOTUS punted. In Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court said that they didn't have any jurisdiction over claims in Guantanamo Bay (basically so they could avoid deciding the case... even though there had been no hearing on whether they were enemy combatants or not. Thankfully, he was a Brit citizen, so got released to the UK).

And like I said, I disagree on the Supreme Court's ideas on who is subject to Constitutional protections.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And like I said, I disagree on the Supreme Court's ideas on who is subject to Constitutional protections.

Funny how you always make fun of me when I disagree with SCOTUS rulings on State's rights.

Anyhow. I don't see anything new in your latest post and don't feel it refutes any of my arguments...so until something new my friend.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Funny how you always make fun of me when I disagree with SCOTUS rulings on State's rights.

Because you take it as some big offense, like no one else could disagree with your views .

I don't see anything new in your latest post and don't feel it refutes any of my arguments

Funny... I felt the same way at your post before that one.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Funny... I felt the same way at your post before that one.

Fair enough.

[Berzerker]

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

Why?

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.

The public safety doesn't require capturing and holding the thousands of foreigners intent on attacking us? The Framers knew in a war there wouldn't be the resources to provide POWs trials. "Um...hey you guys in the 4th battalion, would ya come back home for a while to testify against this guy you picked up in Afghanistan"? So your opinion on what they considered an invasion doesn't hold up to logic or reality - POWs get trials only if Congress wants to give them trials. It was generally understood most POWs would be released after the war was over.

Dictionary.com says it is:

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).

Why is it silly? If someone invades my home and I dont see them do it, that doesn't mean they didn't invade my home. As for the definition, are you saying invasion does not mean this?

2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: “The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval” (Barbara Goldsmith).

That seems to be your argument. The purpose of a definition is to provide meaning and context, if a definition has 4 examples of context it doesn't mean 3 of the definitions negate the 4th.

1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.

Pillage? Like destroy infrastructure? And I'm sure conquering is on their mind, and we're trying to conquer them. That doesn't mean physically occupying land, it means winning the war.

#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).

Hit and run? It was an attack, not some guy without insurance driving away from a fender bender. Congress agrees with me and so do the courts, usually not a point I'd make but since you're so impressed by government and precedent...