Foreign Terrorists Have Constitutional Rights

Poncho, you know I've already made my intentions and purposes very clear so there's no need for you to try to redefine them into something they're not. Make your points and I'll make mine!

War has always been a necessary evil for mankind to deal with. The Bible makes it clear. People who seek freedom and who desire to preserve have and will use war when necessary. The Bible gives illustrations of that use as well. It's a good thing enough people have caught on to this in our nation else we'd not be enjoying the liberty we have today.

No one enjoys it or looks forward to it. Everyone rejoices when it's over. But without it tyrants and dictators such as you describe would rule this land and every other as well.

We fought to attain and we've fought to protect it. I'm proud of my ancestors and what they did, I'm glad I did my part in my time, and I'm expecting the current and next generation of warriors to do theirs when needed.

The flag around which I rally is a symbol of "the Republic for which it stands". These are not just empty words. There's many a life and limb that was sacrificed so that we can fly that flag instead of the banner of a tyrant or dictator.

But back to the point of this thread:

I demand that my government deal firmly and swiftly with our enemies. This is one of the main purposes of government. I do not want them to extend every right and privilege that we have to our enemies. To do that would be foolish!

We can and do treat a defeated enemy with some reasonable degree of compassion and dignity as fellow human beings even when it's difficult to view them as such. We have agreed to certain treaties that define, in part, how we can do that. We have extensive rules on handling of lawful combatants defined as prisoners-of-war which we enforce upon ourselves.

We've gone beyond that and extended many, but very wisely not all, of those privileges to other categories including unlawful combatants not technically defined as prisoners-of-war in the treaties to which we're bound. We've even given them a means to test the validity of their detention.

But what we should not have done is to extend them access to our civilian courts to contest their detention under the false conclusion that they have a right to habeas corpus as defined in our Constitution. That is why the Supreme Court's decision is such a travesty. It is also why the dissenting views within the Court are so strongly worded.

In some ways the Supreme Court decision seems to fit with the globalism theory you warn us about. It's extending the jurisdiction of the Court to foreign lands and seeks to award by judicial decree the rights we claimed for ourselves.

 

You have given some very compelling arguements in favor of following false leaders and some very eloquent appeals to our emotions as to the honorable sacrifice of the last drop to the flag waving minnions of the warfare state. I have to give ya that Dragoon.

What do you think about the strike teams in Iowa breaking down doors? Police confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens in NOLA. Or the police state raid on Memphis TN? Police from three states took part in all that. All crime is terrorism now from parking tickets to rebuking one of the state's minnions.

Habeas corpus is much older than our constitution. A right every human being should be allowed to keep.

"A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody."

I do not believe "we" are at war I thought I made that clear. There are elite transnationals using our military and economic power not to mention the power of the mass media to mold public opinion to wage war on nations that refuse to bow down to the NWO, or call it the international community if you prefer that seems to be an acceptable and PC euphemism for it. Either way it's still a foreign power. Grab your flag and go fight for the NWO if you must Dragoon but don't expect me to follow that isn't for me at all...I love my country to much for all that.

 

These are different topic than habeas corpus or than habeas corpus for unlawful enemy combatants.

I object to the militarization of civilian law enforcement. I object to "breaking down doors" when lawful arrests can be made in public places. I object to unlawful search, seizure, or arrest of any kind. I do not object to lawful use of force to effect a lawful search, seizure, or arrest which normally means execution of properly issued warrant clearly defining the person or place and purpose. I objected to the unlawful confiscation of firearms in New Orleans and strongly voiced those concerns even right here on this board. I supported the NRA to win that case on behalf of the citizens. I detest the arrogance of the City of New Orleans in the matter. I even object to the implementation of the TSA and think it would be much more effect to just let the people arm themselves when they travel around our country. There is no better first line of law enforcement than an armed and ready able bodied alert law abiding general public.

But, again, all of these are different issues than the misguided application of habeas corpus through civilian courts to unlawful enemy combatants that the Supreme Court wrongly ruled in favor of providing.

 

I remember your objections and agreed with you.

If the shoe was on the other foot would you still feel the same? I mean if you were the one that was designated an "unlawful enemy combatant" by foreigners who invaded your country and took you to a strange land wouldn't you like to be able to demand the "authorities" holding you under what charges you were being held and to see the evidence on which they made their public proclamation of your guilt before you were even tried in a court or allowed to speak with a lawyer?

And the other things...obviously the state feels it's police state "authority" automatically trumps any individual's rights so long as it's actions can be claimed to be serving the "greater good". I do not believe the individual should ever be sacrificed for the "common good" whether said indivdual is a citizen in these United States or a foreigner picked up in one place and transported to another and imprisoned without recourse to due process on the word of one man.

That's a dictatorship.

In other words I think it's inconsistant to be an indivdualist in times of peace and a collectivist in times of war. Or in the case of the "GWOT" a giant scam on the American people.

 

Personally, I believe that our government doesn't want to have to charge these people with anything because many of them would be trumped up charges. They don't want an open trial because they're afraid they might tell the truth and Bush simply can't allow that to happen.

If this is war and these men were captured out of uniform why not just line them all up against a wall and shoot them? Because world response would be so swift and so anti-American we probably would never recover.

 

Better we should move them to places beyond the law so they can be tortured into confessing or driven mad before any court dates.

 

Here's one your guilty until proven innocent "terrorists" Dragoon. Captured in Afghanistan after a battle with U.S. forces in 2002 in which he survived an airstrike an assault on his position a near battlefield execution and multiple wounds.

His name is Omar Khadr

His crime is being a reminder of how criminal our own "leaders" are. So much for honoring treaties eh?

 

I've seen younger terrorists than this one in a time when we they were called something else. They'll kill you just as quickly as the older ones. They can be even more dangerous because we tend to let our guard down.

I'm sure this young man claims he was just there minding his on business while on a pleasure trip from Canada.

 

Our warriors today - lawful combatants - that are captured by our terrorists enemies aren't given any quarter whatsover. I wouldn't except anything more if it were me. It would only be by the grace of God that an escape for torture and death would be possible. They are just as ruthless to the Iraqi soldiers and police they capture. You've probably seen some of the graphic evidence of what they do to their prisoners. Don't forget that there were no charges, no trail, no representation, no habeas corpus, or anything else for the many people killed right here in our own country on 9/11/2001 by unlawful enemy combatants. They really were minding there own business. Fortunately, we are way above all that in how we treat even the worst unlawful enemy combatants that we capture.

 

Like I said he's guilty until proven innocent. Somehow I thought we as American's were opposed to such thinking but I guess all's fair in war so long as we're the ones who decides what's fair, right?

New term I learned today would seem to apply here American exceptionalism.

"We" can invade and occupy countries to our hearts content, change regimes at will by force or coercion, control the political goings on and even the resources there and anyone who dares take up arms against "us" are called "terrorists".

You never answered my question about the shoe being on the other foot by the way. I take that back you did and I missed it.

 

Our terrorist enemies?

Let's try to define "terrorism"..."violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands". "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

You can come up with others but they all boil down to the same thing. One group trying to impose it's will on another through threats and force. Neocons are quite famous for their use of terrorism not only against foreign nations but America's own people. You can throw in the word "unlawful" here and there to make it look as though our use of terrorism being sanctioned by the state is "lawful" but terrorism is still terrorism.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...or "let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

I told you already D, I'm not into double standards and war collectivism. You'll have to come up with better rationalizations to sell me on the idea that our form of state "sanctioned" (lawful?) terrorism is holier than theirs.

All this is missing the main point that you and disagree on though I think. You're willing to believe the "noble lie" of American benevolence. I however do not. The American people themselves are disposed to do good but our "leaders" and their elite and corporate benefactors are not.

You see things along this line...

While I see them along this line...

You believe in the "noble lie" because it's comforting to think that "we" aim to use our power to help others...but that isn't how things work in the real world and I have a sneaking suspicion that you know that too.

Our power both militarily and economically are being used by those who would use your belief in honor and duty for their own enrichment without giving you or our warriors a second thought. It was Kissenger who called them "dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns to carry out foerign policy" or something to that degree.

That's what the elite think of you and your sense of honor and duty Dragoon, it's just another tool they use to control you that's all. Even the noblest lie is still a lie.


Some more quotes from foreign policy "experts".

This is how your sense of honor and duty has been used to protect the interests of a few at the expense of the many. That's something to be proud of now isn't it? This is where we disagree Dragoon. I believe in "supporting the troops" by telling the truth.


Quotes were taken from this article...Click Here.

Yeah I know that the author has worked for the Islamic Human Rights Commission to which I say so what? Does that mean he's guilty of being a "terrorist" until proven innocent without charges or recourse to due process too?

Bottom line here is that "our warriors" as you call them have been used as mercenaries to protect elite interests all over the globe all the while having their heads filled with red white and blue patriotic propaganda that is about as far from the truth as Pluto is from Earth.

 

The USA is not engaged in terrorism. We are engaged in counter-terrorism and anti-terrorism. Our military exists to defend our nation. It is not engaged in terrorizing its citizens. We are engaged in killing and capturing our terrorist enemies. It's a terrible but necessary endeavor that our enemies have pushed us into pursuing.

But, Poncho, it's not a lie! We have used our national power to help others and ourselves. History has recorded that. There's no reason to believe it has been any other way.

It doesn't matter to me what some people might think or say about duty and honor. No doubt there are some who would apply it. But it only matters that when duty calls we have the sense of honor to serve as needed for the benefit of the nation.

We do control a large proportion of the world's wealth and power because of the enginuity and industry we've applied in a nation blessed with a high degree of individual liberty and tremendous opportunity. The ultimate source of both the means and the results has been God Almighty not through any inherent superiority of our being. We'd best come back to an open awareness of that and a public giving of thanks to Him for it.

We have a duty to protect our decendants from the threat of terroristism at the hands of the likes of the unlawful enemy combatants such as we've killed and captured in the on-going war.

We also have a duty to protect our decendants from the threat of the on-going decay of our republic into a socialist society in which the government is supreme above the people. We are being driven to that both by politicians - in all three branches or all levels of governments - responding to the demands of selfish citizens who demand their government solve all their problems. We have been yielding our power bit by bit for decades.

 

Well, you can put that all on the shelf because the truth is finally coming out now.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1252494#post1252494

You were duped by false and designing men who used your patriotic zeal against you Dragoon but don't feel all alone most everyone else was duped right along with you. Only thing is about half of them are willing to admit it now.

Our military exists to guard, protect and increase the assets of the "super elite" and their international mega corporations bottom lines. See above link.

You haven't read much of the history on our international "covert actions" and regime changes (democratization) if you really think the USA doesn't engage in terrorism BTW. I could give you a list of good books on the subject if you like. Just PM me and I give you some titles.:wavey:

 

No thanks, Poncho, I already have a large library of good books including a good selection covering our nation's military endeavors some of which even include specific events in which I was personally involved.

I will not to join with those who seem set upon characterizing our own nation as engaging in terrorism around the world!

Overall, I'm proud of what we've done, the reasons we've done it, and how we've done it. I don't think we're perfect and I know mistakes have been made. In the proper venue I even offer my own critical analysis here and there. But that's always easy to do after the fact. Regardless, we're still the good guys!

Back to the topic of this thread: I think the Supreme Court's decision was wrong and will lead to trouble for our nation in dealing with unlawful enemy combatants in the current and future wars. I agree with the dissenting opinions of the Justices that opposed the decision.

 

I'll bet they all got red white and blue covers adorned with waving flags and use might buzzwords like freedom and democracy huh?

Then you'll stick with those content to believe and be comforted by the "noble lie" I never thought you'd have it any other way Dragoon.

:laugh: Holding onto that noble lie for all yer worth ain't ya?. Govcorp Inc. loves guys like you.

Of course you do after all "good guys" need to lock people up with out charges indefinately with no recourse to due process to torture them and drive them insane before allowing them to have a day in a kangaroo court.

Really makes that ole "good guy" image shine brightly through out the world doesn't it? Apparently most of the rest of the world just hates "good guys" like us for always doing good things.

 

Nope! They don't all share the same point of view. Some of them are just plain shades of green and brown. Some of them aren't even in English.

Prisoners-of-war - lawful combatants - are detained for the duration of the conflict after which they are repatriated. They can not be tried for their acts of war. Unlawful combatants are a different class of prisoners and not given the same protection. They can be tried for their acts of war.

We don't approve of the torture of prisoners-of-war and will prosecute our own caught doing it.

Back to the topic of this thread: The Supreme Court's decision is against the best interests of the nation and is a radical departure from the established intent of the Constitution.

 

Hey if you don't want to read the truth how about watching on it on a free video?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183

Okay back to the topic of the thread. Learning To Love Double Standards Through American Exceptionalism.

We're the "good guys". Watch us render imprison and torture. Oohrah!

So long as they're only some poor ground pounders and then we'll hold token show trials and never go up the chain of command. But only if the public demands it...until then, deny, deny, deny!

 

The record shows a different story, Poncho. In the most notable case of the current war the investigations - both command and criminal - were in progress long before the matter was inappropriately made public. Persons in the chain of command up to the rank of BG were punished for their involvement. The BG was responsible for the proper conduct of the command. The command investigation was initiated by the next higher command in response to revelations brought to light by a soldier with the courage to report the misconduct. The "ground ponders" were also held accountable for what they did just as they should have been. They knew better - and at least one had the guts to say no and step forward - and were without excuse. Their leadership failed in the command responsibility and that also was dealt with properly. The system experienced a failure but it also worked to correct it. The good guys won again!

Unlawful combatants should be dealt with according to their status. They aren't ordinary criminals to be handled by civilian law enforcement or civilian courts. They aren't lawful combatants to be handled as prisoners-of-war protected by law promulgated to fulfill our treaty obligations. They are more like spies and saboteurs to be dealt with according to the status they attained by virtue of their own choices. We can grant them more mercy than they deserve but we ought never to give them the full rights of citizens. Such was never intended by our Constitution! The Supreme Court once understood that but now they've abandoned such common sense in exchange for a power grab and political attention. The good guys took a hit by this action!

 

I never said we should give people suspected of being "terrorists" full rights as citizens Dragoon. The state should never be given the power to hold anyone without charges indefinately on only the word of one man. If you read the constitution and the other writtings of the founder it's pretty clear that they put no trust in men who can be so easily corrupted by power.

Habeas corpus is the right to challenge one's detention it doesn't give anyone the rights of a citizen.

This just in...[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Antonin Scalia used false information in his [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]dissent in Boumediene v. Bush. Without going back and reading through all our posts, this seems to be the same "reasoning" you yourself used. So, basically you were relying on the same false information to make your case.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Newark, NJ—Seton Hall Law’s Center for Policy and Research has issued a report revealing that Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, which accords Guantánamo detainees the right to habeas corpus review in federal court, cites inaccurate information that was retracted by its original source, the Department of Defense (DoD).
​

On June 12, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion on the ruling stated that “[a]t least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantánamo Bay have returned to the battlefield.” The statistic was endorsed by a Senate Minority Report issued June 26, 2007, which cites a media outlet, CNN. CNN, in turn, named the DoD as its source. The “30” number, however, was corrected in a DoD press release issued in July 2007, and a DoD document submitted to the House Foreign Relations Committee on May 20, 2008 abandons the claim entirely.



SOURCE...
​

 

The Seton Hall report concludes that the 'true' number of recidivist illegal combatants should be 12 instead of 30. Whether or not that figure is the correct one, how does that make Scalia's reasoning faulty?