Quote:How many times do i need to link it? they don't qualify for the criminal prosecution you want them to be covered under because the crime they're committing is on foreign soil and are being detained by our military.
there has been some debate if citizens born in the United States that are detained on foreign soils are covered under the constitution but that's not even the case with the Gitmo prisoners. There's literately no case on any ground for the Gitmo prisoners to be afforded constitutional rights afforded to individuals on US soil or citizens of the United States. I don't know how that can be made more clear to you.
You're making assertions but you're not backing them up.
Quote:I already covered it. The preamble doesn't specify that all further references to "persons" refer exclusively to "Americans" or "people on American soil" or "citizens.
It doesn't have to, national constitutions are exclusive to the nations they govern.
Quote:It doesn't have to, national constitutions are exclusive to the nations they govern.
We're going in circles here. I already pointed out (and it's well accepted in case law) that when the constitution means to constrain a right to only Americans it specifies citizenship.
Quote:Not relevant to whether these are criminal actions or war acts.
I already covered that citizenship is irrelevant. Now you go ahead and cite the parts of the constitution that you conclude your first assertion here on.
Wrong again...The attacks on Embassies/Military Bases/American interests in foreign countries are defined as terrorist acts which fall under the catagory of enemy combatants...The world trade center plane bombing plan was designed by terrorists and intended to be a terrorist act. The hijackors entered the United States to commit a terrorist act so therefor it falls under the military tribunal prosecution...
Any event classified to be a terrorist act committed on the U.S. that occur either in or outside the United States can fall under the Military Tribunal prosecution UNLESS the person(s) committing the act are US Citizens such as with Timothy Mcvey and the Oaklahoma City bombing...
There has been no formal declaration of war therefor there is no such a thing as a war act in the case of prosecuting terrorist acts.
It's painfully clear that terrorist acts which are made on the United States and/or American interests, are done by Enemies of the United States, which classify them as Enemy Combatants. Enemy Combatants fall under Military prosecution which is called Military Tribunals...
enemy combatant
<div>
<div><span>noun </span>
<span>any member of the armed forces of a state with which another state is at war; also, </span>
any
<span>person in an armed conflict, including terrorism, who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war </span>
<div>
Examples
<span>The
<span>term "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. </span></span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Quote:How many times do i need to link it? they don't qualify for the criminal prosecution you want them to be covered under because the crime they're committing is on foreign soil and are being detained by our military.
there has been some debate if citizens born in the United States that are detained on foreign soils are covered under the constitution
but that's not even the case with the Gitmo prisoners. There's literately no case on any ground for the Gitmo prisoners to be afforded constitutional rights afforded to individuals on US soil or citizens of the United States. I don't know how that can be made more clear to you.
There have been a few instinces of this. There have been a few American men who have converted to Islam and joined the fight against The United States(that I can recall)...There was some debate about sending them to Gitmo as an enemy combatant or if they should be held and prosecuted for Treason...I'm really not sure how it has turned out or if even been decided what to do with them yet...I do believe one was held as an enemy combatant but ONLY because he renounced his American citizenship...I'm still not sure if that has even been decided yet either because he has no citizenship anywhere else so his renouncing of his citizenship may have been rejected...Everyone has to be from somewhere, you can't just be from nowhere
Quote:Once again you prove yourself simply too stupid to understand when you're completely off the reservation.
One of the main reasons political discussion was banned previously was posts like this.
Quote:One of the main reasons political discussion was banned previously was posts like this.
The majority of the discussion is productive I'd hate to see us lose the forum over a few isolated post.
Quote:One of the main reasons political discussion was banned previously was posts like this.
So warn/ban the poster and leave it at that
Quote:One of the main reasons political discussion was banned previously was posts like this.
It's not the board, it's just him. Thinks he's far more educated and cultured than everyone on the whole board. Claims everyone is ignorant and dropped out of the 9th grade to make himself feel superior.
Quote:One of the main reasons political discussion was banned previously was posts like this.
and it's also a reason some posters have left the board...personal insults like that should not be allowed...attacking a post is one thing but personally attacking the poster is another...there is no reason that the poster(s) should be personally degraded or disrespected with such posts...I believe that the CoC actually mentions this but I don't know where to find it... Posts such as those, should be an automatic warning
Quote:The majority of the discussion is productive I'd hate to see us lose the forum over a few isolated post.
I agree but it's not just in this forum...It's every topic where he replies like that...Responses that attack/disrespect a poster should be an automatic warning...But if that were the case, some of our mods would be banned for going over in the number of warnings so that won't happen
Quote:It's a ridiculous notion to call for a "war on terror" and use that as an excuse for holding prisoners of war indefinitely, without trial.
You let them go, they return to fight us. You hold them without trial, that fact is used to recruit more. I fail to see the point of detaining them.
In the meantime, we sacrifice our core values.
Agree. Try them or release them.
If you have to release them, so be it.
You can't be a nation based upon freedom while showing the world you ignore the same principle in place to protect it.
Citizen or not. Stand for what you believe in.
Frankly, the problem in so many cases is that people do not really believe in what our country stands for.
Quote:The way you deal with domestic terrorism and foreign terrorism are different. A domestic terrorist is a civilian they have rights that have to be accounted for. Foreign terrorist have no constitutional rights.
Help me catch up (please do not read this as having my usual sarcasm)
Why is there an argument going on here when they won't try them in any court at all?
Personally, I believe everyone not in the military should be tried in normal federal court, and given right any citizen has. That's just me.
I always fear the government doing things outside the public view.
Quote:Help me catch up (please do not read this as having my usual sarcasm)
Why is there an argument going on here when they won't try them in any court at all?
Personally, I believe everyone not in the military should be tried in normal federal court, and given right any citizen has.
That's just me.
I always fear the government doing things outside the public view.
The problem with that is...People who provoke us into military actions such as Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, ISIS, et.al are not an army/military affiliated with any nation, but commit crimes against the United States and their interests on foreign soil...Crimes committed against America on foreign soil CAN NOT BE PROSECUTED IN U.S. COURTS because the crimes were commited in another country...
Crimes against America and our interests committed within America or any of it's territories, CAN be prosecuted in U.S. Courts, BUT...Terror attacks are made by terrorist groups (Al Queda etc) have been grouped into what is called "Enemy Combatants" because they (the terrorists) have no affiliation or representation of any Nation...Without having a Nation who acknowledges that terror groups are representing them, prosecuting them is nearly impossible in other countries...They can't be tried in American Courts, they claim no alliance to any nation, and they represent no nation, so what do you do with them?
I don't like the idea of capturing "enemy combatants" and just leave them caged up without trial...Some have been freed, some have been moved from Gitmo, but some have been held since we began this "war on terror" and that's inhumane. But the million dollar question is, what do you do with them...
The very best answer is the Military Tribunal prosecution, but the process needs to be sped up...It's just plain wrong to hold human beings in captivity this long without having a trial...
Quote:Help me catch up (please do not read this as having my usual sarcasm)
Why is there an argument going on here when they won't try them in any court at all?
Personally, I believe everyone not in the military should be tried in normal federal court, and given right any citizen has. That's just me.
I always fear the government doing things outside the public view.
So far I can tell everyone agrees they need to be tried and sentenced. No ones saying the indefinite detention is ok. The argument is if non-citizens captured by military personnel should be tried in a criminal setting state side.
I argue requiring military personal to treat the battle field as a crime scene is unrealistic and not possible. Secondly non-citizens captured over seas by military personal are not automatically covered under our national constitution, it's not a global document.
There's a vast difference between a crime scene and a battle field. I support trying all the prisoners under a military tribunal as war criminals and sentencing them appropriately. Then closing gitmo on the grounds we are establishing a base on foreign soil against the host nations authority, that's an act of aggression we should have ended years ago.
But you can't give non-citizens captured on foreign soil the same constitutional rights established on our homes soil.
Quote:So far I can tell everyone agrees they need to be tried and sentenced. No ones saying the indefinite detention is ok. The argument is if non-citizens captured by military personnel should be tried in a criminal setting state side.
I argue requiring military personal to treat the battle field as a crime scene is unrealistic and not possible. Secondly non-citizens captured over seas by military personal are not automatically covered under our national constitution, it's not a global document.
There's a vast difference between a crime scene and a battle field. I support trying all the prisoners under a military tribunal as war criminals and sentencing them appropriately. Then closing gitmo on the grounds we are establishing a base on foreign soil against the host nations authority, that's an act of aggression we should have ended years ago.
But you can't give non-citizens captured on foreign soil the same constitutional rights established on our homes soil.
The only other option than Military Tribunals (that I can see) would be to prosecute them in International Court like they do war criminals such as the Nazi Party...But then, where would you hold them after sentencing, who would be responsible for paying the court costs and legal fees? I'm not in tune with international court, but I suppose they have a procedure in place...
Quote:The majority of the discussion is productive I'd hate to see us lose the forum over a few isolated post.
Quote:So warn/ban the poster and leave it at that
i agree with both points. I would characterize my post to which you both responded as a shot over the bow.
Quote:i agree with both points. I would characterize my post to which you both responded as a shot over the bow.
Just don't ban homie he's my main debate partner in this forum!