Preventive Detention
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Would you please stop using our founding fathers to justify why we are supposed to set around on our thumbs while being slaughtered like sheep.
A sense of proportion has never been your strong suite :)
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
A sense of proportion has never been your strong suite
Perhaps, but one wonders how we managed to take an entire continent away from its original inhabitants if a single American had ever interpreted Madison as you are. Clarly, we Americans have quite deftly applied our founding principles to our own advantage throughout our entire history. I hardly think we need the advice of an Australian as to how to continue to do that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
have heard Judge Napolitano [^]make the point that it is important to note the Constituition does not specifically refer to citizens, but to "persons" - an important distinction.
Good point. However, the preamble make it clear (for me) that the Constitution applies only to the U.S. and it's people: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That's the entire preamble. I would argue that to be a member of the "People of the United States," you must owe allegiance to the United States and live on the soil of the United States. All others are people, certainly, and persons, too. But not "People of the United States." If one grants this definition, then anything within the document applies only to "People of the United States." If one doesn't, I would be interested in hear an explanation to diplomats living in their embassy why they are now subject to our laws and Constitution; and, simultaneously to the German Government why, no matter what Americans do or where they do it, they will be judged only by the U.S. in a U.S. Court. my $.02
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I would argue that to be a member of the "People of the United States," you must owe allegiance to the United States and live on the soil of the United States.
I must take exception to "and live on the soil of the United States". There are many Americans that do not live on the soil of the United States that still maintain allegiance to the United States and rightfully, in my opinion, are entitled to all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
Oakman wrote:
Then I wonder why Madison used the phrase...
Loose wording. Context makes clear that he actually meant "are obliged to conform to it".
Oakman wrote:
Perfect example, to my mind, is the arrest of someone who the evidence suggests is an illegal alien. Since they might not be, the Constitution applies to them (presumption of innocence and all that American legal stuff, y'know?) but the minute they are adjudged guilty, they are no longer protected. q.e.d.
Not Madison's example, however.
If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.
Here he talks about a general right to trial by jury for aliens (not illegal aliens, as it happens, but aliens nevertheless --- actually, at the time he was writing, there was, I believe a system of open migration, so the concept of illegal aliens would barely have existed).
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Loose wording.
Since I am unable to read his mind, I prefer to believe that he used the words he intended to use.
John Carson wrote:
Here he talks about a general right to trial by jury for aliens
Again, it appears that you believe you know better than he what he meant. He talks not of a right, but of a privilege. The last time I looked the law made great distinction between the two, specifically in the ease with which a privilege may be altered or revoked or never granted. I hope you understand why, once again, I assume that the man who wrote the Constitution almost single-handedly and who was a prolific writer had at his command enough knowledge of the English language to distinguish between rights and privileges.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
-
Oakman wrote:
I would argue that to be a member of the "People of the United States," you must owe allegiance to the United States and live on the soil of the United States.
I must take exception to "and live on the soil of the United States". There are many Americans that do not live on the soil of the United States that still maintain allegiance to the United States and rightfully, in my opinion, are entitled to all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopesJimmyRopes wrote:
and rightfully, in my opinion, are entitled to all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.
Sorry, Jimmy, but that won't get you very far in a Thai court. Come back onto American soil and it will, however.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
A sense of proportion has never been your strong suite
Perhaps, but one wonders how we managed to take an entire continent away from its original inhabitants if a single American had ever interpreted Madison as you are. Clarly, we Americans have quite deftly applied our founding principles to our own advantage throughout our entire history. I hardly think we need the advice of an Australian as to how to continue to do that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I hardly think we need the advice of an Australian as to how to continue to do that.
Or that damn Englishman, Thomas Paine, either!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I hardly think we need the advice of an Australian as to how to continue to do that.
Or that damn Englishman, Thomas Paine, either!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Never heard of him...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
This is all such a load of blithering nonsense. We do not live in a perfect world. No legal system regardless of how well devised will ever be able to deal consistently with every possible challange the society that created that legal system might find itself confronted with. It is altogether appropriate that we as citizens be concerned about the potential for abuse of the laws which protect us from abuse from our own government. However, it is also altogether appropriate that we expect those laws to be able to protect us from threats outside of our own government. There is obviously likely to be no perfect means of achieving both of those goals. We have to risk one or the other. Relying upon our own history indicates that our institutions, at least in the US, are sufficiently robust to endure some period of erring on the side of providing for the physical security of the nation while risking some degree of abuse to ourselves from our own government. Frankly, I think we are a very long way indeed, even under Obama, from the need to be concerned about storm troopers invading our homes and sending us to concentration camps. It is altother appropriate that we take whatever actions are necessary to defend ourselves from the kind of violence these islamic terrorists seem determined to inflict upon us, even if that means denying them the same full degree of justice that we ordinarily reserve to ourselves. If the Islamic world does not like this, than it is their own responsibility to deal with the root casue of the problem themselves. We should stop blaming ourselves for the problem. And, in any case, it is entirely absurd to worry about abuse of our legal system for the purpose of protecting ourselves from violence, when that very same system has been routinely degraded over many decades for far less compelling reasons without a word of protest from those now so concerned about the rights of muslims who have hardly lifted a finger to secure those same rights within their own societies.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obama, from the need to be concerned about storm troopers invading our homes and sending us to concentration camps
Well, I think some of our older Japanese American's that lived under the Roosevelt administration might disagree with you, as well as some "journalists" of the North who wrote about their dissent concerning the War of Northern Aggression under Lincoln.
-
JimmyRopes wrote:
and rightfully, in my opinion, are entitled to all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.
Sorry, Jimmy, but that won't get you very far in a Thai court. Come back onto American soil and it will, however.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Sorry, Jimmy, but that won't get you very far in a Thai court. Come back onto American soil and it will, however.
While in Thailand, or any country, I am subject to their laws, just as ailens are subject to US laws while in the US. The fact that I am not on US soil does not in any way make me less a citizen of the US and entitled to all the provisions of the US Constitution with regard as to how the US government treats me. How foreign governments treat me, while in their country, is based on their laws and international treaties to which they have agreed.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
John Carson wrote:
Loose wording.
Since I am unable to read his mind, I prefer to believe that he used the words he intended to use.
John Carson wrote:
Here he talks about a general right to trial by jury for aliens
Again, it appears that you believe you know better than he what he meant. He talks not of a right, but of a privilege. The last time I looked the law made great distinction between the two, specifically in the ease with which a privilege may be altered or revoked or never granted. I hope you understand why, once again, I assume that the man who wrote the Constitution almost single-handedly and who was a prolific writer had at his command enough knowledge of the English language to distinguish between rights and privileges.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Since I am unable to read his mind, I prefer to believe that he used the words he intended to use.
Same here. All of them.
Oakman wrote:
Again, it appears that you believe you know better than he what he meant. He talks not of a right, but of a privilege. The last time I looked the law made great distinction between the two, specifically in the ease with which a privilege may be altered or revoked or never granted.
Read the opening sentence of the quotation:
Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.
So the Constitution secures privileges, along with rights. Combining your interpretation with Madison's words, we must conclude that the Constitution "secures" things that may be "altered or revoked or never granted" --- with relative ease, apparently. Perhaps you want to rethink that. And Madison does talk of a right. He opens the final paragraph with the hypothetical: "If aliens had no rights under the Constitution...". The remainder of the paragraph is plainly intended to refute that hypothetical.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obama, from the need to be concerned about storm troopers invading our homes and sending us to concentration camps
Well, I think some of our older Japanese American's that lived under the Roosevelt administration might disagree with you, as well as some "journalists" of the North who wrote about their dissent concerning the War of Northern Aggression under Lincoln.
kmg365 wrote:
Well, I think some of our older Japanese American's that lived under the Roosevelt administration might disagree with you, as well as some "journalists" of the North who wrote about their dissent concerning the War of Northern Aggression under Lincoln.
That is precisely why I wrote "relying upon our own history...". Those things happened and were far worse than anything being contemplated today, yet the institutions returned to normal afterwards.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Never heard of him...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
That's a surprise. Isn't he supposed to be one of the important people (a founding father). Born Thetford UK (just a few miles from where I type this message) http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/[^]
hmmmm, yes, thats quite surprising indeed...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
That's a surprise. Isn't he supposed to be one of the important people (a founding father). Born Thetford UK (just a few miles from where I type this message) http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/[^]
-
Oakman wrote:
Sorry, Jimmy, but that won't get you very far in a Thai court. Come back onto American soil and it will, however.
While in Thailand, or any country, I am subject to their laws, just as ailens are subject to US laws while in the US. The fact that I am not on US soil does not in any way make me less a citizen of the US and entitled to all the provisions of the US Constitution with regard as to how the US government treats me. How foreign governments treat me, while in their country, is based on their laws and international treaties to which they have agreed.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopesJimmyRopes wrote:
The fact that I am not on US soil does not in any way make me less a citizen of the US and entitled to all the provisions of the US Constitution with regard as to how the US government treats me. How foreign governments treat me, while in their country, is based on their laws and international treaties to which they have agreed.
That was sorta my point, my friend. The Constitution is only enforced in the U.S. Leaving the country doesn't make you any less of a citizen but you won't find a cop, lawyer, judge, jury, jailer or government official who will think twice about ignoring your constitutional rights and privileges simply because they carry no weight beyond our borders. For instance, the two American journalists in North Korea.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
JimmyRopes wrote:
The fact that I am not on US soil does not in any way make me less a citizen of the US and entitled to all the provisions of the US Constitution with regard as to how the US government treats me. How foreign governments treat me, while in their country, is based on their laws and international treaties to which they have agreed.
That was sorta my point, my friend. The Constitution is only enforced in the U.S. Leaving the country doesn't make you any less of a citizen but you won't find a cop, lawyer, judge, jury, jailer or government official who will think twice about ignoring your constitutional rights and privileges simply because they carry no weight beyond our borders. For instance, the two American journalists in North Korea.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
That was sorta my point, my friend.
I misunderstood your original statement. I thought you were saying that you had to be on US soil or you were less of a US citizen in some way, and that your rights were somehow deminished in the eyes of the US Government when not residing in the US. PS - it seems like you and Stan are on the same page in this diatribe discussion. :-D
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
That's a surprise. Isn't he supposed to be one of the important people (a founding father). Born Thetford UK (just a few miles from where I type this message) http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/[^]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Isn't he supposed to be one of the important people
I'm relatively sure that Stan is putting you on. He knows who Thomas paine is, he just doesn't want to admit there's anyone who disagrees with him and calls that disagreement, "Common Sense," and is considered a close ally of Thomas Jefferson. . . ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
I'll suspend judgment until I know the full details, but Glenn Greenwald, a persistent critic of both Bush and Obama on civil liberties/rule of law issues, lays out the case against preventive detention here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention/[^]
John Carson
It is surprising how fast the politician changes the story after they get elected. X|
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes