SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus - Page 6

flaja · 06-17-2008, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadbeater

I tell you this: if Britain declared the US revolutionaries in 1776 'illegal combatants', or the like, there would be no United States today.

Why?

Aliantha · 06-17-2008, 08:21 PM

Well surely if an American citizen believes in their constitution, then the idea of inalienable rights must extend to all human beings. If they're inalienable then there really can't be an argument against those rights unless you want to appear to be living by a double standard.

Just because your government guarantees them to your citizens surely doesn't mean that other non US citizens don't have them.

I think the issue is that if the people of the US live under the assumption or idea of inalienable rights, then surely anyone who has any dealings with the US regardless of the nature of those dealings, must be assumed to have those very same rights simply because they are inalienable. They're natural or 'God given' if that's your preferred wording.

TheMercenary · 06-17-2008, 08:29 PM

Well the way I see it is that we do guarantee them to our citizens but there is no way that we can gurantee them to others who are outside of our borders. And if you are here illegally you are afforded some protections, but not all of them since by being here illegally you have broken our laws and are by all rights a criminal, and if you are captured on a battlefield trying to kill our soldiers you are not guanteed them either. I am not all into the "God given" approach, although I believe that was the intent at the time. Sure I have a double standard when it comes to non-citizens. Just because you have "dealings" with our country in no way affords you all of our rights. That, I believe, is patently ridiculous. If I deal with your country are you going to give me all of the same rights as if I were a citizen? If I go to Pakistan or the Sudan or Nigeria, are they going to give me all of the same rights as if I were a citizen? Hell no. So why should we?

flaja · 06-17-2008, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well the way I see it is that we do guarantee them to our citizens but there is no way that we can gurantee them to others who are outside of our borders.

Then perhaps our troops should stay within our borders?

Is Gitmo not under the jurisdiction of the U.S.? If it is under U.S. jurisdiction, can we not guarantee the detainees we have there the same rights that the U.S. government guarantees its own citizens?

Quote:

And if you are here illegally you are afforded some protections, but not all of them since by being here illegally you have broken our laws and are by all rights a criminal, and if you are captured on a battlefield trying to kill our soldiers you are not guanteed them either.

How do you know that illegals are here illegally before you give them at least a hearing in court to ascertain their status? You seem to be in the habit of presuming people to be guilty, which is anathema to U.S. jurisprudence.

TheMercenary · 06-17-2008, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flaja

Then perhaps our troops should stay within our borders?

Is Gitmo not under the jurisdiction of the U.S.? If it is under U.S. jurisdiction, can we not guarantee the detainees we have there the same rights that the U.S. government guarantees its own citizens?

No, I do not buy that they are afforded the same rights.

Quote:

How do you know that illegals are here illegally before you give them at least a hearing in court to ascertain their status? You seem to be in the habit of presuming people to be guilty, which is anathema to U.S. jurisprudence.

How could they be illegals if they are not here illegally? Who says illegals are not given a hearing? Why do you need a hearing if you are caught by the Border Patrol jumping a fence? Such anathema to US jurisprudence is practiced legally everyday.

flaja · 06-17-2008, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

How could they be illegals if they are not here illegally? Who says illegals are not given a hearing?

No one, but this is my entire point. We don't know that an illegal is an illegal without giving them legal due process whereby they are proven to be illegal.

TheMercenary · 06-17-2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flaja

No one, but this is my entire point. We don't know that an illegal is an illegal without giving them legal due process whereby they are proven to be illegal.

Well are they illegals or not? I am using your terms. Either you are here legally or not. So by your reasoning if we capture people who have jumped our border we have to give them a hearing? Hmmm, I think not.

Aliantha · 06-17-2008, 08:32 PM

But if those rights are in fact 'inalienable' then surely that means you have no right to restrict them, if in fact you can.

I think we might need to define the term 'inalienable' because that seems to be the issue although we have had this discussion here several times in the past.

Inalienable is interchangeable with natural as far as rights are concerned. If right is natural, then how can you possibly say that everyone is not entitled to them?

TheMercenary · 06-17-2008, 08:37 PM

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

No where does it say that you are in some way guarenteed the right to happiness, only that you can pursuit them. It is quite evident that any and all governments selectively take away individual rights when they are abused for criminal acts. Ours included.

flaja · 06-17-2008, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

No where does it say that you are in some way guarenteed the right to happiness, only that you can pursuit them. It is quite evident that any and all governments selectively take away individual rights when they are abused for criminal acts. Ours included.

By locking people up at Gitmo has our government not taken away their right to liberty and to pursue happiness? And just how do know that these people deserve to have these rights taken from them for criminal activity if we have proven in a court or tribunal that they are in fact criminals?

Why don’t you give us a list of countries that take away inalienable rights of non-citizens without American-style legal due process?

TheMercenary · 06-17-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flaja

By locking people up at Gitmo has our government not taken away their right to liberty and to pursue happiness? And just how do know that these people deserve to have these rights taken from them for criminal activity if we have proven in a court or tribunal that they are in fact criminals?

Why don’t you give us a list of countries that take away inalienable rights of non-citizens without American-style legal due process?

Why don't you give me a list of countries that do not? Do some research and get back to me. Have you been to any third world countries. How about Africa. I can name quite a few. American-style due process is just that, American. Some other countries have similar laws but they are not the same. Look up Miranda Warnings, what other countries have those?

Just how do you know that these criminals have the rights afforded to them?

TheMercenary · 06-17-2008, 08:43 PM

Does everyone believe that we as humans have a Creator, a higher being, a God that made us what we are?

flaja · 06-17-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Does everyone believe that we as humans have a Creator, a higher being, a God that made us what we are?

What has this to do with the topic under discussion? If you agree that inalienable rights exist, it does not matter what the source of these rights is.

TheMercenary · 06-17-2008, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flaja

What has this to do with the topic under discussion? If you agree that inalienable rights exist, it does not matter what the source of these rights is.

Because if you are using our Constitution as an example of "inalienable rights", and you want to use literal examples of such a right, then you must agree that some form of a higher power gives them to you:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

You can't cherry pick the bits you want to agree with if we follow your track of literal translations.

TheMercenary · 06-17-2008, 10:24 PM

I am still waiting for you to cite where the United States Constitution applies to all people of the world who are not citizens of the United States.

06-17-2008, 08:21 PM	#2
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	Well surely if an American citizen believes in their constitution, then the idea of inalienable rights must extend to all human beings. If they're inalienable then there really can't be an argument against those rights unless you want to appear to be living by a double standard. Just because your government guarantees them to your citizens surely doesn't mean that other non US citizens don't have them. I think the issue is that if the people of the US live under the assumption or idea of inalienable rights, then surely anyone who has any dealings with the US regardless of the nature of those dealings, must be assumed to have those very same rights simply because they are inalienable. They're natural or 'God given' if that's your preferred wording. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

06-17-2008, 08:29 PM	#3
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Well the way I see it is that we do guarantee them to our citizens but there is no way that we can gurantee them to others who are outside of our borders. And if you are here illegally you are afforded some protections, but not all of them since by being here illegally you have broken our laws and are by all rights a criminal, and if you are captured on a battlefield trying to kill our soldiers you are not guanteed them either. I am not all into the "God given" approach, although I believe that was the intent at the time. Sure I have a double standard when it comes to non-citizens. Just because you have "dealings" with our country in no way affords you all of our rights. That, I believe, is patently ridiculous. If I deal with your country are you going to give me all of the same rights as if I were a citizen? If I go to Pakistan or the Sudan or Nigeria, are they going to give me all of the same rights as if I were a citizen? Hell no. So why should we? __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

06-17-2008, 08:32 PM	#8
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	But if those rights are in fact 'inalienable' then surely that means you have no right to restrict them, if in fact you can. I think we might need to define the term 'inalienable' because that seems to be the issue although we have had this discussion here several times in the past. Inalienable is interchangeable with natural as far as rights are concerned. If right is natural, then how can you possibly say that everyone is not entitled to them? __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

06-17-2008, 08:37 PM	#9
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." No where does it say that you are in some way guarenteed the right to happiness, only that you can pursuit them. It is quite evident that any and all governments selectively take away individual rights when they are abused for criminal acts. Ours included. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

06-17-2008, 08:43 PM	#12
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Does everyone believe that we as humans have a Creator, a higher being, a God that made us what we are? __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

06-17-2008, 10:24 PM	#15
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	I am still waiting for you to cite where the United States Constitution applies to all people of the world who are not citizens of the United States. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)