Gitmo

[Thumb]

Btw I didn't throw this opinion out there to appease Thumb - I refuse to engage when he is acting like a troll.

Another classic case of KAWDUP being the pot that called the kettle black.

Everyone has seen the replies you made in this thread, everyone of which was an OT comment made for no other reason than to illicit a response, that's the textbook definition of a troll. :bs:

You accused me of making a snarky comment, well I'm guilty as charged, but at least I was on topic and involved in the discussion. :tup:

Now that I know who he acted that way toward, though, it loses a little steam, but I call them like see them as I'm sure he does too.

Regardless of who was saying it, it was dumb, the person in question suggested the Bill of Rights and Constitution only applies to US citizens, it doesn't and several people here have even confirmed that if you don;t want to take my word for it or google it as you said; they used to teach stuff like this in H.S. Government class. :*)

 

[KAWDUP]

Another classic case of KAWDUP being the pot that called the kettle black.

Everyone has seen the replies you made in this thread, everyone of which was an OT comment made for no other reason than to illicit a response, that's the textbook definition of a troll. :bs:

You accused me of making a snarky comment, well I'm guilty as charged, but at least I was on topic and involved in the discussion. :tup:


Regardless of who was saying it, it was dumb, the person in question suggested the Bill of Rights and Constitution only applies to US citizens, it doesn't and several people here have even confirmed that if you don;t want to take my word for it or google it as you said; they used to teach stuff like this in H.S. Government class. :*)

Wow you figured this all out on your own. In this case (and many others if you're paying attention), you are right on the money. If someone is acting like a troll - you treat them like a troll.

It actually wasn't all that on topic. You were basically calling the poster stupid. I responded, and as you might guess, I will continue to respond when I feel the need. You can keep calling me a black pot if you like, but seriously go back and look at what times I responded to you in an OT way. I don't start treating you like a troll until I think you are acting like one unjustly. . . . or didn't they teach you that in troll school? My call - and my right. You continue to do what you do, and then you can keep thinking I am getting all worked up over it. This is fun isn't it?

Umm, it was wrong, it was not, however, dumb. You acted like qualifying it with "enemy combatants" was changing the argument. Maybe it was, but so what - I certainly got the meaning, and I am betting you did too, you just wanted to keep being snarky. Goodie for you.

You said it - they used to teach that in HS government. Doesn't mean any of that is retained. Half the people that took government don't even know who the VP is today. They used to teach Reading, Wrinting and Arithmetic - where did that knowledge go? Saying that doesn't necessarily equate to that poster being dumb - at least I didn't think so. Obviously, this is where we differ. Your right to call him dumb - and mine to call you on it.

Carry on Thumb.

 

[Michchamp]

... I don't agree that those prisoners are protected by the Bill of Rights ...

The wording is clear. The drafters intentionally used the word "persons" instead of "citizens" in certain places in the Constitution. If you think, maybe it was just a typo... they meant to say "citizens" but they wrote people. (Hey, everybody makes mistakes) note that elsewhere in the document they expressly used the term "citizen" when discussing the separate rights of citizens, such as running for president or voting.

This is entirely consistent with the enlightenment principles of the Declaration of Independence, that all PERSONS have certain inalienable rights, and no government should be able to abridge those rights without following the due process of law. Otherwise the government could simply revoke one's citizenship and then do whatever they wanted to them.

they even used the term "Creator" as the basis for these inalienable rights to appease the idiotic (but politically influential) preachers who would try to upset the social contract by claiming all law comes from a god or gods, instead of the government created by the people (which makes a hell of a lot more sense...) so you should be okay with these inalienable rights. You even get to pick the "creator" you want... it could be the christian god, a hindu one, or Zeus, the most powerful of all. Everybody's happy! Brilliant drafting!

Btw I didn't throw this opinion out there to appease Thumb - I refuse to engage when he is acting like a troll.

oooh, that mean old Thumb needs to learn a lesson!

 

[KAWDUP]

The wording is clear. The drafters intentionally used the word "persons" instead of "citizens" in certain places in the Constitution. If you think, maybe it was just a typo... they meant to say "citizens" but they wrote people. (Hey, everybody makes mistakes) note that elsewhere in the document they expressly used the term "citizen" when discussing the separate rights of citizens, such as running for president or voting.

This is entirely consistent with the enlightenment principles of the Declaration of Independence, that all PERSONS have certain inalienable rights, and no government should be able to abridge those rights without following the due process of law.



oooh, that mean old Thumb needs to learn a lesson!

. . . as you do too sometimes.

So foreign PERSONS that are killing Americans as part of a declared war have unalienable rights? Why do we kill them then?

You keep dancing. Do you seriously think I don't know those things? I read the Constitution all the time - even reading many books about it and the Rule of Law for that matter. I'll match my knowledge of it against yours anytime Mr attorney.

 

[Thumb]

Half the people that took government don't even know who the VP is today.

This is the second time you have said this, do you have any data or proof that 50% of the people in this country don't know who the Vice President is?

Because I'm willing to bet a good majority of them think he's the devil who wants to take their guns, and they know exactly who he is.

So foreign PERSONS that are killing Americans as part of a declared war have unalienable rights? Why do we kill them then?

There has not been a Declaration of War since WWII, Everything else has simply been military operations sanctioned by Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

 

[Thumb]

Umm, it was wrong, it was not, however, dumb. You acted like qualifying it with "enemy combatants" was changing the argument. Maybe it was, but so what - I certainly got the meaning, and I am betting you did too, you just wanted to keep being snarky. Goodie for you.

Once again you need to fact check yourself. This is what he posted that I responded to:

I didn't know there were american citizens being held

No mention of "enemy combatants" in his post or at the time you made your post either. :clap:

 

[Michchamp]

. . . as you do too sometimes.

So foreign PERSONS that are killing Americans as part of a declared war have unalienable rights? Why do we kill them then?

You keep dancing. Do you seriously think I don't know those things? I read the Constitution all the time - even reading many books about it and the Rule of Law for that matter. I'll match my knowledge of it against yours anytime Mr attorney.

not dancing.

there's a difference between someone shooting at us, and someone in custody and disarmed. You DO realize that, right?

also, apparently you haven't read any books about what a declaration of war means. Or maybe you just didn't get to that chapter yet.

authorizations and "police actions" are of course a different matter... but the constitution still applies, and in cases where the U.S. government is detaining persons, especially on U.S. soil or territory... there's no question the constitution applies. it always applies to U.S. actions, really, but unequivocally in those instances.

under the guise of some other theories, I suppose we could hand over "terrorists" to other governments to torture and detain indefinitely without charges on our behalf. We did that, and called it "rendition." obviously the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to other countries. Still messed up to do that though. we were supposed to be better than that.

 

[KAWDUP]

This is the second time you have said this, do you have any data or proof that 50% of the people in this country don't know who the Vice President is?

Because I'm willing to bet a good majority of them think he's the devil who wants to take their guns, and they know exactly who he is.




There has not been a Declaration of War since WWII, Everything else has simply been military operations sanctioned by Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

LOL - by the US. Someone vowing to annihilate you in any way possible isn't a declaration of war? You realize not every group or country has a Congress that can offer an offical declaration of war, right? Think North Korea.

 

[KAWDUP]

under the guise of some other theories, I suppose we could hand over "terrorists" to other governments to torture and detain indefinitely without charges on our behalf. We did that, and called it "rendition." obviously the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to other countries. Still messed up to do that though. we were supposed to be better than that.

This is actually covered by the Geneva Convention, which the US supposedly adheres to. Not allowed to hand them over to a country that has not ratified (using the term loosely here) the Geneva convention. Has China? I don't know the answer to that one, but if they don't, we couldn't hand them over.

 

[Thumb]

not dancing.

there's a difference between someone shooting at us, and someone in custody and disarmed. You DO realize that, right?

also, apparently you haven't read any books about what a declaration of war means. Or maybe you just didn't get to that chapter yet.

authorizations and "police actions" are of course a different matter... but the constitution still applies, and in cases where the U.S. government is detaining persons, especially on U.S. soil or territory... there's no question the constitution applies. it always applies to U.S. actions, really, but unequivocally in those instances.

under the guise of some other theories, I suppose we could hand over "terrorists" to other governments to torture and detain indefinitely without charges on our behalf. We did that, and called it "rendition." obviously the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to other countries. Still messed up to do that though. we were supposed to be better than that.

Let's not forget the Geneva Convention, if these are prisoners of a "declared war".

 

[KAWDUP]

not dancing.

there's a difference between someone shooting at us, and someone in custody and disarmed. You DO realize that, right?

also, apparently you haven't read any books about what a declaration of war means. Or maybe you just didn't get to that chapter yet.

authorizations and "police actions" are of course a different matter... but the constitution still applies, and in cases where the U.S. government is detaining persons, especially on U.S. soil or territory... there's no question the constitution applies. it always applies to U.S. actions, really, but unequivocally in those instances.

under the guise of some other theories, I suppose we could hand over "terrorists" to other governments to torture and detain indefinitely without charges on our behalf. We did that, and called it "rendition." obviously the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to other countries. Still messed up to do that though. we were supposed to be better than that.

LOL - unarmed and in "custody". May not apply to prisoners of war, though, maybe. You do realize that don't you? Quit being a condescendeing jerk. As I said, the need to determine exactly what their status is - is a matter that has not been decided.

You can believe the Constitution applies under whatever argument you deem appropriate, but yet gitmo is still open and operating.

So who is not believeing in the Rule of Law here?

If you say Ferris Bueller - you lose a testicle.

 

[KAWDUP]

Let's not forget the Geneva Convention, if these are prisoners of a "declared war".

Need a link to it? What exactly does it say about them? Put up or shut up Thumb.

 

[Thumb]

Need a link to it? What exactly does it say about them? Put up or shut up Thumb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

 

[KAWDUP]

Once again you need to fact check yourself. This is what he posted that I responded to:

No mention of "enemy combatants" in his post or at the time you made your post either. :clap:

Not sure whether you posting it after I responded means a damn thing. I responded to your comment. I never said he wasn't wrong. You really going to argue whether I felt justified based on things that came to light after?

Clapping sarcastically for yourself? Must be.

 

[Michchamp]

...

You can believe the Constitution applies under whatever argument you deem appropriate, but yet gitmo is still open and operating.

So who is not believeing in the Rule of Law here?

...

well, I'm not arguing it should be. I'm arguing that it's a violation of the Const. I'm not, nor did I ever, give Obama a pass for continuing the system in place.

He's a politician, and he knows that complaints from the public, the ACLU, and similar organizations don't mean much when they run up against the CIA, Halliburton, and the DoD.

Need a link to it? What exactly does it say about them? Put up or shut up Thumb.

gotta hand it to you... you may be ignorant of a lot of things, the legal status of Gitmo, the legal status of detainees, the application of the US Constitution, the Geneva Convention, but that doesn't seem to deter you from brashly demanding other's need to prove their points.

did you learn that in "How to be a Prick 101" or was that from a more advanced course?

 

[Thumb]

Not sure whether you posting it after I responded means a damn thing. I responded to your comment. I never said he wasn't wrong. You really going to argue whether I felt justified based on things that came to light after?

Clapping sarcastically for yourself? Must be.

I'm not arguing your justifications, just your facts. You attempted to stand up for your position by saying he said "enemy combatants", he didn't, and you posted in response to that; you didn't. Just pointing that out.

 

[KAWDUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Can't open links from here, but I already knew the Third Geneva Convention applied and says something similar to this:

The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Bet you find those exact words in the wiki too.

It also says no torture of any kind, hence why it is a colossal mess. So, how should this be adjucated again? Not even sure what you're advocating.

Guess what - I don't really care. My opinions haven't changed, and I'm betting that yours haven't either. Wonderful.

 

[Thumb]

Can't open links from here, but I already knew the Third Geneva Convention applied and says something similar to this:

The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Bet you find those exact words in the wiki too.

It also says no torture of any kind, hence why it is a colossal mess. So, how should this be adjucated again? Not even sure what you're advocating.

Guess what - I don't really care. My opinions haven't changed, and I'm betting that yours haven't either. Wonderful.

I only mention the Geneva convention because You, said it was a "declared war". You opened that can of worms, good sir.

 

[KAWDUP]

I'm not arguing your justifications, just your facts. You attempted to stand up for your position by saying he said "enemy combatants", he didn't, and you posted in response to that; you didn't. Just pointing that out.

No it was an augment to my position.

You continued the argument, and then this came up. What fact am I professing that is wrong?

 

[KAWDUP]

well, I'm not arguing it should be. I'm arguing that it's a violation of the Const. I'm not, nor did I ever, give Obama a pass for continuing the system in place.

He's a politician, and he knows that complaints from the public, the ACLU, and similar organizations don't mean much when they run up against the CIA, Halliburton, and the DoD.



gotta hand it to you... you may be ignorant of a lot of things, the legal status of Gitmo, the legal status of detainees, the application of the US Constitution, the Geneva Convention, but that doesn't seem to deter you from brashly demanding other's need to prove their points.

did you learn that in "How to be a Prick 101" or was that from a more advanced course?

I was using his words from an earlier post. I expected no such proof.

I learned that in "How to Deal with Trolls 101". You are just naturally that way so I guess I wouldn't expect you to know that.

You decrying my ignorance is just another way to bait. Doesn't make it true. If I am ignorant - you are borderline retarded.

You are pretty brash yourself big boy.