Guess who scares the libs in `08?

Quote from Burtakus:

Since when does the bill of rights and the US constitution apply to non US citizens?
More...

The Constitution is, and has always been, generally applicable to all "persons," who are located on U.S. soil, regardless of their citizenship. However, the Constitution does not generally apply to those who are not located on U.S. soil, or to those persons who enter the U.S. with the intent to destroy the nation.

The primary reason why the "enemy combatants" are interred at Guantanamo (something which is not widely known to the public), is because the U.S. has a 99 year lease on the land from Cuba, and it has been legally determined that the prisoners are not, and never have been, on U.S. soil, and therefore they are not entitled to the general protection of the Constitution, which might have applied had they been transferred to a prison within the U.S.

The President has filled the gap in the gray areas of law by maintaining the prisoners are enemy combatants and not entitled to prisoner of war privileges, while simultaneously keeping them off of U.S. soil so as to deprive them of any privileges under the Constitution.

Thus, they exists within a legal netherworld, where the only law that applies to them is the oldest law of all -- might makes right.

Which, I suppose, is as it should be, since this is the only law that most of the enemy combatants likely recognize as valid.
 
Quote from kjkent1:

The primary reason why the "enemy combatants" are interred at Guantanamo (something which is not widely known to the public), is because the U.S. has a 99 year lease on the land from Cuba, and it has been legally determined that the prisoners are not, and never have been, on U.S. soil, and therefore they are not entitled to the general protection of the Constitution, which might have applied had they been transferred to a prison within the U.S.

Might Makes Right...the only law that most of the enemy combatants likely recognize as valid.
More...

The two points that I have been informing most of my friends and associates about since day one. Thanks for the confirmation! :)
 
HR 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the library provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. HR 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause.
More...
http://www.counterpunch.org/paul07232005.html

Courts

Section 805 ruled vague

January 23, 2004, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that Section 805 (which classifies "expert advice or assistance" as material support to terrorism) was vague and in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, marking the first legal decision to set a part of the Act aside. The lawsuit against the act was brought by the Humanitarian Law Project, representing five organizations and two U.S. citizens who wanted to provide expert advice to Kurdish refugees in Turkey. Groups providing aid to these organizations had suspended their activities for fear of violating the Act, and they filed a lawsuit against the Departments of Justice and State to challenge the law, claiming the phrase "expert advice or assistance" was too vague. [11]

Collins granted the plaintiff's motion that "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, but denied a nationwide injunction against the provision. The plaintiffs were granted "enjoinment" from enforcement of the provision.

Section 505 ruled unconstitutional

On September 29, 2004, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down Section 505—which allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight—as a violation of the First and Fourth Amendment. The court also found the broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech. [12]
More...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

More on how the Patriot Act takes away civil liberties and violates the Constitution:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.05D.JVB.Patriot.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.06D.JVB.Patriot.htm
 
I'm a Democrat, and a liberal, and I would love to see McCain win the Republican nomination. I respect McCain and his politics, and I believe he would make a good president, even if I don't agree with him on every issue. And Democrat who can beat McCain would probably make a good president, too.

Martin
 
Quite a lot of repubs don't like McCain, that must mean he has some good qualitites.....

Quote from Sparohok:

I'm a Democrat, and a liberal, and I would love to see McCain win the Republican nomination. I respect McCain and his politics, and I believe he would make a good president, even if I don't agree with him on every issue. And Democrat who can beat McCain would probably make a good president, too.

Martin
More...
 
Quote from Sparohok:

I'm a Democrat, and a liberal, and I would love to see McCain win the Republican nomination. I respect McCain and his politics, and I believe he would make a good president, even if I don't agree with him on every issue. And Democrat who can beat McCain would probably make a good president, too.

Martin
More...
I think McCain wining the Repub. nomination would be advantageous to the Democrats because he is divisive among the Repubs.

I would like to see Giuliani run. I think he'd handily defeat anyone the Dems come up with, especially Hillary.

Hillary v.s. Condi? That would be interesting.....
 
Quote from hapaboy:

Yes. Unless I missed it, in which case I would appreciate it if you would point out when and under what circumstances we ceased having one.
More...

jose padilla
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top