- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Detainees in Gitmo allowed to challenge detention in courts
Detainees in Gitmo allowed to challenge detention in courtsFollow
Edwards 2012!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
hielojh wrote:
plankdum,
Another product of a public education I see. Here's the passage you're referring to;
Now do you notice where it says "shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS"
Reading can be your friend.
Edited, Jun 12th 2008 1:36pm by hielojh
Quote:
Our Constitution guarantees the right to be secure in your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" without a warrant
Last I checked that amendment applies to "the people" it did not specify citizens and did not exclude foreigners living in the US.
Last I checked that amendment applies to "the people" it did not specify citizens and did not exclude foreigners living in the US.
Another product of a public education I see. Here's the passage you're referring to;
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now do you notice where it says "shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS"
Reading can be your friend.
Edited, Jun 12th 2008 1:36pm by hielojh
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Why yes, yes it can be
hielojh wrote:
plankdum,
You do realize the significance of a semi-colon don't you?
or take a look at this,
Simply because you imagine the constitution applies to everyone in the world doesn't make it so.
Edited, Jun 12th 2008 1:49pm by hielojh
You do realize the significance of a semi-colon don't you?
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
or take a look at this,
Quote:
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.
Simply because you imagine the constitution applies to everyone in the world doesn't make it so.
Edited, Jun 12th 2008 1:49pm by hielojh
But since you insist on using it. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws if I recall 4th grade English correctly then the word "persons" means everyone who is a human being. Someone called an enemy combatant is still a person. The US Constitution is the supreme law, focus on the word LAW now, of the land. The 4th amendment says that the government can't take from you anything for a criminal case without a warrant. Now since the 4th amendment is apart of the supreme LAW of the US and the 14th amendment guarantees the equal protection of any LAW to any person within the US then warrantless wiretapping is illegal.
hielojh wrote:
people residing in the US
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
But we don't always intercept ONLY foreign communications
If one participant in the conversation lives in the US then that phone call cannot be recorded by the government without either the permission of the person in the US or a warrant
The business of us wiretapping people in other countries is an entirely different debate and was obviously not what I was talking about
If one participant in the conversation lives in the US then that phone call cannot be recorded by the government without either the permission of the person in the US or a warrant
The business of us wiretapping people in other countries is an entirely different debate and was obviously not what I was talking about
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
hielojh wrote:
people residing in the US
hielojh wrote:
These detainees are not american citizens and were in fact captured as enemy combatants on foreign soil. Why liberals want to afford them the same rights as US citizens is insanity. Next thing you know liberal judges will be subpoenaing the soldiers who captured these enemy combatants. Is that what you want?
Yes that is exactly what I want. The right to a trial exists for a reason and is extended to anyone who is charged under any law... oh wait that's right they weren't charged with anything silly me. We should let them go unless we charge and try them in a federal court in the US.
Oh and if you insist on calling me "plankdom" would you at least spell dumb correctly?
Edited, Jun 12th 2008 3:17pm by Planks
Edited, Jun 12th 2008 3:17pm by Planks
Planks, why are you arguing with varus? It serves no purpose except to frustrate you.
hielojh wrote:
This is also why I keep getting banned. I know alla will say it's because of my racist comments but in reality it's because he knows what I'm saying is right. If you believe the way I do you have to be silenced; just like the Dems are trying to silence talk radio.
Delusions of grandeur.
This is really a black day for our judicial process in this country.
If there was any doubt about whether the left views the Supreme Court as a "majority wins, so stack it with people who'll rule the way we want" instead of one that actually rules based on the Constitution, it's now been lifted. This ruling is about as blatant a "we're making this ruling cause it's what our side wants" process as I've ever seen in a SCOTUS case. Seen lots of them at lower levels, but never such a blatant example of this at the Supreme Court level.
The Scalia quote is incredibly relevant. Just a few years ago, this exact same court ruled that if Congress legally codified the military commissions process, there was nothing in the Constitution to prohibit them. What changed? Nothing, except that Congress did approve them. This can only be explained as a purely partisan ruling, which the Court isn't supposed to do.
If there was any doubt about whether the left views the Supreme Court as a "majority wins, so stack it with people who'll rule the way we want" instead of one that actually rules based on the Constitution, it's now been lifted. This ruling is about as blatant a "we're making this ruling cause it's what our side wants" process as I've ever seen in a SCOTUS case. Seen lots of them at lower levels, but never such a blatant example of this at the Supreme Court level.
The Scalia quote is incredibly relevant. Just a few years ago, this exact same court ruled that if Congress legally codified the military commissions process, there was nothing in the Constitution to prohibit them. What changed? Nothing, except that Congress did approve them. This can only be explained as a purely partisan ruling, which the Court isn't supposed to do.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
hielojh wrote:
belkira,
Could you imagine how boring this site would be without me?
Could you imagine how boring this site would be without me?
I actually miss most of your posts because I have the filter on default. So... yeah. You don't really spice up my life, sorry.
The Scalia quote is incredibly relevant. Just a few years ago, this exact same court ruled that if Congress legally codified the military commissions process, there was nothing in the Constitution to prohibit them
No, they stated the Executive could pursue that option, they didn't state it would be Constitutional. They do this a lot, when there's no standing to rule on an issue. Scalia knows this, he's just having a temper tantrum.
This can only be explained as a purely partisan ruling, which the Court isn't supposed to do.
Sure, the Court that's become far more conservative by anyone's measure since 2000 and that ruled for Bush in Bush V Gore is making a partisan ruling in favor of Democrats.
Yup. That's it.
While I now know you can possibly ever get tired of being wrong, don't you ever get tired of blaming that wrongness on a vast liberal conspiracy?
I can't wait for the gnashing of teeth when Obama wins Virgnia and Georgia on his way to 300 electoral votes.
Maybe you'll progress to blatant racism by then. It'll be interesting to see.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I can wait because when Obama goes down Mondale style all we'll hear from every news outlet for the next 4yrs is how racist this country is.
/yawn. Yeah I know. That's why he's 65/35 on the prediction markets. Hey, you should go buy McCain futures now, before the suckers catch on that he's going to dodder his way to victory. I can't wait until we start hearing more about his drug addict wife or his laughable national security credentials. McCain: "I've been wrong every time on national security, also, I'm almost dead. My wife can score you oxy, though. Vote for me, my friends. I'll take you for a ride in my motor carriage if you do, twenty three skidoo!"
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 303
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (303)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Detainees in Gitmo allowed to challenge detention in courts
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC