Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Fair enough.

And that was a disgrace too, especially since it seems to have set a precedent for a 60-vote supermajority requirement

Precedents don't matter. This isn't the common law of appointments. If the Senators don't like their rules, they don't have to adopt them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
No, wait. I thought doing that was supposed to be cool for some reason, but it just feels retarded. Am I not doing it right?

I always thought you should feel retarded after I've read your posts. It seems like you are on the right track. go for it!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why don't we want foreigners to have any rights? Do you not believe that all men are created equal, and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I want all foreigners to have rights. But unfortunately the ones to give it to them are the country in which they are a citizen, not the United States. If their country of origin gives them such rights then we most likely have a treaty with that country and that country can protect its citizens rights through diplomatic channels. But it would be impracticable at the current time for the United States to enforce humans rights for any human any where in the world.

The maker would like all humans to have these rights but not every country gives them. Right now that is beyond our immediate control. We can only be responsible for the people in our own country.

If you believe every person should get a writ of Habeus Corpus anywhere in the world then why don't we just enforce that rule all over the world? If someone is detained in another country and not given that right we should make sure they do. Why should it matter if it is the United States infringing on that right or someon else?

You don't seem to think it is that important that the people that lived under Saddam Hussein should get any rights - you have said over and over again that bringing basic human rights to the people of Iraq was not of enough justification to invade. Why the concern for the universal rights of man, but only when the United States is infringing on those rights? Every country can ignore these rights but the United States?

That is just absurd.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why does a "conservative" want to limit a procedure that's been part of our traditions since 1305?

I don't want to limit it, I just don't want to expand it. You are the one messing with it. The writ of Habeus Corpus has always been limited to the citizens (or at least resident and legal guests) of the particular jurisdiction applying it. But courts, as far as I know, have never had the right to apply it out of their jurisdiction under common law.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I want all foreigners to have rights. But unfortunately the ones to give it to them are the country in which they are a citizen, not the United States. If their country of origin gives them such rights then we most likely have a treaty with that country and that country can protect its citizens rights through diplomatic channels. But it would be impracticable at the current time for the United States to enforce humans rights for any human any where in the world.

The maker would like all humans to have these rights but not every country gives them. Right now that is beyond our immediate control. We can only be responsible for the people in our own country.

If you believe every person should get a writ of Habeus Corpus anywhere in the world then why don't we just enforce that rule all over the world? If someone is detained in another country and not given that right we should make sure they do. Why should it matter if it is the United States infringing on that right or someon else?

You don't seem to think it is that important that the people that lived under Saddam Hussein should get any rights - you have said over and over again that bringing basic human rights to the people of Iraq was not of enough justification to invade. Why the concern for the universal rights of man, but only when the United States is infringing on those rights? Every country can ignore these rights but the United States?

That is just absurd.



I don't want to limit it, I just don't want to expand it. You are the one messing with it. The writ of Habeus Corpus has always been limited to the citizens (or at least resident and legal guests) of the particular jurisdiction applying it. But courts, as far as I know, have never had the right to apply it out of their jurisdiction under common law.

What if they picked up an innocent non-citizen in the US and swept him away to another country?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The writ predates the Constitution by about four centuries.

Sharia predates it by about seventeen? So what? If the founders intended the writ to protect non-Americans outside of America, they would have included it.

If he's really innocent, why should his freedom depend on his government's interest and clout? Aren't we better than other governments?

If he's really innocent, why are we holding him?

Better yet - and here's the point you probably don't want to admit - why should we be expanding our laws merely for his benefit, when we all probably know that his country probably won't so anything for him.

Here's a cliche for you - Bad cases make bad law.

You want to vastly expand the tenets of Constitutional law to protect a hypothetical "innocent" - when we all know the law would merely be abused by those that are far from it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I don't want to expand anything. The Bush Administration is proposing a law that would limit the writ of habeas corpus. I take it that both Spanky and Slave oppose this, on the theory that we shouldn't change what has worked until now.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't want to expand anything. The Bush Administration is proposing a law that would limit the writ of habeas corpus. I take it that both Spanky and Slave oppose this, on the theory that we shouldn't change what has worked until now.

:td:

W p, p.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why don't we want foreigners to have any rights? Do you not believe that all men are created equal, and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

In this country we limit the governments ability to fight crime to protect our rights. It makes it more difficult for law enforcemnt to do their job, but the pay off is we have more rights and that is what we prefer. What benefit do the citizens of the United States get when we limit our governments ability to do its job overseas? When the United States is trying to protect us from international criminals we don't want to limit their ability to do their job to protect the rights of other people. Especially when many of these people are trying to do us harm and who probably don't have the same rights at home. In many cases, not only do they not have these rights at home, but they are trying to make it so we don't have these rights either.

During the invasion of Afghanistan should the US government have obtained warrants before searching caves? Don't foreigners have right to privacy? When the NSA is listening in on phone calls between Pakistani nationals in Pakistan, should they have to get a warrant?

Why are you so obsessed with making it more difficult for the US Government to fight the war on terror? If they have some member of the Taliban locked up in Gitmo, but the authorities don't really have a specific crime he has committed, but are worried that he may engage in terrorist activities, I have no problem with them detaining him until they feel confident he won't be involved in terrorist activities.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What if they picked up an innocent non-citizen in the US and swept him away to another country?

That is such a loaded question. Of course, if he is innocent (and of course that is also a relative term) I would want to see the US government let him free. But if he joined the Taliban or Al Queda in Afghanistan, and he entered the US under false pretenses, I would be perfectly happy to see them whisk him away to Gitmo and hold them as long as they thought was necessary (even if they had no record of him committing a crime).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
In this country we limit the governments ability to fight crime to protect our rights. It makes it more difficult for law enforcemnt to do their job, but the pay off is we have more rights and that is what we prefer. What benefit do the citizens of the United States get when we limit our governments ability to do its job overseas? When the United States is trying to protect us from international criminals we don't want to limit their ability to do their job to protect the rights of other people. Especially when many of these people are trying to do us harm and who probably don't have the same rights at home. In many cases, not only do they not have these rights at home, but they are trying to make it so we don't have these rights either.

During the invasion of Afghanistan should the US government have obtained warrants before searching caves? Don't foreigners have right to privacy? When the NSA is listening in on phone calls between Pakistani nationals in Pakistan, should they have to get a warrant?

Why are you so obsessed with making it more difficult for the US Government to fight the war on terror? If they have some member of the Taliban locked up in Gitmo, but the authorities don't really have a specific crime he has committed, but are worried that he may engage in terrorist activities, I have no problem with them detaining him until they feel confident he won't be involved in terrorist activities.

I said he was innocent and we knew it. And I don't think federal judges are exactly eager to loose accused terrorists.

New hear this:

• Alexander Hamilton said, ‘A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!’ … You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy?—or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the Pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the short heard round the world? … Well, it’s a simple answer after all.

That was Ronald Reagan.

Reagan's vision of American strength has been replaced by a conservatism so afraid of the world that it is willing to trade away the liberties that make this country great for a promise -- however hollow -- of more safety. Why are you all so afraid? Have some courage to stand up for what makes this country great.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't want to expand anything. The Bush Administration is proposing a law that would limit the writ of habeas corpus. I take it that both Spanky and Slave oppose this, on the theory that we shouldn't change what has worked until now.

I had never discussed the bill or Bush's action. I only said that foreign nationals being held at a foreign location by the United States should not have the right of Habeas Corpus to US courts. And as far as I know, the common law never extended the right of Habeas corpus to people outside of the jurisdiction of the court hearing a plea concerning such right. You asked me why I wanted to limit a comon law right that has been around since the seventeenth century, and as far as I know I have never suggested limiting the common law right. Am I wrong?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I said he was innocent and we knew it. And I don't think federal judges are exactly eager to loose accused terrorists.

New hear this:

• Alexander Hamilton said, ‘A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!’ … You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy?—or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the Pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the short heard round the world? … Well, it’s a simple answer after all.

That was Ronald Reagan.

Reagan's vision of American strength has been replaced by a conservatism so afraid of the world that it is willing to trade away the liberties that make this country great for a promise -- however hollow -- of more safety. Why are you all so afraid? Have some courage to stand up for what makes this country great.

I'm afraid because our President said he isn't concerned about catching the mastermind behind a plot that led to passenger jets being flown into buildings, but that's just me.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I said he was innocent and we knew it. And I don't think federal judges are exactly eager to loose accused terrorists.

I don't know if you are lying or have Alzheimer’s. We had left that hypo way behind. I was responding to: Why don't we want foreigners to have any rights? Do you not believe that all men are created equal, and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

In any realistic discussion of the issue we will never know if the detainee is innocent before he applies for a hearing, so to have a hypo where we do is just absurd. The issue is should all detainees have the right to this writ. Your hypo was absurd, and after I went to such lengths to discredit the hypo it is ridiculous that you thought I was referring to it again.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
New hear this:

• Alexander Hamilton said, ‘A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!’ … You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy?—or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the Pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the short heard round the world? … Well, it’s a simple answer after all.

It is kind of ironic that you quote Alexander Hamilton because he was against the current constitution. In addition, it is absurd to quote a man who would have never considered that enemy combatants should have any rights. Do you really believe that Alexander Hamilton thought British soliders caught during the Revolutionary War (which was really a civil war so many of the prisoners of war were residents of the colonies) should have a right to the writ of Habeus Corpus?

The quote is not on point. The main thesis of the quote in no way contradicts anything I have said, making its posting completely irrelevent.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Reagan's vision of American strength has been replaced by a conservatism so afraid of the world that it is willing to trade away the liberties that make this country great for a promise -- however hollow -- of more safety. Why are you all so afraid? Have some courage to stand up for what makes this country great.

What liberties have I traded away? What can the government do to me now that it couldn't do to me before?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
What liberties have I traded away? What can the government do to me now that it couldn't do to me before?

How are you going to prove you're an American citizen when you don't have access to a habeas proceeding?