Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/24/08 05:01 PM, Memorize wrote: Article 1 Section 9:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

You underlined the wrong part. Here, let me show you

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Are the American people rebelling? No. Are we being invaded? No.

There we go.

At 6/24/08 06:01 PM, Grammer wrote:

You underlined the wrong part. Here, let me show you

You fail, as usual with your utter ignorance of historical texts.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Are the American people rebelling? No. Are we being invaded? No.

Were the people rebelling during the Civil War? Yes.

What happend during the events of 9/11? We were attacked on our own soil which killed not military targets, but our own non-military civilian population. Members of a terrorist organization made their way into a country where they could carry out a massive plot to the best of their abilities, targetting our civilians in a populated city.

ie. Invasion (explanation below)

And because we were attacked on our own soil by the enemy with members of their organization, we did not need UN approval to invade based upon the UN's own rules of warfare as the States had a right to defend itself against an enemy, who do not abide any of the laws and regulations of warfare put in place by the United Nations (as in the Geneva Convention).

And our enemies are not fighting a sovereign nation, but rather a terrorist/insurgent organization whose specific directives are to destroy and eliminate based on their own twisted ideological greed; not so disimilar from Hitler himself.

And if the bombing of Pearl Harbor lead to the belief that an invasion could inevitably fore come, which would then justify the suspension of Habeas Corpus, then certainly a terrorist attack that slaughtered 3000 civilians on 9/11 would justify it as well since there was a possibility and fear of even more terrorist attacks to occur within the United States (which have happend, but have been thwarted, and have happend elsewhere in the world such as Germany and the UK).

It doesn't matter how you spin it, Gram Gram. It's not going to work. Not only history and the founding fathers, but the very Constitution itself are in direct conflict with your unrealistic assertions.

There we go.

At 6/24/08 06:40 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/24/08 06:01 PM, Grammer wrote:

You underlined the wrong part. Here, let me show you

You fail, as usual with your utter ignorance of historical texts.

lolz

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Are the American people rebelling? No. Are we being invaded? No.

Were the people rebelling during the Civil War? Yes.

mhm

ie. Invasion (explanation below)

We were not invaded. We were attacked. Al Qaeda isn't in America, and if they were, they'd be in sleeper cells. To say we've been invaded when we don't know where the enemy is if they were in America, is outright silly. You know it, I know it, don't argue it because it'll just make you look silly.

We bombed Japan in WW2. Did we invade Japan? No, we bombed the fuck out of them. Were we invaded on 9/11? Maybe, but by 20 or so hijackers who are now dead. We sure as Hell aren't being occupied, so there is no conceivable way you can argue that we've been invaded, and that that constitutes suspending Habeus Corpus indefinitely.

At 6/24/08 07:19 PM, Grammer wrote: We bombed Japan in WW2. Did we invade Japan? No,

Well that is if you don't count territories.

At 6/24/08 07:19 PM, Grammer wrote:

We were not invaded. We were attacked. Al Qaeda isn't in America, and if they were, they'd be in sleeper cells. To say we've been invaded when we don't know where the enemy is if they were in America, is outright silly. You know it, I know it, don't argue it because it'll just make you look silly.

Did Japan invade?

Answer that.

Did Japan invade?

What makes it so different whether or not someone invades with an army or if an organization invades by sneaking into a nation to carry out bombings across the nation where no one can predict?

Which sounds like more of a threat to you? And how does one constitute the label of "invasion" while the other does not?

We bombed Japan in WW2. Did we invade Japan? No, we bombed the fuck out of them.

...I should slap you.

Go. Pick. Up. A. History. Book.

Were we invaded on 9/11? Maybe,

Oh... Good answer.

but by 20 or so hijackers who are now dead. We sure as Hell aren't being occupied,

Do you honestly believe that with the US military, anyone can "occupy" the United States?

And even still, how does that negate the threat of an invasion?

so there is no conceivable way you can argue that we've been invaded, and that that constitutes suspending Habeus Corpus indefinitely.

Answer the above question.

Were we invaded by Japan?

I'll LOVE to see how you handle it.

At 6/24/08 05:01 PM, Memorize wrote: That's not an argument, that's an excuse.

It's actually a fact. That was the Supreme Court ruling.

Actually argue why the Supreme Court decision was correct and why we should, rather than simply stating their decision.

"All men are created equal"

Slavery was also the cultural norm,

That doesn't justify anything

and we followed the Constitutional directions by ratifying an amendment that gave blacks the right to vote, by 3/4 of the states.

Right, we changed because we knew slavery was wrong. The argument you're trying to make is that giving prisoners habeas corpus is unconstitution because the founding fathers didn't give prisoners habeas corpus during the Revolutionary War. By your logic, abolishing slavery was unconstitutional since the founding fathers were slave owners.

Just because the founding fathers did it, doesn't mean it was constitutional.

Article 1 Section 9:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Strangely enough, I don't see anything in that article that says Habeas Corpus is only for US citizens. Furthermore, we're not being invaded or facing a rebellion, so there is no reason to suspend Habeas Corpus.

And since Congress and the President signed away Habeas Corpus (which has happend in every major war since the creation of the Constitution), the suspension of Habeas Corpus is legal within the Constitution, and History (as well as the founding fathers) back it up

But it's not anymore, that's the thing. It's illegal to suspend Habeas Corpus since the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

You can't defend your position by using cultural norms such as slavery to diminish the meaning of the Constitution and then turn right around and demand the constitution be heard while using the Constitution as your defense.

Actually, I never tried to "diminish the meaning of the constitution", I was making the point that the actions of the founding fathers don't decide what is constitutional and what isn't.

Over 450 people have already been released by the Military from Gitmo. And even still, they will be granted their "day in court" when there is no longer a need for Habeas Corpus to protect either civilians or members of the Military.

so 450 people are released that means that there aren't innocent people in Gitmo? Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Until the court ruling, the vast majority of these prisoner were never given a fair trial, and if we're a country that holds the rule "innocent until proven guilty" to heart, then that's not acceptable. Furthermore, giving the Military/Executive Branch the power to decide who goes and who stays is an extreme undermining of the Judicial Branch (which upsets our system of checks and balances).

And now I propose this question to you: What are you going to do with the people who appeal?

Give them a fair trial.

Do you bring soldiers off the battlefield to testify? Do you force the CIA to released sensitive government information that would then be made available to the world? Do you allow an inmate to go free if he demands to see his accuser and the soldier is unavailable for trial (street camera cases have been thrown out by this)?

So what are you going to do?

All of that, It's better to have a guilty man walk free than an innocent man imprisoned and tortured. If the military is serious about keeping these suspected terrorists imprisoned, they better be prepared to show their reasons.

Do you believe that if there are any surviving Nazi's, that we should put them on trial for war crimes when they're well in their 80's or 90's?

What does that have to do with anything? To answer your question, yes we should, and we have.

At 6/24/08 11:01 PM, Memorize wrote: ...I should slap you.

Go. Pick. Up. A. History. Book.

Actually he's right, we never invaded the Japanese mainland. Maybe you should pick up a history book.

At 6/24/08 11:55 PM, Coherent wrote:

It's actually a fact. That was the Supreme Court ruling.

Which everyone knows about.

No one debating whether or not they made that decision, now are they?

"All men are created equal"

Here's what is so funny. Watch.

That doesn't justify anything

So let me get this straight...

You're using the Constitution to support your argument, but whenever it doesn't suit you, you turn to certain norms that were in place at the time in order to diminish the very Constitution you're using as your support.

Wow...

Right, we changed because we knew slavery was wrong. The argument you're trying to make is that giving prisoners habeas corpus is unconstitution because the founding fathers didn't give prisoners habeas corpus during the Revolutionary War. By your logic, abolishing slavery was unconstitutional since the founding fathers were slave owners.

No it wasn't.

Because there was no constitutional amendment that demanded the allowing of slavery, and even many of the founding fathers were vehemently against slavery. But... we followed the rules of the Constitution and got 3/4 of the states to ratify a new amendment banning slavery and giving blacks the right to vote.

Now then, the only way you can then make suspending of Habeas Corpus 'Unconstitutional', is to have 3/4 of the states ratify a new amendment stating that Habeas Corpus is to be applied to everyone regardless of circumstance.

Now obviously the courts can decide differently, but then that would also mean that they behaved and judges 'unconstitutionally' (according to the Constitution) because they are not meant to MAKE laws, but to interpret them. And clearly, as history, the constitution and the founding fathers have conclusively proven, suspending Habeas Corpus is NOT 'unconstitutional'.

Just because the founding fathers did it, doesn't mean it was constitutional.

...

So the very people who wrote it were in direct defiance to the very law they created, before and after they created it.

Sure. Try passing that one off in a court of law.

But all you're doing is making excuses. You're not being guided by the law or the constitution. You're merely putting forth an argument because you WANT it to be right. You THINK your opinion is what should be, therefore you find any reason to put forth your opinion as if it were law.

Why else would you conveniantly use the Constitution to back you only when it supports your point of view?

By your standards, the courts could suspend Freedom of Speech, could they not? Could they then dictate that law enforcement no longer required warrants for searches?

Article 1 Section 9:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Strangely enough, I don't see anything in that article that says Habeas Corpus is only for US citizens. Furthermore, we're not being invaded or facing a rebellion, so there is no reason to suspend Habeas Corpus.

Ok then.

Tell me. Do we demand habeas corpus be put in place in wars that do not involve the United States? Can you name in one instance in our US history where Habeas Corpus has extended to enemy combatants during war time? What of illegal, unlawful immigrants?

Exactly.

Besides, you've already said I was right. You've already said I was correct. After all, you never once disputed my claim that under the Constitution that the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be (who are those we base our decisions off of today), that I was wrong.

But it's not anymore, that's the thing. It's illegal to suspend Habeas Corpus since the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

But they acted unconstitutionally when they declared it 'unconstitutional'.

Just because they believe it's wrong, doesn't make it unconstitutional if the very thing they are basing their decision on is the CONSTITUTION.

Just because someone doesn't believe that 2+2 = 4, doesn't make 2 +2 not equal 4.

Actually, I never tried to "diminish the meaning of the constitution", I was making the point that the actions of the founding fathers don't decide what is constitutional and what isn't.

Oh please. That's nothing more than your pitiful selective nitpicking of the constitution only when it will suit you.

The simply, plain FACT is that the constitution (not the Supreme Court, not any other court, but the CONSTITUTION) allows for the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

THEREFORE, one can not claim that it is unconstitutional to suspend habeas corpus. Because by saying that it is 'unconstitutional' they are claiming that the constitution itself does not allow for Habeas Corpus, when it clearly does.

What the hell else would 'unconstitutional' mean?

Go back to ending slavery. What did we do to end slavery and make it unconstitutional? We fucking added an amendment to the Constitution using rules that were in the CONSTITUTION to add an Amendment making it fucking Unconstitutional!

Furthermore, giving the Military/Executive Branch the power to decide who goes and who stays is an extreme undermining of the Judicial Branch (which upsets our system of checks and balances).

Your entire argument falls here, as the Military has ALWAYS been given this power during war time.

All of that, It's better to have a guilty man walk free than an innocent man imprisoned and tortured. If the military is serious about keeping these suspected terrorists imprisoned, they better be prepared to show their reasons.

The Supreme Court was given documents. The military determined each and every individual character, 1 by 1, to be enemy combatants. And the Supreme Court could not name a single person being held at Gitmo today who was an innocent.

Therefore, under rule of law, their ruling was flawed.

You can't prosecute a drug dealer when you have no evidence of the person ever possessing or distributing drugs.

What does that have to do with anything? To answer your question, yes we should, and we have.

Oh please. Figure it out.

Your entire argument is based merely upon emotional opinion. Not by the Constitution. Not by the Fouding Fathers. Not by History. And certainly not by how our system of government works.

Oh, and by the way:

US public who agree/disagree with the court's decision:

Agree: 34%
Disagree: 61%

Oh, look at that. It seems as if you're in the very small minority.

So not only do I have the Constitution on my side. Not only do I have the Founding Fathers on my side. Not only do I have History on my side. But I also have the public's.

At 6/24/08 11:58 PM, Coherent wrote:

At 6/24/08 11:01 PM, Memorize wrote: ...I should slap you.

Go. Pick. Up. A. History. Book.

Actually he's right, we never invaded the Japanese mainland. Maybe you should pick up a history book.

So I suppose if we invaded Nunavut, it wouldn't be considered an invasion on Canada? Or an attack on Guam wouldn't be considered an act of aggression upon the US?

At 6/25/08 01:24 AM, Memorize wrote: Therefore, under rule of law, their ruling was flawed.

Why, how fortunate we are to have someone so knowledgeable about constitutional law that he trumps even the highest court in the land on hand here at NG.

At 6/25/08 01:24 AM, Memorize wrote: No it wasn't.

By your logic it was.

Because there was no constitutional amendment that demanded the allowing of slavery

There's no ammendment demanding the removal of habeas corpus in the situation that we're in.

and even many of the founding fathers were vehemently against slavery.

Oh shut up, they were slave owners, you're pulling that completely out of your ass.

But... we followed the rules of the Constitution and got 3/4 of the states to ratify a new amendment banning slavery and giving blacks the right to vote.

Just like we followed the rules this time, and ruled that under the current constitution, suspending habeas corpus in our current situation to the prisoners at Gitmo is unconstitutional.

Now then, the only way you can then make suspending of Habeas Corpus 'Unconstitutional', is to have 3/4 of the states ratify a new amendment stating that Habeas Corpus is to be applied to everyone regardless of circumstance.

They didn't make the suspension of Habeas Corpus illegal, they made the suspension of Habeas Corpus illegal under certain circumstance by declaring it unconstitutional.

Now obviously the courts can decide differently, but then that would also mean that they behaved and judges 'unconstitutionally' (according to the Constitution) because they are not meant to MAKE laws, but to interpret them. And clearly, as history, the constitution and the founding fathers have conclusively proven, suspending Habeas Corpus is NOT 'unconstitutional'.

Under our constitution suspending Habeas Corpus is definitely not unconstitutional given certain circumstances. The supreme court didn't change the constitution, they just confirmed that those circumstances hadn't been met. That's the Supreme Court's job incase you didn't know: to interpret the constitution

...

So the very people who wrote it were in direct defiance to the very law they created, before and after they created it.

They were slave owners weren't they? Besides, I'm not arguing that they were being unconstitutional while suspending the right of habeas corpus during the revolution (although, they were wrong), I'm arguing that the Supreme Court's ruling was not unconstitutional, which it wasn't.

Why else would you conveniantly use the Constitution to back you only when it supports your point of view?

Because I actually have an understanding of how our Judicial System works, and you don't.

By your standards, the courts could suspend Freedom of Speech, could they not? Could they then dictate that law enforcement no longer required warrants for searches?

Yes, theoretically they could, though they'd have to make a good argument for it. The interpretation of the constitution is very subjective.

Tell me. Do we demand habeas corpus be put in place in wars that do not involve the United States?

No.. why would we do that?

Can you name in one instance in our US history where Habeas Corpus has extended to enemy combatants during war time?

What's happened in the past isn't relevant.

What of illegal, unlawful immigrants?

Uh... What of them? I'm seriously starting to wonder if you're touched in the head.

Besides, you've already said I was right. You've already said I was correct. After all, you never once disputed my claim that under the Constitution that the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be (who are those we base our decisions off of today), that I was wrong.

Under the current Constitution, it is unconstitutional to deny the prisoners at Gitmo the right to question their imprisonment. The decision made by the Supreme Court was not unconstitutional or unlawful in any way. You are wrong.

Just because they believe it's wrong, doesn't make it unconstitutional

Yes it does, that's exactly what it means. That's what the Supreme Court does. You understand yet? They interpret the Constitution. They decide what's unconstitutional.

Just because someone doesn't believe that 2+2 = 4, doesn't make 2 +2 not equal 4.

That's because math is objective not subjective.

The simply, plain FACT is that the constitution (not the Supreme Court, not any other court, but the CONSTITUTION) allows for the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

Not in this scenario.

Your entire argument falls here, as the Military has ALWAYS been given this power during war time.

Just because it has been done in the past doesn't make it right. Please try and grasp this.

The Supreme Court was given documents. The military determined each and every individual character, 1 by 1, to be enemy combatants.

Not using a proper legal system.

And the Supreme Court could not name a single person being held at Gitmo today who was an innocent.

That's because none of them were tried.

You can't prosecute a drug dealer when you have no evidence of the person ever possessing or distributing drugs.

BINGO! wow you finally got it! You can't prosecute and incarcerate someone without evidence! Bravo! Bravo!

Your entire argument is based merely upon emotional opinion.

At this point my argument is purely fact. The Supreme courts ruling wasn't unconstitutional... that's a fact.

Not by the Constitution.

Actually it is supported by the constitution since the Supreme Court ruled the suspension of habeas corpus at Gitmo unconstitutional.

Not by the Fouding Fathers.

We could argue all day about what the founding fathers would have thought about Gitmo, but it's irrelevant since this isn't about what the founding fathers would think. It's about what's constitutional today.

Not by History.

Once again, what's happened in the past has no bearing on this argument. you can't use the excuse 'murder used to be legal back in like 1600BC' if you commit murder.

And certainly not by how our system of government works.

Actually, I seem to be the only one out of the both of us who actually understands how our government works.

Oh, and by the way:
Oh, look at that. It seems as if you're in the very small minority.

Ever heard of Argumentum Ad Populum? It's a fallacy you know.

So I suppose if we invaded Nunavut, it wouldn't be considered an invasion on Canada? Or an attack on Guam wouldn't be considered an act of aggression upon the US?

Invasion implies hostile occupation, which never happened with Japan. They surrendered before we actually had to invade them.

At 6/25/08 01:59 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 6/25/08 01:24 AM, Memorize wrote: Therefore, under rule of law, their ruling was flawed.

Why, how fortunate we are to have someone so knowledgeable about constitutional law that he trumps even the highest court in the land on hand here at NG.

Tell me how their ruling wasn't flawed.

Tell me how saying it was unlawful by the constitution to suspend habeas corpus when the Constitution states that you can.

Go ahead.

So agree with every Supreme Court decision?

What about Dred Scott?

At 6/25/08 02:02 AM, Coherent wrote:

By your logic it was.

Omg...

In the Constitution, the founding fathers wrote rules in which people could change the Constitution. One of those rules being that you could add amendments (even repeal amendments) so long as you have a majority 3/4 of the states to ratify said amendment.

That was done concerning slavery and the right to vote.

Was that done to Habeas Corpus? No, it wasn't.

Because there was no constitutional amendment that demanded the allowing of slavery

There's no ammendment demanding the removal of habeas corpus in the situation that we're in.

Exactly.

And because the suspension of Habeas Corpus is allowed in the Constitution, the only way to disallow it is to ratify an amendment by 3/4 of the Union making habeas Corpus extended to everyone in any situation, just like we did with slavery and voting rights.

Oh shut up, they were slave owners, you're pulling that completely out of your ass.

Take a Read

Quotes from the very founding fathers who vehemently opposed slavery. Ranging from Benjamin Franklin to John Adams.

Even the reason that they made slaves only worth 3/5 of a person, was to give pro-slavery proponents less say in the political process.

Also, it did not apply to blacks, as there were blacks in the South who were Free blacks who counted the same as someone who was white.

Not to mention that many states already worked on banning slavery. And slavery was already legal before the creation of the Constitution.

So many of them were simply working to end slavery.

Just like we followed the rules this time, and ruled that under the current constitution, suspending habeas corpus in our current situation to the prisoners at Gitmo is unconstitutional.

That is simply not true based on history and constitutional context.

I used WWII as an example. Go back and read that, and disprove it (if you can).

If it were constitutional for them to suspend it when we weren't invaded based upon the fact that were attacked on our own soil and could be, then we can suspend for the same reasons now.

They didn't make the suspension of Habeas Corpus illegal, they made the suspension of Habeas Corpus illegal under certain circumstance by declaring it unconstitutional.

Then tell me how it is unconstitutional. All you've been doing was saying that I was correct, but that it didn't make what the founding fathers did, correct.

You're nothing but a flip flopper.

Under our constitution suspending Habeas Corpus is definitely not unconstitutional given certain circumstances. The supreme court didn't change the constitution, they just confirmed that those circumstances hadn't been met.

How have they not been met?

We were attacked on our own soil and threatend with numerous more attacks on our own civilians through out the country. This even happend in our allied nations.

How does that then not apply?

I'm arguing that the Supreme Court's ruling was not unconstitutional, which it wasn't.

Considering the circumstances, the constitution, the history, and the founding fathers, you've got quite a long way to go on that one.

So, I'll repeat to you what I said to the other guy:

Was the Supreme Court ruling on the Dread Scott case Unconstitutional in your eyes?

Because I actually have an understanding of how our Judicial System works, and you don't.

Really?

Tell me, what are the jobs of the Executive, Judiciary, and Legislative branches?

Yes, theoretically they could, though they'd have to make a good argument for it. The interpretation of the constitution is very subjective.

Heh, see?

By your own admission, it would be constitutional for the Supreme Court to suspend Freedom of Speech.

So you fail at understanding the government. As the Supreme Court's job isn't to create law, especially make a ruling that in direct violation of the constitution itself.

Heh, and you claim you know about the government and its workings.

No.. why would we do that?

Then it certainly doesn't extend to everyone.

What's happened in the past isn't relevant.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

So the past is quite relevant.

Uh... What of them? I'm seriously starting to wonder if you're touched in the head.

I'm sorry, but my happy place is a little lower than that.

Under the current Constitution, it is unconstitutional to deny the prisoners at Gitmo the right to question their imprisonment. The decision made by the Supreme Court was not unconstitutional or unlawful in any way. You are wrong.

I hardly have to respond anymore, lol.

Yes it does, that's exactly what it means. That's what the Supreme Court does. You understand yet? They interpret the Constitution. They decide what's unconstitutional.

They cannot interpret what is "objective", lol.

That's because math is objective not subjective.

But certainly the first amendment to freedom of speech is Objective, right? It clearly states that we have freedom of speech and Press. It must be objective.

So how can you tell me that you know about the government's workings when you're actually telling me that it is constitutional for the Supreme Court to make the first amendment "unconstitutional"?

That's because none of them were tried.

If they had the documents pertaining to these prisoners, then obviously they could've made that decision for themselves.

BINGO! wow you finally got it! You can't prosecute and incarcerate someone without evidence! Bravo! Bravo!

I refer you back to the military documents given to the Supreme Court.

lol.

I also refer to you back to those 450 some odd people who have already been released without the help of the civlian court system.

At this point my argument is purely fact. The Supreme courts ruling wasn't unconstitutional... that's a fact.

Not by the constitution.

Actually it is supported by the constitution since the Supreme Court ruled the suspension of habeas corpus at Gitmo unconstitutional.

But habeas corpus, even in this condition based upon history and context, is not unconstitutional. Therefore, they cannot use the constitution to support their ruling.

We could argue all day about what the founding fathers would have thought about Gitmo, but it's irrelevant since this isn't about what the founding fathers would think. It's about what's constitutional today.

The constitution today concerning Habeas Corpus says the EXACT same thing as then. No one snuck in and changed its wording when no one was looking.

Once again, what's happened in the past has no bearing on this argument. you can't use the excuse 'murder used to be legal back in like 1600BC' if you commit murder.

But I can use the Constitution and the numerous wars and court cases since its creation.

Ever heard of Argumentum Ad Populum? It's a fallacy you know.

Your right, but then I also refer you to, once again, History, the Constitution, and the founding fathers. All of whom you claim are irrelevant.

Invasion implies hostile occupation, which never happened with Japan. They surrendered before we actually had to invade them.

Haha.

We invaded their territories and fought Japanese soldiers. Obviously if we invaded Canadian territories, it would be seen and thought of as an invation because they are part of Canada.

At 6/24/08 11:01 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/24/08 07:19 PM, Grammer wrote:

We were not invaded. We were attacked. Al Qaeda isn't in America, and if they were, they'd be in sleeper cells. To say we've been invaded when we don't know where the enemy is if they were in America, is outright silly. You know it, I know it, don't argue it because it'll just make you look silly.

Did Japan invade?

Well, Japan invaded Alaska for a short time, but that isn't sufficient reason to suspend Habeus Corpus, in my opinion

What makes it so different whether or not someone invades with an army or if an organization invades by sneaking into a nation to carry out bombings across the nation where no one can predict?

Because:

a.) Where are they? Are we being bombed daily? At worst, there's sleeper cells

b.) THERE IS AT MOST 100 DUDES RUNNING AROUND OUR COUNTRY. Are you going to suspend Habeus Corpus because there's a sleeper cell or two in some area you don't know about?

Which sounds like more of a threat to you? And how does one constitute the label of "invasion" while the other does not?

The former. A full scale invasion is much more frightening than 100 or so towel heads in a sleeper cell that aren't doing anything and couldn't pull off an attack if they tried. How many attempts of terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, and how many of those have failed? The answer to the second question is 100%

We bombed Japan in WW2. Did we invade Japan? No, we bombed the fuck out of them.

...I should slap you.

We didn't invade Japan. Some minor outlying islands, sure, but we never barged into Tokyo with a million plus soldiers.

Were we invaded on 9/11? Maybe,

Oh... Good answer.

I was being sarcastic and humoring your point. We weren't invaded on 9/11. Anyone in their right mind (i.e. anyone not in bed with the Bush admin) knows we weren't invaded.

but by 20 or so hijackers who are now dead. We sure as Hell aren't being occupied,

Do you honestly believe that with the US military, anyone can "occupy" the United States?

You're only strengthening my point now. We can't be occupied, so how can you claim invasion?

And even still, how does that negate the threat of an invasion?

Are the Chinese planning a massive naval assault on California? Are the Russians para dropping conscripts into New Mexico?

At 6/25/08 01:59 AM, Ravariel wrote: Why, how fortunate we are to have someone so knowledgeable about constitutional law that he trumps even the highest court in the land on hand here at NG.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Memorize, what you lack is an understanding of the Supreme Courts role in our government. Like I have said and tried to explain to you multiple times before, The Supreme Court interprets the constitution. And believe it or not, just about every article in the Constitution (including Amendment 1: The Right to Free Speech) is incredibly subjective. So yes, if the Supreme Court wanted to, and a court case was presented to them that gave them the opportunity to rule on something like that, they could restrict free speech. The Supreme Court does not make amendments to the Constitution, but in this case they didn't have to because they were only INTERPRETING the constitution as it was.

The reason you can't claim that their ruling was unconstitutional is because you're not the one who gets to make that decision. Legally, the Supreme Court decides what is and isn't constitutional, not uneducated dimwits like you.

This doesn't mean I agree with everything the Supreme Court does like you're hilariously implying, it just means that legally, every decision made by the Supreme Court has been legally "Constitutional" at the time. What's wrong with your argument is that you're not calling it unconstitutional because you personally disagree with it, you're trying to make it look like the Supreme Court was doing something illegal, which is completely idiotic.

Anyways, I'm done with this argument. It has become obvious to me that you have no desire to actually educate yourself on this subject, and I'm not going to waste my precious time constantly repeating myself for you.

At 6/24/08 11:55 PM, Coherent wrote: The argument you're trying to make is that giving prisoners habeas corpus is unconstitution because the founding fathers didn't give prisoners habeas corpus during the Revolutionary War.

And what justification would you use to for them to have the writ of habeas corpus? According the much lauded international law of the Geneva Convention, the prisoners we have in custody are not prisoners of war because they were not part of a readily identifiable organized military body when they were found to be fighting U.S. Troops, they were guerilla fighters and nothing more. They're not U.S. Citizens, therefore our constitution and the rights therein do not apply to them.

As a matter of fact, we're doing a COURTESY to them by giving them 3 square meals a day, a place to sleep, and the chance to go before a military court before being released, courtesy's that in the past have not been shown to U.S. Prisoners of War in other countries (most noteably John McCain and his stay in the Hanoi Hilton).

Strangely enough, I don't see anything in that article that says Habeas Corpus is only for US citizens.

And by equal measure, I don't anything that supports your position on the matter. However, your logic in this is flawed as it implies that you honestly feel that our rights as U.S. Citizens extend beyond our borders to people in other countries, which tramples on the idea of National Sovereignty as well as shows the hypocritical nature of other countries that don't extend their rights or rule to US as U.S. Citizens.

In short, I want Canadian Free Healthcare and French Job Security with a 30 hour work week because those are MY RIGHTS AS A GLOBAL CITIZEN.

so 450 people are released that means that there aren't innocent people in Gitmo?

They were released, nothing has been said one way or another about the guilt or innocence of the majority of those combatants beyond that.

At 6/25/08 01:39 PM, Proteas wrote: And what justification would you use to for them to have the writ of habeas corpus?

Innocent until proven guilty, obviously.

According the much lauded international law of the Geneva Convention, the prisoners we have in custody are not prisoners of war because they were not part of a readily identifiable organized military body when they were found to be fighting U.S. Troops, they were guerilla fighters and nothing more.

Yes, that's what they're suspected to be.

They're not U.S. Citizens, therefore our constitution and the rights therein do not apply to them.

They do apply to them after the Supreme Court ruling.

As a matter of fact, we're doing a COURTESY to them by giving them 3 square meals a day, a place to sleep,

Are you also doing them a courtesy by warehousing them? Keeping untried potentially innocent people away from their homes and loved ones indefinitely? Are you doing them a courtesy by torturing these people? What an odd definition of courtesy.

What makes you think they're being given 3 meals a day and being allowed to sleep? One of the most common forms of torture (oops, sorry, I mean "enhanced interrogation") is sleep deprivation and starvation.

and the chance to go before a military court before being released

Right, where civilians are being tried under military law. That way, the military decides who they want to keep and who they want to release regardless of proper civilian legal conduct.

, courtesy's that in the past have not been shown to U.S. Prisoners of War in other countries (most noteably John McCain and his stay in the Hanoi Hilton).

Honestly, the US does have much of a moral high ground over the Vietnamese.

And by equal measure, I don't anything that supports your position on the matter.

Except a Supreme Court ruling. But you must have missed that.

However, your logic in this is flawed as it implies that you honestly feel that our rights as U.S. Citizens extend beyond our borders to people in other countries

Our US constitution does however effect our actions in foreign countries on foreign peoples. Which is why the Supreme Court was able to rule that the Military is required to give Habeas Corpus to the Gitmo prisoners.

They were released, nothing has been said one way or another about the guilt or innocence of the majority of those combatants beyond that.

Right, it say nothing about the innocence or guilt of the current prison population in Gitmo.

At 6/25/08 03:45 PM, Coherent wrote: Honestly, the US does have much of a moral high ground over the Vietnamese.

*doesn't

my mistake

At 6/25/08 12:27 PM, Grammer wrote:

Well, Japan invaded Alaska for a short time, but that isn't sufficient reason to suspend Habeus Corpus, in my opinion

That's your opinion, but not the nature of how Habeas Corpus has been used, during invasion OR the threat of invasion.

Because:

a.) Where are they? Are we being bombed daily? At worst, there's sleeper cells

The very fact that they are sleeper cells does it make worse. They are not a military force fighting against a military force. They are members of insurgent and terrorist organizations attacking a civilian population on OUR land.

And as a result, we can not stage a strategic strike against them as we can a military force. We can not say "They're heading in this direction, so we'll do this...". Instead, we're forced to rely on intelligence information just to find out what general direction they're even heading, let alone their current location.

b.) THERE IS AT MOST 100 DUDES RUNNING AROUND OUR COUNTRY. Are you going to suspend Habeus Corpus because there's a sleeper cell or two in some area you don't know about?

Pearl Harbor. A military strike by several bombings on military targets which claimed the lives of over 2000 people.

9/11. Members of a terrorist organization who infiltrated the country, hi-jacked two planes which were able to kill 3000 CIVLIANS within a single instant.

No military force in today's atmosphere could even come close to an occupation of the United States. But the fact that they would even try would grant the government the ability to suspend habeas corpus until that threat is over.

We are fighting an insurgency. A group of people who operate within a civilian playing field with the capability to strike at a moment's notice anywhere during any time in almost complete secrecy; moreso than a military force.

An enemy who if given the opportunity, would launch a nuclear strike on the United States and attempt to over-run its society and governmental structure.

You're telling me, that's not a threat?

The former. A full scale invasion is much more frightening than 100 or so towel heads in a sleeper cell that aren't doing anything and couldn't pull off an attack if they tried.

Were we invaded full-scale during WWII?

Were we invaded full-scale during WWI?

No. But we threatend with attacks, attacked, and also threatend with invasion, no matter how small or big.

Do you honestly believe a lowly amount of Mexicans citizens could possibley over-run the United States and destroy its social structure? But we intercepted a message from Germany to Mexico to invade during WWI which prompted us to finally enter the Great War.

Mexico declined their "request", and yet...

How many attempts of terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, and how many of those have failed? The answer to the second question is 100%

And why have they failed?

We bombed Japan in WW2. Did we invade Japan? No, we bombed the fuck out of them.

...I should slap you.

We didn't invade Japan. Some minor outlying islands, sure, but we never barged into Tokyo with a million plus soldiers.

But we invaded their territory. There's no damn way the United States wouldn't take the invasion of Guam as an act of aggression. They wouldn't call it anything less than an invasion.

I was being sarcastic and humoring your point. We weren't invaded on 9/11. Anyone in their right mind (i.e. anyone not in bed with the Bush admin) knows we weren't invaded.

Not in your traditional military sense. We don't live in those times anymore. We don't fight enemy nations, 1 on 1, military force against military force.

You're only strengthening my point now. We can't be occupied, so how can you claim invasion?

I can claim the threat of invasion, which was more than enough to justify Habeas Corpus, countless times in the past.

Are the Chinese planning a massive naval assault on California? Are the Russians para dropping conscripts into New Mexico?

That's not just a threat. That IS an invasion.

Coherent, you're treating the supreme court as if it is some infallible deity.
Do you believe that when Plessy v. Ferguson was handed down, that it was in fact constitutional?
Then what about after brown? Unless you think they are some sort of Gods and truth follows them you have a severe dichotomy in your head.

The supreme court isn't always correct.
We listen to their ruling, but that doesn't mean can't impeach due to senility.

The point Memorize is making is that under the original constitution, the authors suspened the right to habeus corpus. Thus you can not dream to claim that under the original constitution this was unconstitutional.
And since none of the 27 amendments adress habeus corpus, it couldn't have become so since.
Thus the supreme court is out of line and doing the legislative branch's job for them.

At 6/25/08 01:04 PM, Coherent wrote:

Anyways, I'm done with this argument. It has become obvious to me that you have no desire to actually educate yourself on this subject, and I'm not going to waste my precious time constantly repeating myself for you.

Oh please. I'm having to argue with 3 people and you can't even keep up with 1.

You already admitted, to me, that the Supreme Court has the legal RIGHT by the Constitution to even declare Freedom of Speech to be 'unconstitutional'.

The Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. By the way people talk about, the Constitution IS Freedom of Speech. It's referenced and quoted so countlessly that there is no possible way to seperate the two from each other.

So then, how can you legally declare Freedom of Speech Unconstitutional by the Constitution when Freedom of Speech is the very essense of the Constitution itself?

That's effectively saying that our own Constitution is Unconstitutional.

At 6/25/08 03:45 PM, Coherent wrote: Innocent until proven guilty, obviously.

That is not the word of the law, merely the practice thereof. My point still stands.

Yes, that's what they're suspected to be.

If you know something our U.S. Military doesn't know or isn't willing to say in public, there's nothing stopping you from posting it save your own unwillingness to type it out.

They do apply to them after the Supreme Court ruling.

The supreme court ruling states that they have the ability to challenge the reason behind their captivity, that's all. It's also the third such ruling from the court, and Bush has found loopholes around the other rulings to keep the remaining detainees in custody. This won't make much of a difference.

Keeping untried potentially innocent people away from their homes and loved ones indefinitely?

"Indefinitly" means we're keeping them until the end of time, which we're not. We're keeping them until they are no longer deemed a threat to the U.S. and then released.

Are you doing them a courtesy by torturing these people?

What torture?

What makes you think they're being given 3 meals a day and being allowed to sleep?

News reports on the matter and the aformentioned link. What makes you think Gitmo is a modern day Gulag?

Right, where civilians are being tried under military law.

They're only civilians because it fits your viewpoint, I wouldn't be surprised if you also came out and said they were "freedom fighters" at this point.

That way, the military decides who they want to keep and who they want to release regardless of proper civilian legal conduct.

It's a military matter, Judge Judy has no jurisdiction in this instance.

Honestly, the US does have much of a moral high ground over the Vietnamese.

That's bullshit and you know it.

Right, it say nothing about the innocence or guilt of the current prison population in Gitmo.

Prisoners of War get released when the war is over, big deal big surprise.

At 6/25/08 05:41 PM, therealsylvos wrote: The supreme court isn't always correct.

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that constitutional as a legal term is completely left to the Supreme Courts discretion. Memorize is idiotically trying to make the argument that the Supreme Court's decision was 'unconstitutional' because they didn't have the states vote. This argument stems from his complete ignorance of what the role of the Supreme Court is. He doesn't realize that the Supreme Court didn't amend the constitution, they merely interpreted it.

The point Memorize is making is that under the original constitution, the authors suspened the right to habeus corpus. Thus you can not dream to claim that under the original constitution this was unconstitutional.

under the original constitution, the authors were slave owners. Thus you can not dream to claim that under the original constitution this was constitutional.

^Same logic

But that aside, I'm not saying that suspending habeas corpus is (legally) unconstitutional, I'm saying that after the Supreme Courts ruling, that it's unconstitutional to deny these prisoners their rights. Also, you should realize that the constitution is a living document, and the 'original' constitution is not the constitution we have today.

And since none of the 27 amendments adress habeus corpus, it couldn't have become so since.
Thus the supreme court is out of line and doing the legislative branch's job for them.

No, the Supreme Court is doing their job by making a ruling on a case that was presented to them. Not everything that the Supreme Court rules on is addressed specifically in the constitution, It's their job to read the constitution and interpret (under the current constitution) what is and isn't constitutional.

At 6/25/08 07:27 PM, Coherent wrote:

under the original constitution, the authors were slave owners. Thus you can not dream to claim that under the original constitution this was constitutional.

^Same logic

But you can...

Slavery was legal before, during, and after the creation of the Constitution. Although many of the founding fathers owned slaves at some point in their lives, many also freed their slaves after their independance from Britain. They even dictated that slaves counted only as 3/5 a person so the pro-slave crowd wouldn't have as much representation based on population count (Free Blacks or Freed Slaves counted as just a regular 1 person rather than 3/5).

But as I said, slavery was legal even under the constitution during that time; however, we followed the rules of the Constitution and proposed a law to the states to ratify that would outlaw slavery.

A majority 3/4 is needed to ratify an amendment proposed by The Congress. That majority was met with the abolition of slavery.

In the recent Supreme Court case, it was not met.

But that aside, I'm not saying that suspending habeas corpus is (legally) unconstitutional, I'm saying that after the Supreme Courts ruling, that it's unconstitutional to deny these prisoners their rights.

But if that's the case, we've been denying their "rights" ('privilege' as it's called in the Constitution) ever since the creation of the Constitution.

Now if we've been denying them that 'right' by the constitution (even though it directly conflicts with the constitution) ever since its creation, THEN you might have a point.

But as I said, you're going to have one hell of an EXTREMELY difficult time actually arguing that one.

That's like the Supreme Court saying: "The Death Penalty is Unconstitutional, even though we've had the death penalty before, during, and after the creation of the Constitution and have been using it for over 220 years".

At 6/25/08 05:47 PM, Proteas wrote: That is not the word of the law, merely the practice thereof. My point still stands.

It's a deeply rooted American value. It's quite disheartening that you would toss something like that aside. Besides, you asked me what justification I would use for allowing them Habeas Corpus, you never said it had to be a law.

If you know something our U.S. Military doesn't know or isn't willing to say in public, there's nothing stopping you from posting it save your own unwillingness to type it out.

Nobody could know tif they're innocent or guilty until they put these people up on trial. It's called presumption of innocence.

The supreme court ruling states that they have the ability to challenge the reason behind their captivity, that's all.

That's what Habeas Corpus is. Do you honestly believe it's a bad thing that these people get to question their own guilt?

It's also the third such ruling from the court, and Bush has found loopholes around the other rulings to keep the remaining detainees in custody. This won't make much of a difference.\

Not sure what the point was in saying this, even if it was true. Just want to rub it in?

"Indefinitly" means we're keeping them until the end of time, which we're not. We're keeping them until they are no longer deemed a threat to the U.S. and then released.

"Indefinitely" means without limit ('Infinitely' means till the end of time). When they say they're holding them indefinitely, they mean they're holding them until whenever they decide they should let them go. 'Indefinitely' has been over 5 years for some people.

What torture?

Military Investigators

Are you kidding me? What torture? Here, let me give you some examples

In 2007 a investigative team entered Guantanamo and questioned the employees, hoping to get them to report incidents of abuse. Here's the full report. Multiple cases of detainees being chained into the fetal position for 18 to 24 hours defecating and urinating on themselves, without food or water. Another report from a Guantanamo employee describes a detainee being left in near freezing temperature without proper clothing. Other cases describe extreme heat, and playing rap music a decibel levels high enough to cause ear damage (in order to keep inmates awake for prolonged amounts of time).

News reports on the matter and the aformentioned link.

Agreed man, I also completely trust everything Military Inspectors tell me.

What makes you think Gitmo is a modern day Gulag?

Confessions from Guantanamo employees, Medical examinations on former Gitmo inmates.

They're only civilians because it fits your viewpoint, I wouldn't be surprised if you also came out and said they were "freedom fighters" at this point.

They're untried Iraqi civilians. By your own admission they are not part of any state sponsored group/military. That means they are CIVILIANS.

It's a military matter, Judge Judy has no jurisdiction in this instance.

See, that's where you're wrong. Legally it's not a military matter. These are untried Iraqi civilians, they have no business in a military court.

That's bullshit and you know it.

The US has some but not much. The US tortures inmates and kills innocent civilians... sometimes indiscriminately. You can't really claim to have much of a moral high ground after you've sunk that low.

Prisoners of War get released when the war is over, big deal big surprise.

So put yourself in their situation. Assume your country is invaded and you get caught on the streets at night after curfew. Because of this you're assumed to be a terrorist (this is just an example) and you're whisked off to one of their secret prisons where you're subjected to all of the treatments described above. 6 years laters you're released after finally being found to be innocent...

Big deal?

At 6/25/08 08:19 PM, Coherent wrote:

Are you kidding me? What torture? Here, let me give you some examples

You do realize that his shiny gold text was a link and it listed all of those examples that you just mentioned, right?

And they were determined to be "abuses", not "Torture". And even those responsible for doing many of what you said were punished for their abuse.

Way to read!