Jose Padilla Will Be Freed

[Nasarius]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3748660/

A major victory for the rights of American citizens, I'd say. No longer can one man strip you of your rights without evidence.

And I just noticed the next aticle:

"Appeals court: Guantanamo prisoners should have access to lawyers, U.S. court system"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3750672/

[American]

A man who travelled to Pakistan and came back to give hundreds of people radiation burns and long-term cancer problems is going to have a trial, during what should be an all-out war. This is not war, this is stupid. I only wish the NSA or CIA or whatever men-in-black agency controls secret commandos is travelling the world and killing these guys secretly with no beaurocratic discretion whatsoever. If such government-funded killers exist, they are not doing their job.

Enemies (ie, anyone who wants me dead and tries to make it happen) should not have trials. They should be captured or killed with impunity.

The object is to win the war with minimal casualties. This court takes no interest in that. They should, but they don't.

Hmmmm. Wonder why!

[The Fool]

Originally posted by American
A man who travelled to Pakistan and came back to give hundreds of people radiation burns and long-term cancer problems is going to have a trial, during what should be an all-out war. This is not war, this is stupid. I only wish the NSA or CIA or whatever men-in-black agency controls secret commandos is travelling the world and killing these guys secretly with no beaurocratic discretion whatsoever. If such government-funded killers exist, they are not doing their job.

Enemies (ie, anyone who wants me dead and tries to make it happen) should not have trials. They should be captured or killed with impunity.

The object is to win the war with minimal casualties. This court takes no interest in that. They should, but they don't.

Hmmmm. Wonder why!
American, I accuse you of being a terrorist...., thats all that needs to be done. Take him away and imprison him indefinitely. well, thats got rid of one troll, who's next?

Wonderful system......Saddam would have been proud of it....While you are at it, can we have our Australian citizens back....they're the ones you kidnapped and have held for 2 years without charging them with anything......Land of the free? constitutional Republic? what a joke.

[crackmonkey]

Kidnapped? Picked up on the field of battle, you moron. They're lucky to be housed in Guantanamo rather than coffins...

[The Fool]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Kidnapped? Picked up on the field of battle, you moron. They're lucky to be housed in Guantanamo rather than coffins...
Picked up in the field of battle? Kidnapped you moron. one From pakistan you moron.....what "fields of battle" were in pakistan? The other was arrested in Afghansitan, Not for being involved in any "battles" as you call them.....but for no other reason than he was in the Afghani Army and was not an arab......Try reading up on the facts before you shoot your mouth off.

[shanek]

Woo-hoo! This is truly great news!

Of course, they ignored the last court ruling to give him access to a lawyer. I guess we'll see how far they're willing to defy the courts.

[hammegk]

I believe SCOTUS has already agreed to fast-track review both cases. The question of why the Circuit Cts thought they have jurisdiction will be one question, I'd think.

If the Supremes too rule against Bush etal, that's when it could get "interesting".

[Luke T.]

I think the title of this topic is a misnomer. Padilla isn't going to be "freed."

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I think the title of this topic is a misnomer. Padilla isn't going to be "freed."

Actually, in a very real sense, he is. Right now, he does not have the protections of a free society: due process right to counsel, fair and speedy public trial by jury, etc. He has been subject to unceasing martial law and interrogation for the last year and a half. Now, he is indeed being freed from all of this, even though he'll most likely be charged and put in jail, but at least there he will have his rights that have been denied him all these long months.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by The Fool

American, I accuse you of being a terrorist...., thats all that needs to be done. Take him away and imprison him indefinitely. well, thats got rid of one troll, who's next?

Wonderful system......Saddam would have been proud of it....While you are at it, can we have our Australian citizens back....they're the ones you kidnapped and have held for 2 years without charging them with anything......Land of the free? constitutional Republic? what a joke.

and could Canada have its citizens back that are being held without proof/evidence the last couple of years, and please don't send them to Syria or like countries when the lack of evidence results in there being no trial or conviction for alleged links to terrorism.

[WildCat]

You know, as much as i care about the gov't chipping away at the Constitution I can't get too worked up over Jose Padilla. The man is scum. He should have been rotting in jail for life for his previous crimes, which he was convicted for. In case you don't know, a while back here in Chicago he and a friend decided to rob a kid. Padilla smacked him in the head w/ a baseball bat and knocked him out. As they were picking through his pockets for the loot the kids friend came to his aid, Padilla's friend stabbed him multiple times and as he lay dying Padilla started kicking him in the head for good measure. Be careful who you make your heros out of!

While he may get a trial and a lawyer, he isn't getting out of jail. I hope he rots there a long time.

As for the Guantanamo detainees getting lawyers, fat chance. The 9th Circuit will get slapped down on that one by the SCOTUS. Those guys weren't in Afghanistan looking to learn how to arrange flowers. They were there to train to kill Americans and other westerners. They got caught, they lost. Screw 'em.

[TillEulenspiegel]

American, Please do the rest of us who know what being an American really means and change your avatars name. You demonstrate the rationality of a rabid badger poked with a stick and the grasp of the concepts of freedom that negates the sacrifices of the very people who fight wars against the saddams of the world. You don't even fool wisely, your hate is plain for all to see.

Archie Bunker is alive and well but seems to have a better grasp of language then in the 70's

[fishbob]

Padilla's friend stabbed him multiple times and as he lay dying Padilla started kicking him in the head for good measure. Be careful who you make your heros out of! Nobody sane will make a hero of Padilla. Nobody sane should want Padilla to be released. Everybody with any sense at all should want Padilla to have his due process. He has the right to be proven guilty, and the government has the responsibility to prove his guilt, even if he is an evil piece of excrement, especially if he is an evil piece of excrement.

[shuize]

Originally posted by fishbob
Nobody sane will make a hero of Padilla. Nobody sane should want Padilla to be released. Everybody with any sense at all should want Padilla to have his due process. He has the right to be proven guilty, and the government has the responsibility to prove his guilt, even if he is an evil piece of excrement, especially if he is an evil piece of excrement.

The rational side of my brain agrees with you. But even if Padilla is shoved down a dark hole and left to rot, I still can't generate much sympathy for him. Maybe after just having visited the Hiroshima Peace Museum and seeing the pictures of what radiation burns will do to human bodies I am a bit biased.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shuize


The rational side of my brain agrees with you. But even if Padilla is shoved down a dark hole and left to rot, I still can't generate much sympathy for him. Maybe after just having visited the Hiroshima Peace Museum and seeing the pictures of what radiation burns will do to human bodies I am a bit biased. Wouldn't it be nice to see the allegations proven in court first?

That is, if they can prove it, and I have no reason to believe they can't.

Even a man found while he is raping a child, eyewitnesses all over the place, still has a right to a fair trial.

Is the government prosecutor and judge simultaniously? :(

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by WildCat
While he may get a trial and a lawyer, he isn't getting out of jail. I hope he rots there a long time.



I have no idea who is calling him a hero, and I can't recall having heard anyone advocate that he should get out of jail, rather what is being advocated is:

the right to legal counsel for this man, no matter how heinous or distasteful his alleged crimes may be. Erode or deny the rights of even one man, or one group without debate and/or appeal, and what is the Constitution worth? Some might say that it devalues the Constitution. Kangaroo courts are one form of justice but are they the type of justice that edifies the Constitution.

I am not comfortable with denying anyone legal procedure.

[shanek]

Originally posted by WildCat
You know, as much as i care about the gov't chipping away at the Constitution I can't get too worked up over Jose Padilla. The man is scum.

Not the point. If they can do it for scum, they can do it for any of us.

He should have been rotting in jail for life for his previous crimes, which he was convicted for.

But he's already served his time for those. This is America. You want to lock someone away, you PROVE IT.

Be careful who you make your heros out of!

So who's making him into a hero?

As for the Guantanamo detainees getting lawyers, fat chance. The 9th Circuit will get slapped down on that one by the SCOTUS. Those guys weren't in Afghanistan looking to learn how to arrange flowers. They were there to train to kill Americans and other westerners. They got caught, they lost. Screw 'em.

But again, this is America: PROVE IT. And that means giving people the chance to defend themselves. Otherwise, you run the very real risk of convicting the wrong people.

[shanek]

Originally posted by shuize
But even if Padilla is shoved down a dark hole and left to rot, I still can't generate much sympathy for him.

Then don't. But at least try to have some sympathy for the rest of us, any of whom could easily find ourselves down that hole with no way to make them prove our guilt first.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Is the government prosecutor and judge simultaniously? :(

Actually, yes, but this is the sticking point: not the jury. The jury is the people. If you want to lock someone away, you have to make your case to the people.

[Zero]

I think the point is not 'do we respect Padilla?', but rather 'do we respect the American way of life, and the rule of law?'

The true crime isn't being committed against one man, but against the system that is supposed to protect all of us from an overzealous government.

[Ladewig]

A man who travelled to Pakistan and came back to give hundreds of people radiation burns and long-term cancer problems is going to have a trial, during what should be an all-out war. This is not war, this is stupid. I only wish the NSA or CIA or whatever men-in-black agency controls secret commandos is travelling the world and killing these guys secretly with no beaurocratic discretion whatsoever. If such government-funded killers exist, they are not doing their job.

Enemies (ie, anyone who wants me dead and tries to make it happen) should not have trials. They should be captured or killed with impunity.
Yes, it appears to have been his intent to kill and wound people in the manner you describe. He did not, however, have access to radioactive material. Therefore his crime can be no more dangerous than someone who walks around with a note saying, "step 1: acquire a nuclear warhead, step 2: detonate it over NYC." A horrible goal, yes, but an acheivable one? Hardly. Reason to execute the person? No.

[Zero]

Last time I checked(ok, last time I watched Law and Order), Americans were innocent until proven guilty, could not be held indefinitely unless evidence of a crime was presented, and that politicians cannot strip us of our rights out of expediency or political posturing.

I heard somewhere that Padilla was originally arrested and then released because of lack of evidence. The move to have him classified as an enemy combatant was an end-run around the strict requirements of our courts. In other words, they didn't have enough evidence to hold him, so they changed the rules.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by WildCat

As for the Guantanamo detainees getting lawyers, fat chance. The 9th Circuit will get slapped down on that one by the SCOTUS. Those guys weren't in Afghanistan looking to learn how to arrange flowers. They were there to train to kill Americans and other westerners. They got caught, they lost. Screw 'em.
Unfortunately it is uninformed people like you that allow this sort of thing to happen....I'll say it again, one of the Australian citizens you kidnapped and are holding in a concentration camp was not and never has been in Afghanistan....please read up a bit on who your political prisoners are.

and screw you too...ok.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by The Fool

Unfortunately it is uninformed people like you that allow this sort of thing to happen....I'll say it again, one of the Australian citizens you kidnapped and are holding in a concentration camp was not and never has been in Afghanistan....please read up a bit on who your political prisoners are.

and screw you too...ok.
Well why don't you inform us as to who this fine, upstanding son of Australia is and what he was doing when he was "kidnapped"?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by shanek


Not the point. If they can do it for scum, they can do it for any of us.

You're right, of course, on all of your points Shanek. A sufficiently thick-skinned lawyer will defend him. I just won't.

As far as who will make him a hero, maybe the same folks who think that cop-killer Mumia (http://www.freemumia.com/) is a hero would embrace Padilla. Not very far-fetched.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by The Fool

Unfortunately it is uninformed people like you that allow this sort of thing to happen....I'll say it again, one of the Australian citizens you kidnapped and are holding in a concentration camp was not and never has been in Afghanistan....please read up a bit on who your political prisoners are.

and screw you too...ok.

Fool: are you referring to David Hicks?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by NightG1


Fool: are you referring to David Hicks?
Couldn't possibly be him. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/17/australian.guantanamo/[/url)
Hicks, an Australian who was captured in northern Afghanistan as a suspected Taliban fighter
The Fool's boy wasn't in Afghanistan. He was just plucked up and taken to Gitmo for no reason at all. Right Fool?

Edited to quote more from that story:
He then moved to Afghanistan in 2001 and trained with Osama bin Laden's network, the Australian government said. The Northern Alliance captured him in December 2001 and handed Hicks over to the U.S. military. He was one of the first detainees transferred to Guantanamo Bay.
Couldn't possibly be Hicks Fool was referring to. Seems the Australian gov't wants Hicks in order to try him themselves. Fool's boy is innocent of any crimes.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by WildCat

Well why don't you inform us as to who this fine, upstanding son of Australia is and what he was doing when he was "kidnapped"?

I thought it was up to the US to prove his guilt, not for him to prove his innocence.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I thought it was up to the US to prove his guilt, not for him to prove his innocence.
Nope, no one in Gitmo is being held for being a criminal in the traditional sense. The US isn't fighting foreign terrorists that way (as a crime for the courts to decide) any more.

If he is charged as a criminal it will only be as a favor to the Australian gov't, and not because he has to.

[a_unique_person]

Better hope your conversations in a cafe aren't overheard and misinterpreted. Whatever you do, don't talk about bringing something down. You might get pulled over by the entire state police force.

[shanek]

Originally posted by WildCat

Nope, no one in Gitmo is being held for being a criminal in the traditional sense. The US isn't fighting foreign terrorists that way (as a crime for the courts to decide) any more.

I see. So, where in the Constitution is this system they are using described and granted to the Federal government?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by shanek


I see. So, where in the Constitution is this system they are using described and granted to the Federal government?
Just what part of the Constitution covers foreigners who are illegal combatants (as defined in the Geneva Convention) in a war in a foreign land?

Edited to say that illegal German combatants in WWII would have been shot on the spot, and many were. Are you outraged over that also?

[Zero]

Originally posted by WildCat

Just what part of the Constitution covers foreigners who are illegal combatants (as defined in the Geneva Convention) in a war in a foreign land?

Edited to say that illegal German combatants in WWII would have been shot on the spot, and many were. Are you outraged over that also? Here we go again with the 'it could be worse' argument again...why did you post that? What relevance does it have?

[shanek]

Originally posted by WildCat
Just what part of the Constitution covers foreigners who are illegal combatants (as defined in the Geneva Convention) in a war in a foreign land?

As far as I can see, the only parts that apply are the ones dealing with due process, the right against self-incrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. If there's nothing in the Constitution saying the Federal government can do something, they can't do it. 10th Amendment.

Edited to say that illegal German combatants in WWII would have been shot on the spot, and many were. Are you outraged over that also?

Yes.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Zero
Here we go again with the 'it could be worse' argument again...why did you post that? What relevance does it have?
To show that this was a long-established time-honored practice. That's why it's relevant.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by shanek


As far as I can see, the only parts that apply are the ones dealing with due process, the right against self-incrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. If there's nothing in the Constitution saying the Federal government can do something, they can't do it. 10th Amendment.



Yes.
Sorry Shanek. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.

[WildCat]

If there's nothing in the Constitution saying the Federal government can do something, they can't do it. 10th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment grants rights to the states that aren't specifically designated to the Federal gov't. Are you saying that, say, the state of Georgia could hold prisoners in Gitmo but not the Feds?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by WildCat

The 10th Amendment grants rights to the states that aren't specifically designated to the Federal gov't. Are you saying that, say, the state of Georgia could hold prisoners in Gitmo but not the Feds?

Believe me, if they could, they would. And that would just be the start. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by WildCat

Sorry Shanek. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.

Ah. And where does the Constitution say that?

[shanek]

Originally posted by WildCat

The 10th Amendment grants rights to the states that aren't specifically designated to the Federal gov't.

Well, I guess you missed that whole "to the people" phrase. (Note: "The people" in the Constitution is NOT restricted to citizens.)

[NightG1]

Originally posted by WildCat

Sorry Shanek. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.

War was declared? When did that happen?

[shanek]

Originally posted by NightG1
War was declared? When did that happen?

Dec. 8, 1941 was the last time.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by NightG1


War was declared? When did that happen?

So war has to be declared for it to be considered a war?

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
So war has to be declared for it to be considered a war?

War has to be declared for it to be constitutional.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by WildCat

Well why don't you inform us as to who this fine, upstanding son of Australia is and what he was doing when he was "kidnapped"?
1. This fine upstanding son of Australia's name is Mamdouh Habib, no doubt his name already has you pressing the guilty button. From your sarcastic post I can already see you have already snapped to attention and saluted your armys decision to kidnap people. No wonder they get away with it with so many compliant lemmings to cheer them on.

2. He was in Pakistan, he claims he was checking out Islamic Universities for his son to attend, a very common thing for Islamic men to do. In the face of ZERO claims of any other activities I think we should presume that to be true. He was kidnapped from Pakisan by US agents, take to Egypt, then on to Gitmo. No charges have been layed not one single statement has been made as to what he was supposed to have done.


Now wildcat.....got a problem with that? Or is the Arabic name enough evidence for you. Should Australia be allowed to kidnap a random American to exchange for him?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


War has to be declared for it to be constitutional.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? That is not the issue anyway. The issue is whether or not we were at war. Just because war is not declared does not mean that it is not a war. And why would the Constitution of the United States of America apply to anyone other than U.S. citizens?

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
Where does it say that in the Constitution?

Article I Section 8.

That is not the issue anyway.

Oh, sure, it's not the issue that our government is flagrantly ignoring the Constitution...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by shanek

Article I Section 8.Specifically, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:Clause 11: [The Congress shall have Power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Originally posted by ssibal
Just because war is not declared does not mean that it is not a war.In order for the US to be at war, one of two things must happen. Either the Congress declares war against someone, or someone declares war against the US. Have there been any formal declarations, and if so, by whom and when?
And why would the Constitution of the United States of America apply to anyone other than U.S. citizens?Same clause. Congress has the power to make rules concerning captures on Land and Water specifically within the context of war. Now, unless you think that only applies to only US citizens on US territory, you have a very funny definition of "War".

I have to agree with shanek on this one.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by The Fool

Picked up in the field of battle? Kidnapped you moron. one From pakistan you moron.....what "fields of battle" were in pakistan? The other was arrested in Afghansitan, Not for being involved in any "battles" as you call them.....but for no other reason than he was in the Afghani Army and was not an arab......Try reading up on the facts before you shoot your mouth off.

I'm sure they are fine upstanding people Fool...of course you should have them back. I'm sure they will find various and interesting ways of making themselves useful in Aussie society. :rolleyes:

The real question is who's the "moron"?? The people who want to keep these nuts locked up,...or the people that want to live next door to them??

-z

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The real question is who's the "moron"?? The people who want to keep these nuts locked up,...or the people that want to live next door to them??

Evidence that the person in question is a "nut"? Or do you just blindly trust your government?

[Tmy]

The Constitution talks about "persons" not citizens so its protects more than just citizens.

Whats the deal wh the govt needing all these unchecked superpowers. They act like they have no police powers or laws at their disposal already.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Evidence that the person in question is a "nut"? Or do you just blindly trust your government?

If I described Pat Robertson as a nut would you still demand evidence??

Now you might say well Pat is a well known nut. Well I say if someone is zealot enough to leave their home, travel to Pakistan/Afghanistan in order to follow the teachings of Osama and or the Taliban then he/she/it is a particularly dangerous nut.

-z

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by ssibal


Where does it say that in the Constitution? That is not the issue anyway. The issue is whether or not we were at war. Just because war is not declared does not mean that it is not a war. And why would the Constitution of the United States of America apply to anyone other than U.S. citizens?

Why should our countries laws apply to foriegtn national while they visit our country? Why shouldn't all people be protected equally.

Do you mean that minors aren't protected by the Constitution, what about people who don't vote.

I see just becaus eyou weren't born in the US you aren't a citizen.

Sorry that logic is why the Constitution exists in the first place, the Bill of Rights does not say that the government shall not make any rules abridging the rights of citizens.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by rikzilla
If I described Pat Robertson as a nut would you still demand evidence??Maybe not.

But if you wanted to lock him up 'forever', I would say he had a right to a fair trial first, to determine if he was dangerous or not. :p

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Specifically, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:
In order for the US to be at war, one of two things must happen. Either the Congress declares war against someone, or someone declares war against the US. Have there been any formal declarations, and if so, by whom and when?
In case you haven't noticed, A Queda has declared war on the US. The War Powers Act gave the POTUS broad powers to wage war, and has been upheld by the SCOTUS. Congress also specifically authorized the war in Afghanistan and Iraq (not that this thread has anything to do w/ Iraq).

You and Shanek can argue about how the Constitution should be interpreted, but the fact is if the SCOTUS says it is constitutional it is. And that is according to the Constitution.

Nowhere does the Constitution grant powers to Shanek or Upchurch to delare whether or not something is constitutional. ;)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I'm sure they are fine upstanding people Fool...of course you should have them back. I'm sure they will find various and interesting ways of making themselves useful in Aussie society. :rolleyes:

The real question is who's the "moron"?? The people who want to keep these nuts locked up,...or the people that want to live next door to them??

-z
Quick Rik, snap to attention and salute. GWB has told you something so dammit...Its just gotta be true. I hope you are never arrested on a wink and a nod from an unknown official with no charge or evidence, although i would be Ironic considering this is the style of government action you are happy to be instructed to accept.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by rikzilla


If I described Pat Robertson as a nut would you still demand evidence??

Now you might say well Pat is a well known nut. Well I say if someone is zealot enough to leave their home, travel to Pakistan/Afghanistan in order to follow the teachings of Osama and or the Taliban then he/she/it is a particularly dangerous nut.

-z
your telepathy and remote viewing skills are improving rik......you can see as far as Pakistan now?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Article I Section 8.

How do you make the jump from reading "Congress shall have power do declare war" to conclude that it means the only way we can technically be at war is if Congress has declared that we are at war? I suppose the fact that we have troops on the ground enganged in combat and are dropping bombs has no relevance?


Oh, sure, it's not the issue that our government is flagrantly ignoring the Constitution...

What is there to ignore? Congress has the power do declare war, so let them declare it if they want. Congress did approve of the war in Afghanistan, does that count as a declaration or do we have to revert to 18th century formal declarations? Regardless, whether or not they have declared war does not change the fact that we were at war.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by WildCat

Just what part of the Constitution covers foreigners who are illegal combatants (as defined in the Geneva Convention) in a war in a foreign land?



One could make the argument that illegal combatants can be summarily executed. I might even listen to that argument.

But I don't see the relevance of foreigners vs. citizens. Due process is either a human right or it's not. The wording of Amendment XIV does not refer to "citizens" or "residents" in the "due process" clause.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by The Fool

1. This fine upstanding son of Australia's name is Mamdouh Habib, no doubt his name already has you pressing the guilty button. From your sarcastic post I can already see you have already snapped to attention and saluted your armys decision to kidnap people. No wonder they get away with it with so many compliant lemmings to cheer them on.
Oh yes, I automatically assume all arab-named men are guilty. That's just the kind of simple doofus I am, right Fool?

2. He was in Pakistan, he claims he was checking out Islamic Universities for his son to attend, a very common thing for Islamic men to do. In the face of ZERO claims of any other activities I think we should presume that to be true. He was kidnapped from Pakisan by US agents, take to Egypt, then on to Gitmo. No charges have been layed not one single statement has been made as to what he was supposed to have done.


Now wildcat.....got a problem with that? Or is the Arabic name enough evidence for you. Should Australia be allowed to kidnap a random American to exchange for him?
Zero claims of other activities? Here's one: (http://journalism.uts.edu.au/subjects/oj1/oj1_s2002/incarcerate/article1.html)
ASIO's attention began after a trip to America, where he met, and received phone calls from, a man who was later convicted of being an accessory in the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing.
Just innocently hanging out w/ the wrong people I'm sure. And it was Australias gov't that has been casting a suspicious eye on him for the last 10 years.
Here's another: (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SYD83805.htm)
Habib, aged in his late 40s from Sydney, was not arrested in battle but as he crossed from Pakistan into Afghanistan three weeks after the September 11 attacks in the United States.
"The government has been advised that both men trained with al Qaeda," said Ruddock.
Frankly Fool, in a time of war I am willing to give the US gov't considerable benefit of the doubt. It is not in their interest to ship people off to Gitmo for no good reason, and the fact that after 2 years of this war there are only 600 or so prisoners there tells me they're not just randomly throwing people in there. Also, many people held there have been released after it was determined they were innocent. None has reported any mistreatment.

Scouting schools for his children! Just what do you think they teach in those madrasas (sp?) in the tribal regions of Pakistan Fool? Economics? Business? Literature? For some reason I'm under the impression that they just teach a narrow, intolerant form of Islam that the Taliban brought to actual practice. What wonderful things these teachings could bring to Australia!

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Specifically, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:
In order for the US to be at war, one of two things must happen. Either the Congress declares war against someone, or someone declares war against the US. Have there been any formal declarations, and if so, by whom and when?

So I guess that 'thing' we recently did in Iraq was not a war? If bombing a country for weeks and sending in 250,000 troops to take control of the country is not a war then what is?

Same clause. Congress has the power to make rules concerning captures on Land and Water specifically within the context of war. Now, unless you think that only applies to only US citizens on US territory, you have a very funny definition of "War".

This is not what I was talking about. People are arguing that foreigners should have the same protection under the Constituion as U.S. citizens. Where do you come up with that idea?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Why should our countries laws apply to foriegtn national while they visit our country? Why shouldn't all people be protected equally.

They usually apply. But since they are not U.S. citizens they do not have nor deserve Constitutional privilages.

Do you mean that minors aren't protected by the Constitution, what about people who don't vote.

I never said or implied that.

I see just becaus eyou weren't born in the US you aren't a citizen.

You do not have to be born in the U.S. to be a citizen.

Sorry that logic is why the Constitution exists in the first place, the Bill of Rights does not say that the government shall not make any rules abridging the rights of citizens.

When foreigners are subject to the same taxes, laws, and regulations as U.S. citizens is when they can have their PRIVILAGES under the U.S. Constitution.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by WildCat

Oh yes, I automatically assume all arab-named men are guilty. That's just the kind of simple doofus I am, right Fool?


Zero claims of other activities? Here's one: (http://journalism.uts.edu.au/subjects/oj1/oj1_s2002/incarcerate/article1.html)

Just innocently hanging out w/ the wrong people I'm sure. And it was Australias gov't that has been casting a suspicious eye on him for the last 10 years.
Here's another: (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SYD83805.htm)

Frankly Fool, in a time of war I am willing to give the US gov't considerable benefit of the doubt. It is not in their interest to ship people off to Gitmo for no good reason, and the fact that after 2 years of this war there are only 600 or so prisoners there tells me they're not just randomly throwing people in there. Also, many people held there have been released after it was determined they were innocent. None has reported any mistreatment.

Scouting schools for his children! Just what do you think they teach in those madrasas (sp?) in the tribal regions of Pakistan Fool? Economics? Business? Literature? For some reason I'm under the impression that they just teach a narrow, intolerant form of Islam that the Taliban brought to actual practice. What wonderful things these teachings could bring to Australia!
Wow...he must be guilty, He is active in the Islamic community and he spoke to someone on the phone who was implicated in 9/11... Was the phone conversation about the 9/11 attack? Hmmmm... who knows. Apparently, talking to someone on the phone makes you automatically involved in any criminal activity that person has ever been involved in....

Anyway, here is the rest of the sinister phonecall story that you conveniently left out...

ASIO's attention began after a trip to America, where he met, and received phone calls from, a man who was later convicted of being an accessory in the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing. It is normal practice that such leads be followed, as so they were. But ASIO continued to harass, and complaints were made to the Attorney-General, lawyers were involved, and yet the harassment continued. For 8 years ASIO watched and questioned him, but never found any criminal activity for him to be arrested on. To this day there is probably no evidence that would convince an Australian court to convict him.


I guess you stopped reading after you saw what you wanted to see..


And your second quote is even more humerous. Who told the Australian government he has trained with OBL??? yep, the americans.... The people who kidnapped him....

Look folks, lets get this straight, this guy may be as guilty as hell for all I know. My problem is that there is not even a remote shred of justice occuring here and I'm disgusted at people who are willing to turn a blind eye to this.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rikzilla


If I described Pat Robertson as a nut would you still demand evidence??

Now you might say well Pat is a well known nut. Well I say if someone is zealot enough to leave their home, travel to Pakistan/Afghanistan in order to follow the teachings of Osama and or the Taliban then he/she/it is a particularly dangerous nut.

-z

Where's the proof that this person left their home to follow the teachings of OBL or the Taliban?

[shanek]

Originally posted by WildCat
In case you haven't noticed, A Queda has declared war on the US. The War Powers Act gave the POTUS broad powers to wage war, and has been upheld by the SCOTUS. Congress also specifically authorized the war in Afghanistan and Iraq (not that this thread has anything to do w/ Iraq).

Congress cannot "authorize" war. Congress must DECLARE war. The reason for this is that there must be a full debate prior to entering the war, and that is exactly the process that has been short-circuited.

You and Shanek can argue about how the Constitution should be interpreted,

This is EXACTLY how the Constitution was "interpreted" right up through WWII. What changed? (And don't say the "War Powers Act;" that wasn't a Constitutional amendment.)

Nowhere does the Constitution grant powers to Shanek or Upchurch to delare whether or not something is constitutional. ;)

Thank you for demonstrating your complete and total ignorance.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
How do you make the jump from reading "Congress shall have power do declare war" to conclude that it means the only way we can technically be at war is if Congress has declared that we are at war?

Because that's what the Constitution is: declaratory and restrictive enumerations on the powers of government. The Constitution says Congress shall have the power to declare war. It doesn't mention any other way it can happen, so that is the ONLY way authorized by the Constitution.

I suppose the fact that we have troops on the ground enganged in combat and are dropping bombs has no relevance?

It has great relevance to the fact that our government is flagrantly ignoring the Constitution.

What is there to ignore? Congress has the power do declare war, so let them declare it if they want.

But if they don't, the President can't legally wage war!

Congress did approve of the war in Afghanistan,

No; it doesn't say Congress can "approve" of war, it says Congress should DECLARE war.

does that count as a declaration or do we have to revert to 18th century formal declarations?

The debate MUST happen. It's extremely important. Otherwise, we end up with the crap we have now.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
So I guess that 'thing' we recently did in Iraq was not a war?

It was an unconstitutional war.

This is not what I was talking about. People are arguing that foreigners should have the same protection under the Constituion as U.S. citizens. Where do you come up with that idea?

Duh, maybe the fact that that's what the Constitution says? If it were limited to citizens, it should say "citizens" instead of "people" like it does in the 15th Amendment.

Oh, and by the way, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment there was NO SUCH THING as a United States citizen. You were a citizen of your sovereign state.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
When foreigners are subject to the same taxes, laws, and regulations as U.S. citizens is when they can have their PRIVILAGES under the U.S. Constitution.

Well, they are, so I guess they do.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by shanek
Congress cannot "authorize" war. Congress must DECLARE war. The reason for this is that there must be a full debate prior to entering the war, and that is exactly the process that has been short-circuited.
6 of one, a half-dozen of the other. It's just nomenclature. And the SCOTUS agrees. And there was ample opportunity for debate, but very little of it after 9/11. I don't think there was much debate after Pearl Harbor either.

This is EXACTLY how the Constitution was "interpreted" right up through WWII. What changed? (And don't say the "War Powers Act;" that wasn't a Constitutional amendment.)
Interpretations of the Constitution change often! Surely you know this? What happened between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education? It sure wasn't a Constitutional Amendment. You may not like it, but what is constitutional one day may not be under a different SCOTUS another day.

And is that really how it was interpreted? Was there a formal declaration of war for every Indian war?



Thank you for demonstrating your complete and total ignorance.
So the Constitution does give citizens such as yourself the power to declare a law or action unconstitutional?

Your dodging of this issue and personal attack on me says more about you than it does me, Shanek.

[shanek]

Originally posted by WildCat
6 of one, a half-dozen of the other. It's just nomenclature.

No, it isn't. In one, you have a debate, where all of the reasons for the war are stated and examined. In the other, you don't; you just go straight to war with no debate. I don't see how you can call the difference as "just nomenclature" and still call yourself a skeptic.

I don't think there was much debate after Pearl Harbor either.

You would be wrong. It didn't take much time, but they did have the debate, and they did declare war, as required by the Constitution. You can't get out of it that way.

Interpretations of the Constitution change often! Surely you know this?

Yes, but that doesn't make it right.

"That's what they say—that say that our founders couldn't foresee a modern America, and therefore a living breating document like the Constitution needs to be constantly reinterpreted. Yeah, because none of them had any idea that 200 years later people would be saying such stupid things!" —Tim Slagle

So the Constitution does give citizens such as yourself the power to declare a law or action unconstitutional?

Yes. It's called the First Amendment. I can declare whatever I want, and no one can shut me up.

Your dodging of this issue and personal attack on me says more about you than it does me, Shanek.

:rolleyes:

[fishbob]

The real question is who's the "moron"?? The people who want to keep these nuts locked up,...or the people that want to live next door to them??

-z As a US citizen, I implicitly agree to live according to the constitutional laws of our country. I pay my taxes, I drive on the right side of the road, I don't steal your stuff - in other words, I play by the rules. Excuse me if I get irritable when the administration changes the rules for the convenience of one group or another.

Is the moron the person that wants to play by the rules, . . . or the person that wants to change the rules when the situation gets complicated - like a little kid that takes his ball and goes home when the game gets difficult?

So I guess that 'thing' we recently did in Iraq was not a war? If bombing a country for weeks and sending in 250,000 troops to take control of the country is not a war then what is? It could be called an invasion. War is a complicated business, with lots of rules and responsibilities. War is a life or death struggle for the continued existence of our country. What happened in Iraq looks a lot like a military excercise where a relative few of our troops, some Iraqi soldiers, and a bunch of bystanders got killed.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Because that's what the Constitution is: declaratory and restrictive enumerations on the powers of government. The Constitution says Congress shall have the power to declare war. It doesn't mention any other way it can happen, so that is the ONLY way authorized by the Constitution.

So what does that have to do with a war not being a war unless Congress declares war? What does that have to do with the country going to war? Congress has the power to declare war but there is nothing in the Constitution preventing the armed forces from waging war.



It has great relevance to the fact that our government is flagrantly ignoring the Constitution.

What did they ignore?? Did someone other than Congress declare war? If the answer is no, the government did not ignore anything.

But if they don't, the President can't legally wage war!

The Supreme Court (the official interpreters of the Constitution) disagree with that.



No; it doesn't say Congress can "approve" of war, it says Congress should DECLARE war.

Actually, it does not say Congress SHOULD declare war it says they shall have power to do so. Regardless, there is nothing preventing Congress from approving the president's decision to wage war.

The debate MUST happen. It's extremely important. Otherwise, we end up with the crap we have now.

There was debate, but just because they did not come out and say "Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of X and the government and the people of the United States " does not mean that the war was not a war nor that the war was unconstitutional.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


It was an unconstitutional war.

Unless someone other than Congress declared war, it was not.

Duh, maybe the fact that that's what the Constitution says? If it were limited to citizens, it should say "citizens" instead of "people" like it does in the 15th Amendment.

So because one Amendment (maybe more) refers to 'people' you conclude that the ENTIRE Constitution applies to all people and not just U.S. citizens? Oops, I mean the ENTIRE Constitution except where it specifically says 'citizens.' :rolleyes:


Oh, and by the way, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment there was NO SUCH THING as a United States citizen. You were a citizen of your sovereign state.

I guess all those presidents before the 14th Amendment was in effect were unconstitutionally elected, since there was no such thing as a U.S. citizen:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President

[ssibal]

Originally posted by fishbob
It could be called an invasion. War is a complicated business, with lots of rules and responsibilities. War is a life or death struggle for the continued existence of our country. What happened in Iraq looks a lot like a military excercise where a relative few of our troops, some Iraqi soldiers, and a bunch of bystanders got killed.

Invasions are part of war. I always thought war was state of armed conflict carried on between nations or parties. Maybe modern wars are shorter and have less casualties than previously but I think it still fits under the categorization of war.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
So what does that have to do with a war not being a war unless Congress declares war?

You keep proffering this strawman...No one is claiming that it isn't a war, just that it isn't Constitutional to wage war without first having Congress declare it.

What does that have to do with the country going to war?

Because without the Congressional declaration, what we have is government lawlessness and political anarchy.

Congress has the power to declare war but there is nothing in the Constitution preventing the armed forces from waging war.

Only if Congress first declares it. Otherwise, they are operating without the due authorization required by the Constitution.

What did they ignore?? Did someone other than Congress declare war?

Yes: George W. Bush did. His pappy did as well. In other cases (such as Vietnam and Korea) they tried to get around it by calling it a "police action," but it was still a war by any other name.

The Supreme Court (the official interpreters of the Constitution)

The Supreme Court is NOT the "official interpreters of the Constitution." In Article III Section 2, the Constitution specifically says that the Supreme Court and all the lower courts have power "arising under this Constitution." The Supreme Court is supposed to be there to defend the Constitution and shoot down bad laws, not to "reinterpret" it to make those bad laws okay. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court NO POWER WHATSOEVER to interpret its meaning. So the fact that the Supreme Court is ignoring the Constitution doesn't help your argument any.

Have you even read the Constitution?

Actually, it does not say Congress SHOULD declare war it says they shall have power to do so. Regardless, there is nothing preventing Congress from approving the president's decision to wage war.

Complete bull$#!7. There MUST be a Congressional declaration in order for the war to be Constitutional. The Constitution DOES NOT give Congress the power to "approve" war, or to delegate its responsibility of declaration to the President or anyone else.

Do you have ANY idea why the President is the head of the Executive branch, while Congress is the head of the Legislative branch? It's because Congress LEGISLATES; the President merely EXECUTES.

There was debate,

Where? Transcript?

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
Unless someone other than Congress declared war, it was not.[/qutoe]

Why are you having such stubborn problems with basic English? The Constitution DOES NOT give others the power to declare war, and it DOES NOT give others the power to wage war undeclared. IT'S NOT IN THERE ANYWHERE!

[quote]So because one Amendment (maybe more) refers to 'people' you conclude that the ENTIRE Constitution applies to all people and not just U.S. citizens?

It starts off by saying "We the people." Work it out.

I guess all those presidents before the 14th Amendment was in effect were unconstitutionally elected, since there was no such thing as a U.S. citizen:

Dishonest snivelling. You were a citizen of your state; therefore, one could be a citizen of one or more states and be entitled to the protection of the several states. The Constitution expressly says that.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article IV, Section 2.

[rikzilla]

There's a new detail in the story of another Australian who is facing even more serious terrorism allegations – Mamdouh Habib, who is being held captive by the US at Guantanamo Bay.

It relates to an encounter between Mr Habib and another alleged terrorist in Sydney three years ago. That man, Murat Ofkeli, has since appeared in court in the Netherlands charged with recruiting people for a holy war against the US and its allies. The case didn't proceed, though it is due to be appealed.

The link (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s938687.htm)

Now, I might be wrong, but if I got a call from some terrorist by mistake I have no doubt I'd be investigated. Since I'm not a moslem fundie, am not affiliated with groups allied with terrorism, and am an American ex-military guy with longstanding ties to the comunity and a person who rarely travels abroad (and then only to the UK and Germany)...I suppose any investigation of myself would soon be dropped.

Now, use the same "phone call from a terrorist" scenario...but when the authorities investigate me they see a guy who is ideologically in accord with terrorism, is affiliated with groups supportive of terrorism, an outspoken opponent of "the west", and a guy who travels to Al Qaeda/Islamist strongholds of Afghanistan and Pakistan during wartime..... A guy who was indeed taken into custody in the warzone itself by US soldiers. I imagine that not only would this person be further investigated, but that he would also be incarcerated until such time that hostilities have formally ended in the WOT.

Now, that's just the American middle class reaction to this fellow's predicament. Here's the official Australian position:

Joint News Release
Attorney-General
The Hon. Daryl Williams AM QC MP

Minister for Foreign Affairs
The Hon. Alexander Downer MP

23 May 2002

DAVID HICKS AND MAMDOUH HABIB TREATED WELL
Last week Australian officials visited Australian detainees at the US Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay.

The purpose of the visit was to advance the Australian investigation into the activities of both men.

The investigation team has confirmed that both men are being detained in safe and humane conditions. Detainees receive full medical examinations on arrival and have access to medical treatment on request. They receive culturally appropriate meals and are permitted to observe religious practices. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has contacted the men's families about their wellbeing and has passed on letters from both men.

The Government will not be releasing details of the interviews for legal and privacy reasons, and in light of the fact that law enforcement and security investigations are ongoing.



Media Contacts:
Chris Kenny (Mr Downer) (02) 6277 7800 / 0419 206 890
Carina Tan-Van Baren (Mr Williams) (02) 6277 7300 / 0419 423 965


Apparently, the Aussie government is not too very anxious to have these fellows repatriated. I, of course, do not blame them. But these are your representatives Fool. If you have a problem with the "kidnapping" of these fine citizens of the great down-under, then you should seek to elect representatives who will courageously free these poor dags.

Failing that, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your Foolish opinion is in the minority down there. As for these two enemy combatants? They will be warehoused at gitmo until the WOT is declared to be formally over. Care to guess when that might happen? OTOH, these guys are well treated...medically cared for....and obviously still alive. That makes them luckier than their decaying brethren in the bombed out caves of Afghanistan.

-z

[Snide]

Originally posted by shanek
The Supreme Court is NOT the "official interpreters of the Constitution." In Article III Section 2, the Constitution specifically says that the Supreme Court and all the lower courts have power "arising under this Constitution." The Supreme Court is supposed to be there to defend the Constitution and shoot down bad laws, not to "reinterpret" it to make those bad laws okay. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court NO POWER WHATSOEVER to interpret its meaning. So the fact that the Supreme Court is ignoring the Constitution doesn't help your argument any.
This is true. Of course, in "cases and controversies," the Supreme Court has made itself the interpretor, overruling even Congress since Marbury v. Madison. But that does not mean that the Supreme Court is "the official interpretor."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, it does not say Congress SHOULD declare war it says they shall have power to do so. Regardless, there is nothing preventing Congress from approving the president's decision to wage war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complete bull$#!7. There MUST be a Congressional declaration in order for the war to be Constitutional. The Constitution DOES NOT give Congress the power to "approve" war, or to delegate its responsibility of declaration to the President or anyone else.I guess it's possible that someday the Constitutional power given Congress may be interpreted as being only that (i.e., a power that is not necessarily exclusive to Congress). But that would go against what the "official interpretors" have said about the enumerated powers in the past - that if the power ain't mentioned, you ain't got it.

So yes, it is exclusive to Congress, and I agree with shanek that it's been ignored many times (and should not have been!!).

edited quotation format and typo

[The Fool]

Originally posted by rikzilla

The link (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s938687.htm)

Now, I might be wrong, but if I got a call from some terrorist by mistake I have no doubt I'd be investigated. Since I'm not a moslem fundie, am not affiliated with groups allied with terrorism, and am an American ex-military guy with longstanding ties to the comunity and a person who rarely travels abroad (and then only to the UK and Germany)...I suppose any investigation of myself would soon be dropped.


-z
Quite possibly true rik, it may be dropped.....If, however, it wasn't and you were transfered to Gitmo for the next two years it would be completely in line with your beliefs and I have no doubt you would write letters of support to your gaolers from prison....


I guess growing up in america did not do much to develop your belief in the presumption of inocence or no imprisonment without trial (or even a statement of what you were supposed to have done). I wonder where america failed you rik? Your ancestors fought and died to enshrine these principles that you laughingly throw in the gutter.......Shame.

[Zero]

Not to ruffle any feathers, but in my mind, those people who disregard the rights of others don't deserve those rights themselves. And that includes those people who manipulate the laws in order to justify taking away rights from people.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zero
Not to ruffle any feathers, but in my mind, those people who disregard the rights of others don't deserve those rights themselves. And that includes those people who manipulate the laws in order to justify taking away rights from people.

I agree, they have forfeited there rights, with the caveat that certain rights can't be forfeited: due process, for example. But we should at least be able to throw them out.

[Zero]

Originally posted by shanek


I agree, they have forfeited there rights, with the caveat that certain rights can't be forfeited: due process, for example. But we should at least be able to throw them out. Some people wouldn't mind getting rid of due process as well...

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


You keep proffering this strawman...No one is claiming that it isn't a war, just that it isn't Constitutional to wage war without first having Congress declare it.

Actually, you are the only one claiming that it is not Constitutional to wage war without Congress declaring it. If you read above, this argument started when WildCat made this statement:
Sorry Shanek. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.
To which NightG1 responded:
War was declared? When did that happen?
WildCat made the claim we were at war, NightG1 challenged that claim. NightG1's statement implies that we were not at war because Congress did not declare it.


Because without the Congressional declaration, what we have is government lawlessness and political anarchy.

Nonsense, it is one thing to declare a state of war exists between two nations, it is another to give the president the authority to use the armed forces.

Only if Congress first declares it. Otherwise, they are operating without the
due authorization required by the Constitution.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? That is an interpretation that the Supreme Court currently disagrees with.



Yes: George W. Bush did. His pappy did as well. In other cases (such as Vietnam and Korea) they tried to get around it by calling it a "police action," but it was still a war by any other name.

How about one at a time, in what document does the current Bush declare war? Please provide a source.

The Supreme Court is NOT the "official interpreters of the Constitution." In Article III Section 2, the Constitution specifically says that the Supreme Court and all the lower courts have power "arising under this Constitution." The Supreme Court is supposed to be there to defend the Constitution and shoot down bad laws, not to "reinterpret" it to make those bad laws okay. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court NO POWER WHATSOEVER to interpret its meaning. So the fact that the Supreme Court is ignoring the Constitution doesn't help your argument any.

Unless you have a better way of determining if a law is in accordance with a partially ambiguous document, there is no way around the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution.



Complete bull$#!7. There MUST be a Congressional declaration in order for the war to be Constitutional. The Constitution DOES NOT give Congress the power to "approve" war, or to delegate its responsibility of declaration to the President or anyone else.

Nope, read any declaration of war you will see two main parts. First is the declaration that a state of war exists between the U.S. and nation X. The other is Congress giving the president the authority to use the military. The Constitution does not say there must be a Congressional declaration for a war to be Constitutional, it only says Congress shall have the power to declare war. If you read the rest of that section Congress has the power to pass whatever laws necessary to provide for the common defense (i.e. authorize the president to use military force).

Do you have ANY idea why the President is the head of the Executive branch, while Congress is the head of the Legislative branch? It's because Congress LEGISLATES; the President merely EXECUTES.

And Congress legislated on September 14, 2001.



Where? Transcript?

Are you seriously contending that there was no debate? That they just had the resolution written for them and just signed away without discussion or thinking about it?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek
Why are you having such stubborn problems with basic English? The Constitution DOES NOT give others the power to declare war,

Agreed, but nobody else has declared war.

and it DOES NOT give others the power to wage war undeclared. IT'S NOT IN THERE ANYWHERE!

There is this:
The Congress shall have power to .... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
And this:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer

It starts off by saying "We the people." Work it out.

I am amazed that you of all people would selectively quote the Constitution to prove it applies to all people!
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

So is the Constitution still "for the people" or for the U.S.??



Dishonest snivelling. You were a citizen of your state; therefore, one could be a citizen of one or more states and be entitled to the protection of the several states. The Constitution expressly says that.

So prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment there WAS such a thing as a U.S. citizen....right?
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
Actually, you are the only one claiming that it is not Constitutional to wage war without Congress declaring it. If you read above, this argument started when WildCat made this statement:

Sorry Shanek. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.

To which NightG1 responded:

War was declared? When did that happen?

WildCat made the claim we were at war, NightG1 challenged that claim. NightG1's statement implies that we were not at war because Congress did not declare it.

Why don't you read the passages you yourself quoted? WildCat's claim was based on what the Constitution meant at a time of war; NightG1's rebuttal was based on that. WildCat was the one that opened up the Constitutional door. But since this war isn't Constitutional, his argument doesn't even apply.

Nonsense, it is one thing to declare a state of war exists between two nations, it is another to give the president the authority to use the armed forces.

The Constitution already gives the President the authority to use the armed forces in time of war. That's why he's Commander-in-Chief. But in order for it to be a time of war under the Constitution, Congress must declare it, which, again, they didn't.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

It's been quoted to you twice.

That is an interpretation that the Supreme Court currently disagrees with.

Neither is the idea that we have the same free speech rights as incumbent politicians and the same free press rights as the big media corporations. Your point?

How about one at a time, in what document does the current Bush declare war? Please provide a source.

I never claimed he did and you know it. Stop weaseling.

Unless you have a better way of determining if a law is in accordance with a partially ambiguous document,

It's not ambiguous at all! What the hell's ambiguous about "Congress shall have the power to declare war"?

there is no way around the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution.

Well, the Supreme Court just "reinterpreted" the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." Again, this argument doesn't help you.

The Constitution does not say there must be a Congressional declaration for a war to be Constitutional, it only says Congress shall have the power to declare war.

But the Constitution gives no other procedure by which war may be declared, and no procedure by which war may be waged without a declaration. Again, if the Constitution doesn't say it, the Feds can't do it.

If you read the rest of that section Congress has the power to pass whatever laws necessary to provide for the common defense (i.e. authorize the president to use military force).[/b]

You're just making stuff up now. The rest of the section is just as specific as the paragraph we're discussing.

And Congress legislated on September 14, 2001.

Not within the boundaries set upby the Constitution. The Constitution gives them no authority whatsoever to transfer their obligation to the President.

Are you seriously contending that there was no debate? That they just had the resolution written for them and just signed away without discussion or thinking about it?

Your complete inability to address the point has been noted.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
There is this:
The Congress shall have power to .... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States[quote]

That's an introductory paragraph. the means for them to do so is laid out in the rest of the section. Honestly, do you really expect anyone to fall for this crap?

And this:

[quote]To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer

Read the highlighted portion. Again, maybe you should actually read thepassages you quote before you quote them.

I am amazed that you of all people would selectively quote the Constitution to prove it applies to all people!

I'm NOT amazed that you would be dishonest enough to try and state that the preamble somehow limits the Constitution to American citizens, when it doesnt' say anything of the kind. Everyone can see how desperate you've gotten.

So prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment there WAS such a thing as a U.S. citizen....right?


No...you were a citizen of your sovereign state. By extension, you were accorded all of the privileges granted to citizens of the several states.

Answer straight: If what you say is true, then why did the 14th Amendment need to state that we were citizens of the US?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek

Why don't you read the passages you yourself quoted? WildCat's claim was based on what the Constitution meant at a time of war; NightG1's rebuttal was based on that. WildCat was the one that opened up the Constitutional door. But since this war isn't Constitutional, his argument doesn't even apply.

You must be reading something different because in the passages I quoted, WildCat did not say or imply anything about the constitutionality of war.



The Constitution already gives the President the authority to use the armed forces in time of war. That's why he's Commander-in-Chief.

Read Article II over, there is no mention of time of war. Furthermore, why has Congress granted the president the authority to use the military in every declaration of war? Why not just write that a state of war exists between the U.S. and nation X since the Constitution already gives the president the authority in time of war? Maybe it is because those powers have NOTHING to do with declaring war:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States
No mention of "in a time of war."

But in order for it to be a time of war under the Constitution, Congress must declare it, which, again, they didn't.

The Constitution does not say in order for it to be a time of war Congress must declare it. It only says Congress shall have power to declare war. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's been quoted to you twice..

You can quote it a million times if you like but there is no possible way that you can turn "Congress shall have power to declare war" into "The only way to be a time of war under the Constitution is if Congress declares it." I guess the Civil War, was not really a (Constitutional) war, since Congress did not declare war

Neither is the idea that we have the same free speech rights as incumbent politicians and the same free press rights as the big media corporations. Your point?

The point is that the Supreme Court has to, and does interpret the Constitution to determine whether or not a law is in accordance with it.

I never claimed he did and you know it. Stop weaseling.

So when you responded to:
Did someone other than Congress declare war?
with:
Yes: George W. Bush did. His pappy did as well
...you were not claiming that they declared war? :rolleyes:

It's not ambiguous at all! What the hell's ambiguous about "Congress shall have the power to declare war"?

Nothing, it means Congress has the power to declare war. Where you came up with the only way to be a time of war under the Constitution is if Congress declares it is a mystery. Regardless, I said the it was partly-ambiguous, that passage is pretty clear to me.



Well, the Supreme Court just "reinterpreted" the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." Again, this argument doesn't help you.

How about completing the sentence first....

But the Constitution gives no other procedure by which war may be declared,

Correct.

and no procedure by which war may be waged without a declaration.

Wrong, as I pointed out Congress can:
...make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States


Not within the boundaries set upby the Constitution. The Constitution gives them no authority whatsoever to transfer their obligation to the President.

What obligation did they transfer to the president? They gave him the authority to use the military. Last time I checked, that was the president's obligation, not Congress's.



Your complete inability to address the point has been noted.

Nice, now can you please answer the question? Are you seriously contending that there was no debate? That they just had the resolution written for them and just signed away without discussion or thinking about it?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


That's an introductory paragraph. the means for them to do so is laid out in the rest of the section. Honestly, do you really expect anyone to fall for this crap?


So let me get this straight. The section starts off with an "introductory paragraph" that starts with "Congress shall have power to" but Congress really only has power to do whatever is outside of that paragraph. When it says Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, that is really just an "introduction" to the means for them to do so (nevermind that the means for them to lay and collect taxes are not spelled out in that section). Interesting writing style. Start off one paragraph with a phrase (Congress shall have the power to) but only have it actually apply to the subsequent paragraphs.

Read the highlighted portion. Again, maybe you should actually read thepassages you quote before you quote them.

Yeah, silly of me to think that that power to provide for common defense really is not a foregoing power vested by the Constitution. I should have paid attention in civics class when they taught about Constitutional introductory paragraphs.

I'm NOT amazed that you would be dishonest enough to try and state that the preamble somehow limits the Constitution to American citizens, when it doesnt' say anything of the kind. Everyone can see how desperate you've gotten.

Wait, you merely quote "We the people" to prove that the Constitution applies to everyone and I am the dishonest one? Here is what I 'dishonestly' and 'desparately' have to say to that:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

Answer straight: If what you say is true, then why did the 14th Amendment need to state that we were citizens of the US?

I do not know, I am still trying to figure out why the preamble says "this Constitution for the United States of America" when it really is for everyone in the world.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
You must be reading something different because in the passages I quoted, WildCat did not say or imply anything about the constitutionality of war.

Hel-lo????

Sorry Shanek. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.

Read Article II over, there is no mention of time of war.

Section 2 begins:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

No mention of "in a time of war."

And what do you think "called into the actual service of the United States" means? Conducting a bake sale?

You can quote it a million times if you like but there is no possible way that you can turn "Congress shall have power to declare war" into "The only way to be a time of war under the Constitution is if Congress declares it."

If the Constitution doesn't say it, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO IT!!! Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? It doesn't HAVE to say it's the only way! It just has to fail to give any other method, which is what the Constitution has done.

Face it, you have no leg to stand on here.

The point is that the Supreme Court has to, and does interpret the Constitution to determine whether or not a law is in accordance with it.

The point is that you are completely unable to substantiate your assertions.

Nothing, it means Congress has the power to declare war. Where you came up with the only way to be a time of war under the Constitution is if Congress declares it is a mystery.

It's how the entire Constitution is set up! It explicitly enumerates the powers of government! If it ain't in the Constitution, the Feds can't do it! The fact that you repeatedly ignore this just shows how closed your mind is to this.

How about completing the sentence first....

Don't need to. That was the part they "interpreted." For example, "Congress shall make no law...bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," saying that it doesn't count if your a member of a challenging political party.

Correct.

Then they can't do it.

Wrong, as I pointed out Congress can:

What is it about the phrase "powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States" that escapes you?

What obligation did they transfer to the president?

The responsibility for making the decision whether or not to go to war.

So let me get this straight. The section starts off with an "introductory paragraph" that starts with "Congress shall have power to" but Congress really only has power to do whatever is outside of that paragraph. When it says Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, that is really just an "introduction" to the means for them to do so (nevermind that the means for them to lay and collect taxes are not spelled out in that section). Interesting writing style. Start off one paragraph with a phrase (Congress shall have the power to) but only have it actually apply to the subsequent paragraphs.

You are just being a dishonest, snivelling little weasel. The opening paragraph clearly states what powers are set forth in the section; it then proceeds to set out those powers.

I do not know, I am still trying to figure out why the preamble says "this Constitution for the United States of America" when it really is for everyone in the world.

Now you're just plain lying. I never SAID it was for everyone in the world. It is for the United States of America. And it says what the government of the United States of America can and cannot do, regardless of whether or not the person they're doing it to is a citizen.

But go on, ignore it all and stick your head in the sand. It's much nicer feeling that you're right instead of actually having to face the truth, isn't it?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Hel-lo????

Hello what? He clearly states the Constitution does not apply to foreigners on foreign soil. I never denied that he said something about the Constitution, I quoted the passage! But what I am saying is that he did not say or imply anything about the constitutionality of war, which is the case. WildCat's claim was with regards to the Constitution applying to foreigners. It is like saying "the jury will find John Doe guilty of murder, especially if he has a prior conviction." The claim is that the jury will find John Doe guilty of murder. Not that they will find him guilty if he has a prior conviction. Just like WildCat did not mean the Constitution does not apply to foreigners because it is a time of war. How about WildCat shed some light on what he meant?




Section 2 begins:
And what do you think "called into the actual service of the United States" means? Conducting a bake sale?

It means when Congress says you can go ahead and use the military the president does so. Once again, no mention of a Constitutional declaration of war being necessary.


If the Constitution doesn't say it, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO IT!!! Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? It doesn't HAVE to say it's the only way! It just has to fail to give any other method, which is what the Constitution has done.


But it does give another method, Congress shall have power to:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution
and the foregoing power is:
provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
But now you want to deny that Congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

The point is that you are completely unable to substantiate your assertions.

What? Open up any Supreme Court case. My assertion that they are the official interpreters of the Constitution is well documented, whether or not you agree with or like it.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court
They are the ultimate judges of what is or is not in accordance with the Constitution, and making that determination will usually require......interpretation of the law!


It's how the entire Constitution is set up! It explicitly enumerates the powers of government! If it ain't in the Constitution, the Feds can't do it! The fact that you repeatedly ignore this just shows how closed your mind is to this.

Congress shall have power to:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution
and the foregoing power is:
provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
What does the fact that you repeatedly ignore this show?


Don't need to. That was the part they "interpreted." For example, "Congress shall make no law...bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," saying that it doesn't count if your a member of a challenging political party.

Right, just like they interpret that same law saying you cannot threaten to kill people, no libel, slander,....etc. Or are those unconstitutional as well.


What is it about the phrase "powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States" that escapes you?

Nothing, what is it about the phrase "Congress shall have power....to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" that escapes you?




The responsibility for making the decision whether or not to go to war.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the responsibility for making the decision of whether or not to go to war is up to Congress?




You are just being a dishonest, snivelling little weasel. The opening paragraph clearly states what powers are set forth in the section; it then proceeds to set out those powers.

Really? How is the laying and collection of taxes set out in that section? Oh wait, here it is:
Congress shall have power....To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States



Now you're just plain lying. I never SAID it was for everyone in the world. It is for the United States of America. And it says what the government of the United States of America can and cannot do, regardless of whether or not the person they're doing it to is a citizen.

So you think all references to "the people" in the Constitution refers to the people of the world rather than the people of the U.S.? That is ridiculous.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
Hello what? He clearly states the Constitution does not apply to foreigners on foreign soil. I never denied that he said something about the Constitution, I quoted the passage! But what I am saying is that he did not say or imply anything about the constitutionality of war, which is the case.

No, it isn't! Look at the quote yet again:

The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.

THAT is his claim. In order for that claim to be true, there must be some sort of restriction somewhere in the Constitution that makes it not apply. Never mind the fact that there isn't one; the point is, even if there were, it would certainly mean that "at time of war" would refer exclusively to a war waged under the auspices of the Constitution.

It means when Congress says you can go ahead and use the military the president does so. Once again, no mention of a Constitutional declaration of war being necessary.

Again, there is NO OTHER METHOD WHATSOEVER enumerated in the Constitution of allowing the use of the military! Declaration of War is the ONLY method enumerated by which this may be done! So by exclusion, yes, a declaration of war is necessary. I have explained this to you several times! Why do you continue to ignore it and just say the same thing over and over again?

and the foregoing power is:

I've already explained to you twice why you're wrong about that. But you won't listen. You don't want to.

But just in case there is a tiny crack in that closed mind of yours, consider that it says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises[/b]

but then in the next section says:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

So the "powers" you mention ARE NOT ABSOLUTE. It is an introductory clause ONLY. Otherwise, how do you get around this contradiction?

What? Open up any Supreme Court case. My assertion that they are the official interpreters of the Constitution is well documented,

Not in the Constitution, which is the only document that matters. The fact that there's documentation of them acting improperly doesn't mean they're not acting improperly.

What does the fact that you repeatedly ignore this show?

I HAVEN'T IGNORED IT, YOU LIAR!!! I HAVE EXPLAINED IT TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES!!!!! :mad:

Right, just like they interpret that same law saying you cannot threaten to kill people, no libel, slander,....etc. Or are those unconstitutional as well.

Those are STATE crimes. The only FEDERAL crimes permitted under the Constitution are treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Yes, the Feds have been intruding into these areas, and those intrusions are unconstitutional, but what else is new?

Nothing, what is it about the phrase "Congress shall have power....to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" that escapes you?

Explained to you, several times. But you'd apparently prefer to LIE about it than actually consider what I've said.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the responsibility for making the decision of whether or not to go to war is up to Congress?

Already answered, several times.

So you think all references to "the people" in the Constitution refers to the people of the world rather than the people of the U.S.? That is ridiculous.

It's clear that you think so, but it's also clear that you refuse to support your assertion.

[gnome]

What kills me is how, whenever we notice due process failing, those who argue back always point out how big of a scumbag we're defending.

Can someone please explain in what way this is relevant? Are you advocating a system where the government can bypass due process as long as someone is arguaby a horrible scumbag?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it isn't! Look at the quote yet again:



THAT is his claim. In order for that claim to be true, there must be some sort of restriction somewhere in the Constitution that makes it not apply. Never mind the fact that there isn't one; the point is, even if there were, it would certainly mean that "at time of war" would refer exclusively to a war waged under the auspices of the Constitution.


Like I said, let us see what WildCat has to say.


Again, there is NO OTHER METHOD WHATSOEVER enumerated in the Constitution of allowing the use of the military! Declaration of War is the ONLY method enumerated by which this may be done! So by exclusion, yes, a declaration of war is necessary. I have explained this to you several times! Why do you continue to ignore it and just say the same thing over and over again?

Why do you continue to insist that declaring a state of war exists between the U.S. and another nation is the same as allowing the use of the military? Why is it that every declaration of war first declares a state of war exists AND THEN gives the president the authority to use the military? If "Congress shall have power to declare war" meant that once war is declared the military can be used, then why do they go through the trouble of giving the president the authority to use the military if he supposedly already would have it?



I've already explained to you twice why you're wrong about that. But you won't listen. You don't want to.

So the "powers" you mention ARE NOT ABSOLUTE. It is an introductory clause ONLY. Otherwise, how do you get around this contradiction?

What contradiction? When did I claim that those powers were absolute? And you accuse me of being a liar....

Not in the Constitution, which is the only document that matters. The fact that there's documentation of them acting improperly doesn't mean they're not acting improperly.

Improperly? There is no escaping interpretation of what the law says when you are a judge. You yourself are interpreting the Constitution. You selectivly take some parts literally and others you do not. "Congress shall have power to declare war," you do not interpret that literally. You inject your notion that a war is not Constitutional if it is not declared and the president cannot wage war unless it is declared. None of that is stated in the Constitution, that is YOUR INTERPRETATION of the phrase.

Those are STATE crimes. The only FEDERAL crimes permitted under the Constitution are treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Yes, the Feds have been intruding into these areas, and those intrusions are unconstitutional, but what else is new?

Oh so if a state decides to eliminate free speech, free press, and free assembly that is okay, since it was not Congress that passed the law. :rolleyes: You should be glad that the Supreme Court does not INTERPRET the first ammendment to allow such laws (i.e. the way you currently INTERPRET it).


Already answered, several times.

No you have not answered the question even once. And I will ask again, where in the Constitution does it say that the responsibility for making the decision of whether or not to go to war (i.e. wage war) is up to Congress. Please quote the appropriate passage. Before you answer "Congress shall have power to declare war" ask yourself if declaring war and waging war are the same thing.

It's clear that you think so, but it's also clear that you refuse to support your assertion.

Seems like common sense to me, but I keep forgeting that my interpretation of the Constitution is different than your INTERPRETATION.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
What contradiction?

The one in the tax example you dishonestly snipped. According to your logic, they have the power to lay taxes (which would include direct taxes, again according to your logic) but then somewhere else it says they can't lay direct taxes.

The only sensible meaning of this is that Congress is given the power to lay taxes in one place, and what taxes may be laid is given elsewhere. In one place it says what kind of taxes can be laid, and in the other it says who can lay them. Just like in one place it says that Congress is the entity to provide for the common defense and then elsewhere says how they can do it.

I don't know how many other ways I can explain it to you...I guess as many times as you ignore it, huh?

You selectivly take some parts literally and others you do not.

That is a big fat lie and you know it.

"Congress shall have power to declare war," you do not interpret that literally. You inject your notion that a war is not Constitutional if it is not declared and the president cannot wage war unless it is declared.

That is NOT injected! As I have tried to get through your stubborn, closed little mind several times, if that is the ONLY way the Constitution says they can do it, then THEY CAN'T DO IT ANY OTHER WAY!

If you can't point out where the Constiution gives the power to defer the waging of war to the President, or the waging of war without a declaration, then THEY JUST CAN'T DO IT, because IT ISN'T THERE.

None of that is stated in the Constitution,

It doesn't HAVE to be!!! It HAS to be stated in order to be a power!!! YOU are the one injecting things that aren't there!

Oh so if a state decides to eliminate free speech, free press, and free assembly that is okay, since it was not Congress that passed the law. :rolleyes:

No, it's not okay because the 14th Amendment expanded that protection to the states. :rolleyes: yourself.

And yes, before then states could, for example, establish religions unless their own Constitution forbade it, and some of them did.

No you have not answered the question even once.

You are just such an incredible liar it is disgusting. I have answered you several times. Anyone here can see that. I have stated it again in this very post.; But go on, stick your head back into the sand. I'm sure it's much more comfortable than facing the possibility that you might be wrong.

Liar.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


The one in the tax example you dishonestly snipped. According to your logic, they have the power to lay taxes (which would include direct taxes, again according to your logic) but then somewhere else it says they can't lay direct taxes.

The only sensible meaning of this is that Congress is given the power to lay taxes in one place, and what taxes may be laid is given elsewhere. In one place it says what kind of taxes can be laid, and in the other it says who can lay them. Just like in one place it says that Congress is the entity to provide for the common defense and then elsewhere says how they can do it.



This is nothing but a strawman since I never claimed that those powers were absolute. You made that up. Furthermore, it does not address the fact that that Congress has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States" (i.e. make any laws necessary and proper to lay and collect taxes). Obviously, the examples you provided would not fall under the 'proper' clause.

That is NOT injected! As I have tried to get through your stubborn, closed little mind several times, if that is the ONLY way the Constitution says they can do it, then THEY CAN'T DO IT ANY OTHER WAY!

Do you not understand the difference between declaring war and waging war?

If you can't point out where the Constiution gives the power to defer the waging of war to the President, or the waging of war without a declaration, then THEY JUST CAN'T DO IT, because IT ISN'T THERE.

Actually, there is NOTHING in the Constitution about waging war, so every war, declared or not is unconstitutional.



It doesn't HAVE to be!!! It HAS to be stated in order to be a power!!! YOU are the one injecting things that aren't there!

So there is no power to wage war in the Constitution, it is not stated anywhere.

No, it's not okay because the 14th Amendment expanded that protection to the states. :rolleyes: yourself.

You mean the protection of "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." So are you saying that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States is the Constitution? Doesn't that contradict your notion that the Constitution is not solely for U.S. citizens?


You are just such an incredible liar it is disgusting. I have answered you several times. Anyone here can see that. I have stated it again in this very post.; But go on, stick your head back into the sand. I'm sure it's much more comfortable than facing the possibility that you might be wrong.


Answer this: Is declaring war and waging war the same thing?

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
Furthermore, it does not address the fact that that Congress has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States" (i.e. make any laws necessary and proper to lay and collect taxes).

As long as the Constitution permits said tax! It says that in the part you quoted!

Do you not understand the difference between declaring war and waging war?

Yes, I do. Do you understand the difference between the Constitution saying something and not saying something?

Actually, there is NOTHING in the Constitution about waging war, so every war, declared or not is unconstitutional.

Bull$#!7. It specifically gives Congress the power to declare war, and the President to carry it out once called into action by said declaration.

You mean the protection of "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

No, I mean POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT. The Constitution restricts what the government can do. And although some places the Constitution mentions citizens, other places it doesn't. But, I guess they really MEANT citizens the whole time, because, uh, well, because you say so, right? :rolleyes:

So are you saying that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States is the Constitution? Doesn't that contradict your notion that the Constitution is not solely for U.S. citizens?

No, it simply means that specific passages of the Constitution apply to citizens, and others restrict what government can do regardless of whether or not the people they're doing it to are citizens.

There is no contradiction here. You only see one because your bigoted mind wants to.

Answer this: Is declaring war and waging war the same thing?

No. But under the Constitution, declaration of war is the only method granted to Congress of calling the military into action.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek

Yes, I do. Do you understand the difference between the Constitution saying something and not saying something?

I do, do you? Remember, the Constitution does not say anything about waging war.



Bull$#!7. It specifically gives Congress the power to declare war, and the President to carry it out once called into action by said declaration.

This brings us back to interpretation, since the Constitution does not say that a declaration of war is the "calling into the actual service of the United States."



No, I mean POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT. The Constitution restricts what the government can do. And although some places the Constitution mentions citizens, other places it doesn't. But, I guess they really MEANT citizens the whole time, because, uh, well, because you say so, right? :rolleyes:

We will never know what they really meant, I am just giving my reasons for why I think it means citizens the whole time. But if you think it is so far fetched that the U.S. Constitution would be for U.S. citizens only, I cannot do anything about that.

No, it simply means that specific passages of the Constitution apply to citizens, and others restrict what government can do regardless of whether or not the people they're doing it to are citizens.

So when the Constitution says "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." it means that Saddam Hussein, for example, can be convictied of treason? I mean, it does not specify anywhere that it has to be a citizen....

No. But under the Constitution, declaration of war is the only method granted to Congress of calling the military into action.

The Constitution does not state any method granted to Congress of calling the military into action. That is interpretation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
We will never know what they really meant,

Bull$#!7. We know exactly what they meant, because they told us so, in the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist papers, and in the debates. All of this is recorded and freely available. Just read at the documents linked to here:

http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Bull$#!7. We know exactly what they meant, because they told us so, in the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist papers, and in the debates. All of this is recorded and freely available. Just read at the documents linked to here:

http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm

Read what Hamiltion has to say about interpreting the Constitution (Federalist paper 78):

...The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body....

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
Read what Hamiltion has to say about interpreting the Constitution (Federalist paper 78):

Nice way to pull stuff out of context.

From the very same paper:

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.

It is clear that Hamilton would not approve of the "interpretation" that has been going on of late. And it's clear that he believed in "inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution" and "bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments" and should "regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws." You took one paragraph where he's saying nothing more than the judges should "ascertain the meaning" of the Constitution (which does NOT mean "interpret" it), and ascertain the meaning of the law, and if the two are in contradiction, they must find the law invalid. The paragraphs I quoted make that crystal clear.

[epepke]

Originally posted by WildCat

The 10th Amendment grants rights to the states that aren't specifically designated to the Federal gov't. Are you saying that, say, the state of Georgia could hold prisoners in Gitmo but not the Feds?

At one point in history, the answer would have been "yes." But we had a civil war over similar issues and then got a 14th Amendment.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Nice way to pull stuff out of context.

From the very same paper:

It is clear that Hamilton would not approve of the "interpretation" that has been going on of late. And it's clear that he believed in "inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution" and "bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments" and should "regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws." You took one paragraph where he's saying nothing more than the judges should "ascertain the meaning" of the Constitution (which does NOT mean "interpret" it), and ascertain the meaning of the law, and if the two are in contradiction, they must find the law invalid. The paragraphs I quoted make that crystal clear.

You completely miss the point. Hamilton knows judges will have to determine what the Constitution says. It is not clear cut like you claim. The fact that you even cited the Federalist papers shows the Constitution is not as simple and straightforward as you would like us to believe. The fact that they even exist shows that the Constitution is partly ambiguous......open to interpretation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
You completely miss the point. Hamilton knows judges will have to determine what the Constitution says.

That is NOT the same thing as "interpreting" it.

It is not clear cut like you claim.

Bull$#!7. It says, for example, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't say anything about "unless there's a compelling national interest." That is an "interpretation" that Hamilton, as evidenced by the quoted passages, would almost certainly NOT have approved of. In fact, he specifically said the reason for giving judges life terms was to avoid just this sort of thing.

The fact that you even cited the Federalist papers shows the Constitution is not as simple and straightforward as you would like us to believe. The fact that they even exist shows that the Constitution is partly ambiguous......open to interpretation.

That is just about the worst argument I've ever heard. Do you REALLY believe this crap or do you just pull it out of your @$$ because you've got nothing else?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


That is NOT the same thing as "interpreting" it.

No?

Main Entry: in·ter·pret
Pronunciation: in-'t&r-pr&t, -p&t
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French interpreter, from Latin interpretari, from interpret-, interpres agent, negotiator, interpreter
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms




Bull$#!7. It says, for example, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't say anything about "unless there's a compelling national interest." That is an "interpretation" that Hamilton, as evidenced by the quoted passages, would almost certainly NOT have approved of. In fact, he specifically said the reason for giving judges life terms was to avoid just this sort of thing.

As evidenced nothing, in reality you do not know you are merely putting words in his mouth.

That is just about the worst argument I've ever heard. Do you REALLY believe this crap or do you just pull it out of your @$$ because you've got nothing else?

Right, the Constitution is so clear that you have to reference something else (i.e. the Federalist papers) to show that it is so clear....:rolleyes: Why were the Federalist papers written if the Constitution was so clear? Why the need to write them to try to convince the public if the Constitution itself was clear enough?

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
No?

No, not in the way we've been using it. According to the dictionary definition you just cited, what the Supreme Court has been doing doesn't even fit the definition of "interpret;" it's just, I dunno, making stuff up I guess. How, under the definition you cited, does allowing restrictions on free speech due to "compelling national interest" count as interpretation?

As evidenced nothing, in reality you do not know you are merely putting words in his mouth.

No, I quoted his exact words. And I didn't take them out of context like you did.

Right, the Constitution is so clear that you have to reference something else (i.e. the Federalist papers) to show that it is so clear....:rolleyes:

Yes, you have to resort to such things with liars and others who distort the truth.

Why were the Federalist papers written if the Constitution was so clear?

Because it needed to be debated. Just because its meaning is clear doesn't mean it's not debatable.

[Zero]

You guys are being silly. No one cares what Hamilton would have done, and no one should.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


No, not in the way we've been using it. According to the dictionary definition you just cited, what the Supreme Court has been doing doesn't even fit the definition of "interpret;" it's just, I dunno, making stuff up I guess. How, under the definition you cited, does allowing restrictions on free speech due to "compelling national interest" count as interpretation?

How is that any different than not allowing the press into top secret government meetings or not allowing average citizens to protest inside the White House? Or do you think these things are unconstitutional as well?

No, I quoted his exact words. And I didn't take them out of context like you did.

You quoted his words, which is irrelevant to what is going on today (i.e. your claim that he would have disapproved of the interpretation). You have no way of knowing that, thus are putting words in his mouth. You claiming I took them out of context is not true. He said what he said, that the courts have to interpret. And the passages you quoted do not contradict that. He wants adherence to the Constitution, but the court has to first determine what the Constitution means so they may adhere to it.


Yes, you have to resort to such things with liars and others who distort the truth.

Maybe "the truth" is not as obvious as you think.



Because it needed to be debated. Just because its meaning is clear doesn't mean it's not debatable.

It is one thing to debate, it is another to need to explain. The Federalist papers read more like explanations of an ambiguous Constitution than a debate of Constitution vs something else.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
How is that any different than not allowing the press into top secret government meetings or not allowing average citizens to protest inside the White House? Or do you think these things are unconstitutional as well?

You're being disingenuous again. Freedom of speech does not mean the government must provide the means for the speech. It just means that it shouldn't get in the way of people doing it on their own.

You quoted his words, which is irrelevant to what is going on today (i.e. your claim that he would have disapproved of the interpretation). You have no way of knowing that, thus are putting words in his mouth.

You're just weaseling. It is clear that he was concerned about judges doing exactly the same sort of thing that they are now, and that is why he supported life terms for judges as a solution.

You claiming I took them out of context is not true. He said what he said, that the courts have to interpret.

No, he didn't. He didn't say anything of the kind. He said that the courts have to determine the meaning of the Constitution, which is different from the kind of interpretation we're talking about.