|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 21, 2004 13:00:17 GMT -5
How Far Above the Law? Editorial Daytona Beach News-Journal www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN48042004.htmIt is now possible, as it never was before, for a foreigner captured in a war zone to be imprisoned on American territory for life, without charge or legal counsel, and outside the bounds of the Geneva Convention's requisites for the treatment of war prisoners. About 500 to 600 individuals have been held in such a legal black hole at Guantanamo Bay since President Bush declared them "enemy combatants." Americans should be wary of considering themselves immune: What pkmtyolpes legal muster for foreigners easily becomes inspiration and precedent for American citizens -- as it has in at least two cases.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 23, 2004 8:57:52 GMT -5
How Far Above the Law? Editorial Daytona Beach News-Journal www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN48042004.htmIt is now possible, as it never was before, for a foreigner captured in a war zone to be imprisoned on American territory for life, without charge or legal counsel, and outside the bounds of the Geneva Convention's requisites for the treatment of war prisoners. About 500 to 600 individuals have been held in such a legal black hole at Guantanamo Bay since President Bush declared them "enemy combatants." Americans should be wary of considering themselves immune: What pkmtyolpes legal muster for foreigners easily becomes inspiration and precedent for American citizens -- as it has in at least two cases. So what? Maybe the military should have just killed them. Then you wouldn't have to let your heart bleed for those murderers. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 23, 2004 9:04:12 GMT -5
Murderer or not, a U.S. citzen IS protected by the Constitution against things like this. Could you imagine someone getting in charge and putting fundamental Christians away as terrorists w/o trial? No matter what they did, citzens deserve protection under the law!
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Apr 23, 2004 9:18:58 GMT -5
Murderer or not, a U.S. citzen IS protected by the Constitution against things like this. Could you imagine someone getting in charge and putting fundamental Christians away as terrorists w/o trial? No matter what they did, citzens deserve protection under the law! US citizen is protected, they are not. what is the protocol in other countries? i remember the stories of people going to mexico, being arrested and not being given the same "priveleges" as here in the US.
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 23, 2004 9:32:59 GMT -5
US citizen is protected, they are not. what is the protocol in other countries? i remember the stories of people going to mexico, being arrested and not being given the same "priveleges" as here in the US. Not true, U.S. citizens are being held without being given their normal rights. Next week, the Supreme Court hears two detention cases involving American citizens.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Apr 23, 2004 9:52:56 GMT -5
Not true, U.S. citizens are being held without being given their normal rights. Next week, the Supreme Court hears two detention cases involving American citizens. sorry must have misread - thought you'd said foreigners. IMO a US Citizen is not a foreigner, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 23, 2004 9:55:47 GMT -5
Murderer or not, a U.S. citzen IS protected by the Constitution against things like this. Could you imagine someone getting in charge and putting fundamental Christians away as terrorists w/o trial? No matter what they did, citzens deserve protection under the law! Those in Cuba are not U.S. citizens, and are not in America. What's your problem? They are being treated better than at any time in their life, and you complain? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 23, 2004 9:57:31 GMT -5
Not true, U.S. citizens are being held without being given their normal rights. Next week, the Supreme Court hears two detention cases involving American citizens. When a person takes up arms against his country, he loses citizenship rights. They really aren't Americans and should be treated as any other terrorist. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Apr 23, 2004 10:02:41 GMT -5
Not true, U.S. citizens are being held without being given their normal rights. Next week, the Supreme Court hears two detention cases involving American citizens. When a person takes up arms against his country, he loses citizenship rights. They really aren't Americans and should be treated as any other terrorist. [/color][/quote] I AGREE!
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 23, 2004 10:07:49 GMT -5
not everyone has taken up arms:
"Padilla is an American (and, for a few years, a Floridian) seized at Chicago's O'Hare Airport in 2002 on suspicions of plotting with al-Qaida to explode a "dirty" nuclear bomb."
Seized on suspicions - enough to throw out the Consitutuion?
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 23, 2004 10:09:44 GMT -5
I AGREE! I can't imagine anyone being concerned about a terrorist's "Constitutional Rights". I believe they should be given the same rights as the people in the countries they are fighting for. I'm all for giving them Afganistan's rights. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 23, 2004 11:51:45 GMT -5
I AGREE! I can't imagine anyone being concerned about a terrorist's "Constitutional Rights". I believe they should be given the same rights as the people in the countries they are fighting for. I'm all for giving them Afganistan's rights. [/color][/quote] If a person is a U.S. citizen and accused of terrorism, their Constitutional Rights should not be stripped of them. Under no circumstances should we allow the government to bypkmtyolp the Constituion, IMHO. Giving them free reign is just scary.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Apr 23, 2004 14:45:45 GMT -5
If a person is a U.S. citizen and accused of terrorism, their Constitutional Rights should not be stripped of them. Under no circumstances should we allow the government to bypkmtyolp the Constituion, IMHO. Giving them free reign is just scary. see now, i have to disagree. if they are going against the constitution and obviously disagree with it -- why should they be allowed to be protected by it - why should it work for them when they do not work for it? if they don't believe in it why should they be concerned with the rights it grants?! i think back to the people who immigrated here -- who moved heaven and earth to "come to America" for a better life. who gave up their own countries and fought side by side, often against their "own" on behalf of the "new" country FOR the constitution. i can not, in good conscience, say that these men and women, who laid down their lives for the constitution, for their country, should have to have done it for those that abuse and obviously could care less for the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 23, 2004 15:05:56 GMT -5
see now, i have to disagree. if they are going against the constitution and obviously disagree with it -- why should they be allowed to be protected by it - why should it work for them when they do not work for it? if they don't believe in it why should they be concerned with the rights it grants?! i think back to the people who immigrated here -- who moved heaven and earth to "come to America" for a better life. who gave up their own countries and fought side by side, often against their "own" on behalf of the "new" country FOR the constitution. i can not, in good conscience, say that these men and women, who laid down their lives for the constitution, for their country, should have to have done it for those that abuse and obviously could care less for the constitution. How are they going against the Constitution? They may/may not have commited a crime, were only accused. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Apr 23, 2004 15:18:35 GMT -5
How are they going against the Constitution? They may/may not have commited a crime, were only accused. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? are you talking about someone in particular? i question because in the one artilce is says American's should be warned and so on - not anyone in particular. most often in criminal cases the people are held in a prision awaiting trial - when it's severe enough to warrant such action. i believe it's the same thing with others that are accused. in regards to going against the constitution -- i believe that someone, anyone that strikes out against the US in a terrorist action IS going against all that "we the people" stand for, therefore, they are going against the constitution.
|
|