Joe Barton apologizing to BP

[Quantum Windbag]

The people at GITMO, as an example, were not all "enemy combatants" by any meaningful definition of the term. The only definition by which they were enemy combatants was by the definition that the military or the CIA claimed they were such.

Personally, I don't trust the government to fairly interpret that.

Then fucking interpret it yourself. See if you can do a better job than the legislature, the courts, and the executive branch. I don't trust the government myself, but your casual dismissal of the entire process just proves that you are completely clueless.

No, that's just not true. Many of the people at Guantanamo were not "captured in battle" by the "military".

How many?

 

[8537]

The people at GITMO, as an example, were not all "enemy combatants" by any meaningful definition of the term. The only definition by which they were enemy combatants was by the definition that the military or the CIA claimed they were such.

Personally, I don't trust the government to fairly interpret that.

Then fucking interpret it yourself. See if you can do a better job than the legislature, the courts, and the executive branch. I don't trust the government myself, but your casual dismissal of the entire process just proves that you are completely clueless.

the legislature and the courst never got a "fucking" chance to interpret it, Windbag (on a sidenote, thought we may disagree I laugh every time I read your screen name, hilarious).

There was no process beyond "the CIA and the military label this guy an enemy combatant. Therefore, he is an enemy combatant". Nevermind he wasn't captured on the field of battle etc...etc...We called him that, therefore he is.

For someone who doesn't trust the government, you sure are awfully trusting of the government. Perhaps they'll one day declare your noncitizen neighbor an enemy combatant.

How many?

Well we can't know the exact number, of course, because the people running the shitshow Won't Tell Us. That's the point.

 

[Sallow]

According to the reality of the situation, they do not have constitutional rights.

My liberal friends might believe they DESERVE constitutional rights, as they might believe Hayward would deserve constitutional rights (Since constitutional protections refer to persons in most cases, not citizens). But it's obvious that neither Hayward nor AQ members have such rights.

Wait a minute. What constitutional protections are they not entitled too? The 14th amendment covers this:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

While that might be the law as written, and I might agree with you 100%, the fact is that the current enforcement of the law allows for disparate treatment of citizens and noncitizens. I'm not happy about that, I'm just speaking of what is actually and in practice happening.

This is something that irks me about conservatives, especially those "Constitutional originalists" in general..

There is a good deal of the Constitution..that if implemented by the exact letter (which in itself is open to interpretation) would be against many of the things they hold dear..like our current military for example.

And while I think this whole notion of enemy combatants is wrong..and flawed..there obviously needs to be another way to deal with international terrorists..other then what's prescribed in the Constitution, which I think was done for purposes of Reciprocity and Trade.

 

[Sallow]

Well we can't know the exact number, of course, because the people running the shitshow Won't Tell Us. That's the point.

"Classified secrets" is much much to broad.

There is no way to actually audit anything being done in the name of the United States.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the legislature and the courst never got a "fucking" chance to interpret it, Windbag (on a sidenote, thought we may disagree I laugh every time I read your screen name, hilarious).

The legislature wrote the law that opened Gitmo, and modified the military tribunal process three times after the regular courts, and the administration, found things that would not work. The entire process of reviewing POW/Enemy Combatant status has been around, and served this country, since before the country existed.

It ain't perfect, but it works better than you give it credit for.

There was no process beyond "the CIA and the military label this guy an enemy combatant. Therefore, he is an enemy combatant". Nevermind he wasn't captured on the field of battle etc...etc...We called him that, therefore he is.

Yet SCOTUS has endorsed it because they understand the difference between a combatant and a non citizen.

For someone who doesn't trust the government, you sure are awfully trusting of the government. Perhaps they'll one day declare your noncitizen neighbor an enemy combatant.

And they will have me right up in their faces if they do. The difference is that I understand the difference between normal stupidity and a deliberate conspiracy to circumvent the Constitution. One is real, and the other is delusion.

Well we can't know the exact number, of course, because the people running the shitshow Won't Tell Us. That's the point.

You cannot toss out a claim that "many" people are being denied their rights, and then say you have no evidence, or even a single example, and expect any rational person to listen.