LuckyDan
Sublime
I admit readily that I've read no further than the first few words of the OP, so forgive me if this has been said but fuck the ACLU.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.
The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.
He was a legit target, anyone dumb enough to be living with him is collateral damage. The ACLU can go pound sand up their collective asses.
I don't care a damn about the Taliban...but Al Quaida and those that support them...feed them...hide them....are all fair game for annialation. I would rather see Ossamas children and grandchildren dead than have them walking and plotting in thier fathers footsteps. We do not have to make excuses for erradicating the real perpetrators of 9/11....EVER.
Most of the more than one million people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan had not given any material support to Al Qaeda. There are less than 100 Al Qaeda affiliated fighters left in all of Afghanistan, yet we send drone attacks that kill scores of civilians daily. The vast majority of the people who continue to fight against the U.S. occupation are, according to the U.S.'s own military and intelligence analysis, not ideologically driven or extremist terrorists, but rather people defending their land against a foreign army's occupation (as you would no doubt do if Chinese bombers and soldiers attacked your neighborhood).
Beyond that, we often bomb targets in the vicinity of homes and buildings that are completely unrelated and house completely unrelated, uninvolved, innocent people. It is a fallacy to argue that most of the innocent people we've murdered in these occupations were family members of or providing support to Al Qaeda.
The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.
He was a legit target, anyone dumb enough to be living with him is collateral damage. The ACLU can go pound sand up their collective asses.
I agree. He was a legit target. His family not so.....
Ya we should just surrender cause damn they hide amongst civilians.
Ya we should just surrender cause damn they hide amongst civilians.
That's the US's problem, not the civilians.....
.....using your logic, everybody doing the speed limit on the freeway should get a ticket if they are near a person who is going 20km over the limit..
...warped....
If cops were going after a bad guy in an apartment or house next to you and they dropped a missile blowing up that house (and yours) and killing loved one of yours, would you find that acceptable? So why should it be ok to kill innocents to go after bad guys, just because they are foreigners?
PHILADELPHIA, May 14 - Firefighters found the bodies of six people today in the charred rubble of a radical group's house that bold been leveled in a police assault that set fire to the surrounding; neighborhood and destroyed more than 50 homes
A state police helicopter this evening dropped a bomb on a house occupied by an armed group after a 24-hour siege involving gun battles.
Ya we should just surrender cause damn they hide amongst civilians.
That's the US's problem, not the civilians.....
.....using your logic, everybody doing the speed limit on the freeway should get a ticket if they are near a person who is going 20km over the limit..
...warped....
Your analogy is warped. Speeders don't hide amid safe drivers. They rather set themselves apart.
The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.
That's the US's problem, not the civilians.....
.....using your logic, everybody doing the speed limit on the freeway should get a ticket if they are near a person who is going 20km over the limit..
...warped....
Your analogy is warped. Speeders don't hide amid safe drivers. They rather set themselves apart.
So it is the civilians fault that Hamas or Hizbollah hide amongst them?
The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.
Detainees the government claims to be terrorists are afforded Constitutional rights when the U.S. government takes them into custody, whether this is practiced or not, it's what the Constitution explicitly demands. The Constitution does not only apply to citizens, and it's a retardmeme that that's the case.
To see how false this notion is that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, one need do nothing more than read the Bill of Rights. It says nothing about "citizens." To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . or abridging the freedom of speech"; "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner"). And where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in "citizens," but rather in "persons" or "the accused" ("No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense").
The only way to argue that these rights apply only to Americans is to argue that only Americans, but not foreigners, are "persons." Once one makes that claim, then one is in Dred Scott territory. If foreigners are not "persons," then what are they: sub-persons? Non-persons? Untermenschen?
There are, of course, certain Constitutional rights that are clearly reserved only for citizens -- such as the right to vote or to hold elective office -- but when that is the case, the Constitution explicitly states that to be so ("The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States . . . ."). Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment, in the very same clause, demonstrates the distinction between "citizens" (which only includes "Americans") and "persons" (which includes everyone), and proves that the former is merely a subset of the latter:
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.
Article II, Section 1 -- in defining eligibility to be President -- makes the same distinction:
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;
"Persons" and "citizens" have entirely different meanings in the Constitution. There are a handful of instances in which the Constitution applies only to American citizens. When that is the case, the Constitution explicitly uses the word "citizens." In all other instances, it simply restricts what the Government is permitted to do generally or uses the much broader term "persons" to describe who holds the rights it guarantees. That's the obvious point the Yick Wo Court made in 1886 in holding "these provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction," and it ought to prevent the most minimally honest individuals among us from claiming otherwise.
The standard rhetorical formulation being used -- "extending rights to foreign Terrorists which the Constitution reserves for U.S. citizens" -- suggests that Constitutional rights are for American citizens only. That is blatantly false, and anyone making that claim is either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest.
That's the US's problem, not the civilians.....
.....using your logic, everybody doing the speed limit on the freeway should get a ticket if they are near a person who is going 20km over the limit..
...warped....
Your analogy is warped. Speeders don't hide amid safe drivers. They rather set themselves apart.
So it is the civilians fault that Hamas or Hizbollah hide amongst them?
Bottom line, yup. Revolution - often a good idea.That's the US's problem, not the civilians.....
.....using your logic, everybody doing the speed limit on the freeway should get a ticket if they are near a person who is going 20km over the limit..
...warped....
Your analogy is warped. Speeders don't hide amid safe drivers. They rather set themselves apart.
So it is the civilians fault that Hamas or Hizbollah hide amongst them?
Is your argument that they only have rights under the Constitution if they are captured and we are free to otherwise kill them? How can that be the desired outcome? How can only one class of Enemy Combatants, those captured, have rights as US citizens?
The ones that we killed are denied their rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments!!
Do you see the rather large inconsistency in the Librul logic of granting Enemy Combatants rights as a citizen under the US Constitution?
Imagine two terrorists walking down a street in Durkadurakstan, a Marine sniper kills one but the second is captured and brought to trial in an American criminal court with imaginary rights as a US Citizen.
When did he obtain these rights? Did he always have them? What about his friends who was sniped? What happened to his rights?
Is your argument that they only have rights under the Constitution if they are captured and we are free to otherwise kill them? How can that be the desired outcome? How can only one class of Enemy Combatants, those captured, have rights as US citizens?
The ones that we killed are denied their rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments!!
Do you see the rather large inconsistency in the Librul logic of granting Enemy Combatants rights as a citizen under the US Constitution?
Yes. Assuming we're talking about them being in a foreign country on foreign soil, the Constitution and its protections only apply to them once we capture them. If they're currently engaged in active hostilities against us, we have every right to kill them. If they are not currently engaged in active hostilities against us, it is the right thing to do to take them in, but killing them would not be illegal.
The reason only people captured by the U.S. have Constitutional rights (again, read my post you quoted that quotes the Constitution and demonstrates it is unquestionably not reserved for U.S. citizens, as the Supreme Court has always found and as is plain in the text, so they're not getting rights as U.S. citizens, they're getting Constitutional rights) is because the Constitution only applies to people who fall under U.S. jurisdiction. An Afghani is subject to Afghan law, but if we place him under U.S. custody, he is now subject to American law as well. This is because the Constitution decrees it.
It has nothing to do with "liberal logic," it's the logic of the framers of the Constitution. Laws are not outcome based but principle based. Sometimes laws have negative outcomes, for instance a guilty person is found innocent, because the laws are designed to protect more significant, inalienable rights and principles of justice than any one court case could effect. And of course, again, as has been made quite clear and is frankly incontrovertible, the Constitution does not only apply to U.S. citizens so they're not being given "rights as a citizen under the US Constitution," but rather given the Constitutional rights the Constitution protects and assures for all persons.
Why anyone would have a problem with the Constitution granting rights to anyone under its custody and following the law on that remains to be seen. There are numerous laws against all forms of terrorism or support for terrorism that make it extremely easy to convict anyone actually involved in any way with terrorism to a life sentence in Supermax (from which no one has ever escaped). Between 9/11 and 2008, we convicted 195 people of terrorism charges (a 91% conviction rate) in federal court, they're now in prison and no longer pose a threat. Terrorists aren't X-Men, there's no reason we have to break the law or establish a needlessly complex new system just to try them. Terrorists are criminals and have been tried successfully as such for decades. Why would we even need to violate the Constitution and repudiate our justice system to stop them? It works just fine, and it also affords us the opportunity to prove that open democracy works and is preferable to radical Islam, it provides justice and keeps us secure, unlike radical lawlessness.
Imagine two terrorists walking down a street in Durkadurakstan, a Marine sniper kills one but the second is captured and brought to trial in an American criminal court with imaginary rights as a US Citizen.
When did he obtain these rights? Did he always have them? What about his friends who was sniped? What happened to his rights?
He wouldn't be given imaginary rights as a U.S. citizen, he'd be given Constitutional rights as someone in U.S. custody.
He obtained the rights when he was captured and detained by agents of the U.S. His friend never had those rights because he was never under U.S. jurisdiction. The rights are universal to all persons under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not all persons everywhere.