Should we be force feeding gitmo prisoners?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Look travel the world for a while exercise whatever right you think you have and get back to me in about ten years. I'd suggest going to Saudi Arabia first and try exercising your 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendment rights.

As this has nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread, or anywhere else, and has, in fact, been debunked by me on three separate occasions in this very thread, I have to assume that you continually return to this straw man because you find yourself unable to respond to my actual position.

It has everything to do with you spouting off about Constitutional rights as if they were universal and everybody and their momma has them. Go try exercising them in any Middle Eastern country.

No, it really doesn't. That you want this to be my argument is never going to make it so.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[
Because Republicans are the party that call this nation a Christian nation, then prove that they are not by supporting the most anti-Christian actions possible.

It doesn't matter whether some of these detainees are innocent of a crime, they are Muslims and as far as Republicans are concerned they deserve to be dead.

NONE of that is anti-Christian, be sure.

Ask a Crusader.

Onward, Christian Soldiers.

How about we ask Jesus instead?

 

[Circe]

[
Because Republicans are the party that call this nation a Christian nation, then prove that they are not by supporting the most anti-Christian actions possible.

It doesn't matter whether some of these detainees are innocent of a crime, they are Muslims and as far as Republicans are concerned they deserve to be dead.

NONE of that is anti-Christian, be sure.

Ask a Crusader.

Onward, Christian Soldiers.

How about we ask Jesus instead?

Can't, somebody crucified him in Roman times. If you think you've got a good connection all the same, you ask him.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The U.S. government has certain justifications, but the fact that it will not bring these people to trial or allow them to go on their way is unconstitutional.

No, the policy and practice has very carefully avoided being unconstitutional: that's why they are in Cuba.

It works. Let's keep it.

Being in Cuba has no bearing on the constitutionality of this program. It's as unconstitutional in Cuba as it would be in Cleveland, because the limits on the U.S. government's power do not change regardless of where it's acting.

 

[Mertex]

[
Because Republicans are the party that call this nation a Christian nation, then prove that they are not by supporting the most anti-Christian actions possible.

It doesn't matter whether some of these detainees are innocent of a crime, they are Muslims and as far as Republicans are concerned they deserve to be dead.

NONE of that is anti-Christian, be sure.

I guess you must not know what a Christian is. Wanting anyone to die is definitely non-Christian.

Ask a Crusader.

I don't have to ask anyone, I know.

Onward, Christian Soldiers.

From defending ownership of all types of guns to wishing people death, yeah, onward!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

NONE of that is anti-Christian, be sure.

Ask a Crusader.

Onward, Christian Soldiers.

How about we ask Jesus instead?

Can't, somebody crucified him in Roman times. If you think you've got a good connection all the same, you ask him.

But we can somehow channel the crusaders?

 

[Circe]

NONE of that is anti-Christian, be sure.

I guess you must not know what a Christian is. Wanting anyone to die is definitely non-Christian.

Are you SURE? Thousands and hundreds of thousands of Crusaders killed and wanted Moslems to die and the Pope blessed them all and gave them absolution for all their sins in advance.

During WWII lots of American soldiers and chaplains who certainly thought they were Christian wanted all the enemies to die.

Are you thinking you are a Christian and none of those people ever were Christians? I doubt that.

Ask a Crusader.

I don't have to ask anyone, I know.

You don't seem to know much about Christianity; you just assert what you want to believe.

Onward, Christian Soldiers.

From defending ownership of all types of guns to wishing people death, yeah, onward!

I don't defend ownership of all types of guns: you don't know much about Christianity or about me. You just like to feel right.

But you aren't right.

 

[Skull Pilot]

allowing people to kill themselfs is not legal either is it?

Why not?

If they want to die what business is it of yours?

besides strapping someone down and forcing them against their will to submit to being fed , even intravenously, could be called torture. And we can't do that can we?

 

[Mertex]

Are you SURE? Thousands and hundreds of thousands of Crusaders killed and wanted Moslems to die and the Pope blessed them all and gave them absolution for all their sins in advance.

The Pope is not God, and just because he blessed them and gave them absolution does not mean they are forgiven by God, and, yes, the Crusaders were wrong, just like many who claim to be Christian today, are wrong.

During WWII lots of American soldiers and chaplains who certainly thought they were Christian wanted all the enemies to die.

That was during war, and they were doing their job. They knew they were their enemies because they were trying to kill them, too.

Are you thinking you are a Christian and none of those people ever were Christians? I doubt that.

I certainly cannot tell whether those people are Christian or not, but you can tell a Christian by their actions or what comes out of their mouth.

You don't seem to know much about Christianity; you just assert what you want to believe.

I probably know more than you do, since you are defending that which is not Christian.

I don't defend ownership of all types of guns: you don't know much about Christianity or about me. You just like to feel right.

I wasn't talking about you personally, because I don't know you, and I don't know what you believe or not believe. I'm talking in general, from many of the Republicans that claim they are Christian, want to push Christian values, all the while acting like the devil himself.

But you aren't right.

I am right. Christians are supposed to be like Jesus, and I never read where Jesus carried a weapon, or wished anyone dead.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

How about we ask Jesus instead?

Can't, somebody crucified him in Roman times. If you think you've got a good connection all the same, you ask him.

But we can somehow channel the crusaders?

Oh snap.

WELL played.

 

[Circe]

But we can somehow channel the crusaders?

I sure hope so; that's the spirit that is needed if we are to defeat these awful Muslims who are trying to take over the world.

The Crusaders fought against them taking over the Holy Land; since they were eventually defeated around the 14th century, Muslims have taken over much of the world in a belt going right around the globe. They are taking over more and more in our lifetime, by violence and explosions the same as they always have since the 7th century.

We can fight back like the Crusaders, or we can let them have the world and us, an unattractive prospect to me.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

But we can somehow channel the crusaders?

I sure hope so; that's the spirit that is needed if we are to defeat these awful Muslims who are trying to take over the world.

The Crusaders fought against them taking over the Holy Land; since they were eventually defeated around the 14th century, Muslims have taken over much of the world in a belt going right around the globe. They are taking over more and more in our lifetime, by violence and explosions the same as they always have since the 7th century.

We can fight back like the Crusaders, or we can let them have the world and us, an unattractive prospect to me.

^ Your utterly pathetic dodge is duly noted, circus.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The U.S. government has certain justifications, but the fact that it will not bring these people to trial or allow them to go on their way is unconstitutional.

No, the policy and practice has very carefully avoided being unconstitutional: that's why they are in Cuba.

It works. Let's keep it.

Being in Cuba has no bearing on the constitutionality of this program. It's as unconstitutional in Cuba as it would be in Cleveland, because the limits on the U.S. government's power do not change regardless of where it's acting.

And again you are wrong.

As I said before go to the Middle East and try to exercise your Constitutional rights.

Our Constitution and government are limited.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, the policy and practice has very carefully avoided being unconstitutional: that's why they are in Cuba.

It works. Let's keep it.

Being in Cuba has no bearing on the constitutionality of this program. It's as unconstitutional in Cuba as it would be in Cleveland, because the limits on the U.S. government's power do not change regardless of where it's acting.

And again you are wrong.

As I said before go to the Middle East and try to exercise your Constitutional rights.

Our Constitution and government are limited.

Are you ever going to address my actual argument, or just keep making up this fantasy that I think the U.S. Constitution somehow applies to foreign governments?

 

[Meathead]

Being in Cuba has no bearing on the constitutionality of this program. It's as unconstitutional in Cuba as it would be in Cleveland, because the limits on the U.S. government's power do not change regardless of where it's acting.

And again you are wrong.

As I said before go to the Middle East and try to exercise your Constitutional rights.

Our Constitution and government are limited.

Are you ever going to address my actual argument, or just keep making up this fantasy that I think the U.S. Constitution somehow applies to foreign governments?

The problem is you do not have an actual argument. Constitutional prtections do not apply to either foreign or US citizens outside of the US. In fact on my passport it says," ...and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection." and that of the host nation, not the US constitution. To think that the US military is constrained by the constitution would extend the doctrine of "habeas corpus", Miranda rights and a host of other provisions to POWs or enemy combatants and automatically make treaties like the Geneva Convention superfluous.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Being in Cuba has no bearing on the constitutionality of this program. It's as unconstitutional in Cuba as it would be in Cleveland, because the limits on the U.S. government's power do not change regardless of where it's acting.

And again you are wrong.

As I said before go to the Middle East and try to exercise your Constitutional rights.

Our Constitution and government are limited.

Are you ever going to address my actual argument, or just keep making up this fantasy that I think the U.S. Constitution somehow applies to foreign governments?

What exactly is your argument?

That every swinging dick in the world is subject to the US Constitution and deserves all the protection in provides?

The fact is no matter how these clowns ended up in Gitmo they are there and most of their home nations do not want them back. Most Americans do not want them turned loose on American soil.

You mentioned Yemen will take their terrorist back and they will, if we pay them. Should we pay them to take back their terrorist?

Recidivism rate is almost 30 percent. Does that not worry you? That we will be turning loose those that will seek to kill more of us.

I believe I have seen your argument and it falls flat. You seem to be acting on emotion rather than logic and that is the problem with most liberals.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And again you are wrong.

As I said before go to the Middle East and try to exercise your Constitutional rights.

Our Constitution and government are limited.

Are you ever going to address my actual argument, or just keep making up this fantasy that I think the U.S. Constitution somehow applies to foreign governments?

The problem is you do not have an actual argument. Constitutional prtections do not apply to either foreign or US citizens outside of the US. In fact on my passport it says," ...and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection." and that of the host nation, not the US constitution. To think that the US military is constrained by the constitution would extend the doctrine of "habeas corpus", Miranda rights and a host of other provisions to POWs or enemy combatants and automatically make treaties like the Geneva Convention superfluous.

That you don't like my argument is not indicative of it being absent. The U.S. military is constrained by the U.S. Constitution, just as every other part of the U.S. government is constrained. If that leads to superfluity then so be it. To say that they're not constrained by the Constitution would mean that they're a government unto themselves, or, at the very least, could become one, which is obviously not the case.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And again you are wrong.

As I said before go to the Middle East and try to exercise your Constitutional rights.

Our Constitution and government are limited.

Are you ever going to address my actual argument, or just keep making up this fantasy that I think the U.S. Constitution somehow applies to foreign governments?

What exactly is your argument?

That every swinging dick in the world is subject to the US Constitution and deserves all the protection in provides?

The fact is no matter how these clowns ended up in Gitmo they are there and most of their home nations do not want them back. Most Americans do not want them turned loose on American soil.

You mentioned Yemen will take their terrorist back and they will, if we pay them. Should we pay them to take back their terrorist?

Recidivism rate is almost 30 percent. Does that not worry you? That we will be turning loose those that will seek to kill more of us.

I believe I have seen your argument and it falls flat. You seem to be acting on emotion rather than logic and that is the problem with most liberals.

Luckily you're not discussing this with a liberal then, though I'm sure they resent that charge. Especially when your argument, "Most Americans don't want them in the U.S.," is an emotional argument on its face.

Regardless, no, that is not my argument. My argument is that in all cases the U.S. government is constrained by the Constitution. The U.S. government may not, for example, restrict your right to post on this board. Yet they may also not restrict the right of Meathead, who apparently lives in the Czech Republic, to post on this board.

The U.S. certainly owes restitution to those people it captured and detained for years on end who have committed no wrongdoing. Whether it owes some kind of restitution to Yemen is much less clear. You'd have to take into account the attacks on their sovereignty and so on.

I'm not worried about the recidivism rate of people who have done nothing wrong, frankly. You seem to think I'm advocating the release of prisoners who there is evidence of wrongdoing, and that's simply not the case. I would merely advocate that they receive a proper trial to prove their guilt.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Are you ever going to address my actual argument, or just keep making up this fantasy that I think the U.S. Constitution somehow applies to foreign governments?

What exactly is your argument?

That every swinging dick in the world is subject to the US Constitution and deserves all the protection in provides?

The fact is no matter how these clowns ended up in Gitmo they are there and most of their home nations do not want them back. Most Americans do not want them turned loose on American soil.

You mentioned Yemen will take their terrorist back and they will, if we pay them. Should we pay them to take back their terrorist?

Recidivism rate is almost 30 percent. Does that not worry you? That we will be turning loose those that will seek to kill more of us.

I believe I have seen your argument and it falls flat. You seem to be acting on emotion rather than logic and that is the problem with most liberals.

Luckily you're not discussing this with a liberal then, though I'm sure they resent that charge. Especially when your argument, "Most Americans don't want them in the U.S.," is an emotional argument on its face.

Regardless, no, that is not my argument. My argument is that in all cases the U.S. government is constrained by the Constitution. The U.S. government may not, for example, restrict your right to post on this board. Yet they may also not restrict the right of Meathead, who apparently lives in the Czech Republic, to post on this board.

The U.S. certainly owes restitution to those people it captured and detained for years on end who have committed no wrongdoing. Whether it owes some kind of restitution to Yemen is much less clear. You'd have to take into account the attacks on their sovereignty and so on.

I'm not worried about the recidivism rate of people who have done nothing wrong, frankly. You seem to think I'm advocating the release of prisoners who there is evidence of wrongdoing, and that's simply not the case. I would merely advocate that they receive a proper trial to prove their guilt.

You're not a liberal? oooookkkk

No it's not an emotional argument, it's a fact.

You need to learn the law and how it applies to non-citizens, specifically enemy combatants, especially those not within our borders.

As you may have heard, we are a nation of laws. And according to the Constitution, Section 8 it states: "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, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Take a look at the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the case that involved a U.S. citizen who was an enemy combatant.

The court plainly ruled in that case that U.S. citizens can be held as enemy combatants. The court's four-justice plurality (which included O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy, and Rehnquist) was unequivocal on this: "There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant." And while the U.S. cannot hold an American enemy combatant "indefinitely," it is a "clearly established principle of the law of war" that detention can last as long at the hostilities do.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What exactly is your argument?

That every swinging dick in the world is subject to the US Constitution and deserves all the protection in provides?

The fact is no matter how these clowns ended up in Gitmo they are there and most of their home nations do not want them back. Most Americans do not want them turned loose on American soil.

You mentioned Yemen will take their terrorist back and they will, if we pay them. Should we pay them to take back their terrorist?

Recidivism rate is almost 30 percent. Does that not worry you? That we will be turning loose those that will seek to kill more of us.

I believe I have seen your argument and it falls flat. You seem to be acting on emotion rather than logic and that is the problem with most liberals.

Luckily you're not discussing this with a liberal then, though I'm sure they resent that charge. Especially when your argument, "Most Americans don't want them in the U.S.," is an emotional argument on its face.

Regardless, no, that is not my argument. My argument is that in all cases the U.S. government is constrained by the Constitution. The U.S. government may not, for example, restrict your right to post on this board. Yet they may also not restrict the right of Meathead, who apparently lives in the Czech Republic, to post on this board.

The U.S. certainly owes restitution to those people it captured and detained for years on end who have committed no wrongdoing. Whether it owes some kind of restitution to Yemen is much less clear. You'd have to take into account the attacks on their sovereignty and so on.

I'm not worried about the recidivism rate of people who have done nothing wrong, frankly. You seem to think I'm advocating the release of prisoners who there is evidence of wrongdoing, and that's simply not the case. I would merely advocate that they receive a proper trial to prove their guilt.

You're not a liberal? oooookkkk

No it's not an emotional argument, it's a fact.

You need to learn the law and how it applies to non-citizens, specifically enemy combatants, especially those not within our borders.

As you may have heard, we are a nation of laws. And according to the Constitution, Section 8 it states: "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, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Take a look at the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the case that involved a U.S. citizen who was an enemy combatant.

The court plainly ruled in that case that U.S. citizens can be held as enemy combatants. The court's four-justice plurality (which included O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy, and Rehnquist) was unequivocal on this: "There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant." And while the U.S. cannot hold an American enemy combatant "indefinitely," it is a "clearly established principle of the law of war" that detention can last as long at the hostilities do.

Nope, not a liberal.

It is a fact that a majority of Americans oppose allowing people who are currently detained in Gitmo into the United States. They oppose it for emotional reasons, however, because they don't care whether these people are actually guilty of anything or not. The fact that they're in Gitmo, justly or unjustly, makes them evil. Which is nonsense.

You still haven't told me where the Constitution gives a legal definition of "enemy combatant."

So now a conservative is going to take up the "Necessary and Proper Clause" to defend the unconstitutional activities he likes. You sure you're not the liberal?

And the Supreme Court is never wrong, are they? How's that Obamacare decision sitting with you?