White House Insists, Torture Is Legal

[flaja]

I would think the requirement of citizenship is implied...we don't give foreigners other constitutional rights like voting in our elections.

Actually citizenship is not implied because the Constitution did not define citizenship (14th Amendment) when the 5th Amendment was ratified. There was no Constitutional way to determine who was a citizen when the 5th Amendment due process rights took effect.

Furthermore, voting is not expressly a constitutional right. The states determine the qualifications for voters. The only thing the Constitution says is that qualifications for an elector for the U.S. Congress and the electoral college cannot be more stringent than the qualifications required for the larger branch of the elector’s state legislature and no person can be disqualified as an elector because of age (if they are over 18), gender, race/previous condition of servitude or failure to pay any tax.

BTW: We do give illegal aliens due process rights, i.e., they cannot be jailed or deported without appearing before a judge or being tried in court even though they are not U.S. citizens.

 

[Hobbit]

Actually citizenship is not implied because the Constitution did not define citizenship (14th Amendment) when the 5th Amendment was ratified. There was no Constitutional way to determine who was a citizen when the 5th Amendment due process rights took effect.

Furthermore, voting is not expressly a constitutional right. The states determine the qualifications for voters. The only thing the Constitution says is that qualifications for an elector for the U.S. Congress and the electoral college cannot be more stringent than the qualifications required for the larger branch of the elector’s state legislature and no person can be disqualified as an elector because of age (if they are over 18), gender, race/previous condition of servitude or failure to pay any tax.

BTW: We do give illegal aliens due process rights, i.e., they cannot be jailed or deported without appearing before a judge or being tried in court even though they are not U.S. citizens.

Then how come a federal court always intervenes when a state does its dead level best to keep illegals from voting, like what's been done in GA? It seems the federal government only keeps its hands off people who let illegals vote.

 

[MissileMan]

BTW: We do give illegal aliens due process rights, i.e., they cannot be jailed or deported without appearing before a judge or being tried in court even though they are not U.S. citizens.

This is only true for illegals accused of a crime or those who request a formal hearing. Most just sign a piece of paper and are sent back to Mexico. I still maintain that we are voluntarily giving this due process to non-citizens and that we can, at our discretion, withhold U.S. constitutional rights from non-citizens.

 

[flaja]

Then how come a federal court always intervenes when a state does its dead level best to keep illegals from voting, like what's been done in GA? It seems the federal government only keeps its hands off people who let illegals vote.

I am not familiar with any situation in Georgia where illegals are voting. Explain.

 

[flaja]

This is only true for illegals accused of a crime or those who request a formal hearing. Most just sign a piece of paper and are sent back to Mexico. I still maintain that we are voluntarily giving this due process to non-citizens and that we can, at our discretion, withhold U.S. constitutional rights from non-citizens.

Committing terrorism is not committing crime? And even if illegals have to request a hearing the fact that they can request a hearing shows that we give them legal due process.

Is it true, as I’ve read on the net, that GWB has imprisoned Jose Padilla, a U. S. citizen, for three and a half years without formally charging him with a crime while refusing to give him access to a lawyer?

 

[theHawk]

If terrorists we capture are POWs then we cannot torture them without violating the Geneva Convention and thus making ourselves war criminals. If the terrorists we capture are criminals, we cannot violate their legal due process rights without violating our own Constitution.

If you've ever bothered to read the Geneva Convention articles or the Laws of War, you would know that in order to receive protection under the Geneva Conventions the captured party must be a member of a militia that are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates AND they must be recognizable from a distance(uniforms/rank) AND carry arms openly AND they must conduct their operations in accordance with laws and customs of war. Terrorists captured abroad or even within our borders do not meet this criteria, and thus are not protected under the Geneva Conventions.
Just because a captured terrorists does not meet this criteria does not give them due process rights from our Constitution. That is the most ass-backwards logic I've ever heard. Our constitutional rights would afford such a person more rights than is given by the geneva conventions. We are not "violating our own Constitution" because the Constitution does not protect foreigners, its written for U.S. citizens. How could a terrorist in Iraq or Afganistan possibly be protected by U.S. laws? U.S. laws have no jurisdiction out there.

 

[flaja]

If you've ever bothered to read the Geneva Convention articles or the Laws of War, you would know that in order to receive protection under the Geneva Conventions the captured party must be a member of a militia that are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates AND they must be recognizable from a distance(uniforms/rank) AND carry arms openly AND they must conduct their operations in accordance with laws and customs of war. Terrorists captured abroad or even within our borders do not meet this criteria, and thus are not protected under the Geneva Conventions.

When have I said otherwise?

Just because a captured terrorists does not meet this criteria does not give them due process rights from our Constitution.

POWs have never had U.S. due process rights under our Constitution, and I have never claimed otherwise. But I have said that closest thing we can classify terrorists as would be pirates- meaning they would fall under U.S. criminal law and are thereby entitled to U.S. due process rights.

We are not "violating our own Constitution" because the Constitution does not protect foreigners, its written for U.S. citizens.

Quote me the passage in the Constitution where the document says that only U.S. citizens are entitled to U.S. due process rights.

How could a terrorist in Iraq or Afganistan possibly be protected by U.S. laws? U.S. laws have no jurisdiction out there.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”. If Congress declares terrorism to be an offense against the law of nations, then U.S. law does have jurisdiction wherever terrorists happen to be, and should these terrorists be placed in U.S. custody, they are entitled to U.S. due process rights, and you will find nothing in the Constitution that says they are not.

 

[Hobbit]

I am not familiar with any situation in Georgia where illegals are voting. Explain.

Georgia passed a law whereby a person had to provide proof of citizenship in the form of a government issued photo ID. This was designed to prevent voter fraud of all kinds, from illegals to dead people to voting twice. A few people sued, saying it violated their rights because they're too lazy to take advantage of the free transportation to the place where they can get the ID. The judge let it sit on his desk for almost 6 months until it got too late to overturn his ruling before the election, then he declared the law unconstitutional.

 

[theHawk]

Terrorists are not 'Pirates' on the open sea. They are not robbers, they are killers who seek the destruction of our government and people and they are unlawful combatants as define by the Laws of War.


Judicial power may extend to cases involving "admiralty and maritime", between a state(or citizen) and foreign states(and citizens). The courts do have jurisdiction with countries we have treadies with. But the court's jurisdiction into such cases does not mean that U.S. consitutional rights must be extended to the criminal. I don't see how you can argue that Amendment VI could possibly apply to foreign terrorists commiting crimes on foreign lands. A right to a speedy and public trial "by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" is impossible if the crime is commited outside of the U.S. What are we supposed to do? Set up a court case with a jury full of Islamic fundementalists as the jurors?

The fact is that terrorists are no different than POWs of any other war, other than the fact that they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions.

 

[flaja]

Georgia passed a law whereby a person had to provide proof of citizenship in the form of a government issued photo ID. This was designed to prevent voter fraud of all kinds, from illegals to dead people to voting twice.

Florida now has a similar law (the photo ID need not be issued by the government). I haven’t seen any evidence that the Feds have gotten involved. The law here was so low-key I never heard anything about officially from the local Supervisor of Elections office and I heard nothing about it at all until just a few weeks before the primary last September and then only from the news media in passing.

 

[flaja]

Terrorists are not 'Pirates' on the open sea. They are not robbers, they are killers who seek the destruction of our government and people and they are unlawful combatants as define by the Laws of War.

They are violators of the law of nations- law that is subject to U.S. jurisdiction under our Constitution. Now tell me where in our Constitution does it say such people can be denied their due process rights or be tortured?

Judicial power may extend to cases involving "admiralty and maritime", between a state(or citizen) and foreign states(and citizens). The courts do have jurisdiction with countries we have treadies with.

Then what does Congress’ power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations entail? How can Congress make a law that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. judicial power? You are advocating a policy that was the cornerstone of Nazi Germany: The SS and Gestapo were exempt from the jurisdiction of German courts. Whenever a German court acquitted someone the Nazi’s wanted locked up the SS/Gestapo simply put the person in “protective custody” and the court had no further say in the matter.

But the court's jurisdiction into such cases does not mean that U.S. consitutional rights must be extended to the criminal.

Wby? Tell me exactly what the Constitution says on this matter. Tell me where the Constitution says someone accused of violating U.S. law does not have U.S constitutional due process rights.

I don't see how you can argue that Amendment VI could possibly apply to foreign terrorists commiting crimes on foreign lands.

When did I say this? If the crimes are committed in foreign lands, what right does the U.S. have to get involved (if not due to Congress’ power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations)?

A right to a speedy and public trial "by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" is impossible if the crime is commited outside of the U.S. What are we supposed to do? Set up a court case with a jury full of Islamic fundementalists as the jurors?

Congress has the power to create courts in addition to the U.S. Supreme Court and we have before helped create tribunals to try non-U.S. citizens in an international setting and such tribunals did not operate with juries (Nuremberg). However, at no time did we torture the defendants who we compelled to face this tribunal or deny them legal representation as GWB has done with suspected terrorists.

The fact is that terrorists are no different than POWs of any other war, other than the fact that they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Congress has not declared war on anybody, so how can we legally be at war? And if we are legally at war, then we must obey the Geneva Convention, which we ratified.

 

[theHawk]

Congress has the power to create courts in addition to the U.S. Supreme Court and we have before helped create tribunals to try non-U.S. citizens in an international setting and such tribunals did not operate with juries (Nuremberg). However, at no time did we torture the defendants who we compelled to face this tribunal or deny them legal representation as GWB has done with suspected terrorists.

We had no reason to torture Nazi defendants because they weren't apart of an on-going war. They wouldn't of had any knowledge of any attacks because the war was over. They were uniformed soldiers taking orders from superiors. So to compare captured Nazis after WWII to capured terrorists (not protected under Geneva Conventions laws) during an on-going war is completely disingenuous of you. Nice try at spinning it that way, but the two are completely different situations.

Congress has not declared war on anybody, so how can we legally be at war? And if we are legally at war, then we must obey the Geneva Convention, which we ratified.

I don't believe that the Geneva Conventions requires a 'declaration of war' in order to apply. Remember the Geneva Conventions apply to all the member countries that signed on, not just the U.S., and I am sure the process each county goes through to declare war is different. In any case, we do obey the Geneva Conventions. You just seem to be confused about the rules, either because you can't read English, or because you're choosing to ignore the truth right in front of your eyes in order to justify your political motives of helping terrorists in custody. My guess is its the latter.

 

[theHawk]

Wby? Tell me exactly what the Constitution says on this matter. Tell me where the Constitution says someone accused of violating U.S. law does not have U.S constitutional due process rights.

..........

When did I say this? If the crimes are committed in foreign lands, what right does the U.S. have to get involved (if not due to Congress’ power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations)?

Could you contradict yourself anymore? First your telling us there is nowhere in the Constitution that says accused should not have constitutional due process rights in cases that U.S. courts may have jurisdiction, to include overseas.
Then when I point out to you a specific Constitutional right (Amendment VI) couldn't possibly be applied to foreigners you turn around and pretend you didn't ever imply such a thing.

 

[red states rule]

So you are saying that terrorists are not engaged in acts of war against the U.S.? In that case they are the legal equivalent of pirates and any action we take against them is a law enforcement matter- meaning they are not prisoners of war when we capture them and thus have all of the legal rights to due process as provided by our Constitution. So that means they cannot be forced to testify against themselves; they cannot be subjected to imprisonment without trial; they cannot be denied legal counsel and they can not be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.

If terrorists we capture are POWs then we cannot torture them without violating the Geneva Convention and thus making ourselves war criminals. If the terrorists we capture are criminals, we cannot violate their legal due process rights without violating our own Constitution.

So what uniforms do terrorists were?

What military insignia do the terrorists wear?

What country and what branch of the military do the terrorists belong to

They need these to qualify for GC protection


Try answering direct questions with direct answers (for a change)

 

[theHawk]

Don't bother RSR, he is probably just another Islamic Troll. He can't even get his arguements straight.

 

[red states rule]

Don't bother RSR, he is probably just another Islamic Troll. He can't even get his arguements straight.

Good point. He is probably to busy sticking pins in his George Bush doll to actually read what I post

 

[flaja]

Congress has the power to create courts in addition to the U.S. Supreme Court and we have before helped create tribunals to try non-U.S. citizens in an international setting and such tribunals did not operate with juries (Nuremberg). However, at no time did we torture the defendants who we compelled to face this tribunal or deny them legal representation as GWB has done with suspected terrorists.
We had no reason to torture Nazi defendants because they weren't apart of an on-going war. They wouldn't of had any knowledge of any attacks because the war was over.

But would they not have had knowledge of the whereabouts of other Nazi criminals who were still at large and may have still posed a threat? Did they not have knowledge of the whereabouts of Nazi victims and the economic assets that the Nazis had stolen during the War?

BTW: Did we torture any German POWs that we had captured while the War was in progress? And what about the Nazis that entered the U.S. during the war for the purpose of committing sabotage? How did we know that the Nazis we captured did not have knowledge of other Nazi agents who may have been planning additional attacks against the U.S.? Did we torture these Nazis just to see what they’d tell us?

They were uniformed soldiers taking orders from superiors. So to compare captured Nazis after WWII to capured terrorists (not protected under Geneva Conventions laws) during an on-going war is completely disingenuous of you. Nice try at spinning it that way, but the two are completely different situations.

Would the Geneva Convention equate terrorists with saboteurs which cannot have POW status? Has the U.S. ever tortured saboteurs before?

Originally Posted by flaja
Congress has not declared war on anybody, so how can we legally be at war? And if we are legally at war, then we must obey the Geneva Convention, which we ratified.

I don't believe that the Geneva Conventions requires a 'declaration of war' in order to apply.

Is this just your personal belief, or can you document your claim?

 

[theHawk]

But would they not have had knowledge of the whereabouts of other Nazi criminals who were still at large and may have still posed a threat? Did they not have knowledge of the whereabouts of Nazi victims and the economic assets that the Nazis had stolen during the War?

So what if they did? They are still uniformed soldiers commanded by accountable officers and other superiors. They carried arms openly. They would of been completely protected by the GC. What do you not understand about the difference between uniformed soldiers and non-uniformed soldiers not apart of any formal military of a nation?

BTW: Did we torture any German POWs that we had captured while the War was in progress? And what about the Nazis that entered the U.S. during the war for the purpose of committing sabotage? How did we know that the Nazis we captured did not have knowledge of other Nazi agents who may have been planning additional attacks against the U.S.? Did we torture these Nazis just to see what they’d tell us?

I don't know, I wasn't alive at the time. I cannot give witness to things I wasn't around for.

Would the Geneva Convention equate terrorists with saboteurs which cannot have POW status? Has the U.S. ever tortured saboteurs before?

I don't know, why don't you provide some documentation from the GC about 'saboteurs'. And I don't know the answer to the second question, I certainly haven't witnesses anything of the sort.

Is this just your personal belief, or can you document your claim?

You are the one that said -

Congress has not declared war on anybody, so how can we legally be at war? And if we are legally at war, then we must obey the Geneva Convention, which we ratified.

I am simply saying we obey the Geneva Conventions at all times, regardless if we "declared war" or not. The GC addresses powers that are in conflict. I said to my knowledge they don't explicitly say anywhere that it requires a "declaration of war" by member countries in order to take effect. I can't quote you passage to you because to my knowledge it doesn't exist. Feel free to point out where in the GC is explicitly says there must be a "declaration of war" in order to take effect. Otherwise, what exactly are you arguing for? Are you saying since we haven't made a "Declaration of War" against terrorist that the Geneva Conventions do not apply? If so then why are you complaining that we aren't following the GC?

Please, make up your mind about what you arguing for. And answer questions with answers, not more vague questions. Otherwise you're just making yourself look more and more idiotic.

 

[flaja]

Originally Posted by flaja
Wby? Tell me exactly what the Constitution says on this matter. Tell me where the Constitution says someone accused of violating U.S. law does not have U.S constitutional due process rights.

..........

When did I say this? If the crimes are committed in foreign lands, what right does the U.S. have to get involved (if not due to Congress’ power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations)?


Could you contradict yourself anymore?

Huh?

First your telling us there is nowhere in the Constitution that says accused should not have constitutional due process rights in cases that U.S. courts may have jurisdiction, to include overseas.

When have I said that the U.S. Courts and constitutional due process rights do not go anywhere and everywhere U.S. law goes?

You are trying to say that terrorists don’t have any U.S. due process rights because they are not under the jurisdiction of U.S. law. But Congress’ power to define and punish piracies and offenses committed against the law of nations puts terrorists within U.S. criminal jurisdiction. I have never said otherwise. And I will ask you again, “Where in the Constitution does it say U.S. constitutional due process rights are limited to U.S. citizens?

Then when I point out to you a specific Constitutional right (Amendment VI) couldn't possibly be applied to foreigners you turn around and pretend you didn't ever imply such a thing.

If your objection is that terrorists are captured in districts that have not been legally defined and thus a jury trial cannot be conducted, you are wrong. Congress can create a court and assign it to any district it wishes to define. Congress could easily create a court and give it jurisdiction over piracy committed on the high seas by legally defining the high seas as a “district”. Congress could do the same for anywhere else in the world in order to try persons accused of terrorism or otherwise committing an offense against the law of nations.

Furthermore, you cannot say that trials conducted somewhere other than a U.S. state or territory are inherently unfair. At the Nuremberg Trials the Nazi who was in charge of procuring slave laborers from among POWs and civilians captured by the Germans was found guilty and hanged. But, Albert Speer, Germany’s minister of war production, who made extensive use of these slave laborers to keep Germany’s war factories operating was only sentenced to 20 years. Also, several Nazi defendants at Nuremberg were acquitted entirely. The U.S. can and has conducted fair trials in places other than a U.S. federal district courtroom.

 

[flaja]

So what uniforms do terrorists were?

What military insignia do the terrorists wear?

What country and what branch of the military do the terrorists belong to

They need these to qualify for GC protection


Try answering direct questions with direct answers (for a change)

If they are not POWs and they are not criminal defendants, what qualifies them to be tortured?

BTW: If we torture a terror suspect and he doesn't tell us what we want to know, are we entitled to torture his son, daughter, wife, brother, sister, father or mother?