Here is the Constitution. Show me where terrorists have rights?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

U.S. Constitution

Show me where the enemy combatants we catch on foreign soil get U.S. civil rights.

Most Americans are taught that during World War II, there were Japanese American Interment camps, but very few Americans know that from 1942 to 1946 more than 400,000 German, Italian and Austrian Nazi prisoners were housed in over five hundred major camps and several satellite camps in many U.S. states, including Ohio, California, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oregon, Georgia, Texas.

How many of them saw a lawyer?

It cost us approximately $10 million to prosecute



We are holding 400 people in Gitmo. I am not a mathmatician but 400 time $10 million is a pretty fickin high number. Wouldn't you Bush haters want to spend that on trees or the Spotted North American Tree Urchin?

These people have the right to be fed and that is about it. Dozens of returned Gitmo detainees have popped back up on the battlefield.

This needs to stop.

I agree with your point but.....the Constitution doesn't give or take any rights, to anyone. The only rights you have are the ones you are strong enough to defend from those who wish to make it a priviledge. Money can buy you priviledges but not rights, money has and will buy these detanies priviledges so that miriads of lawyers and judges can take said money from tax payers to line their pockets. Sucks don't it?

well considering the constitution was written by a bunch of terrorists.

I pretty sure they will be at least one or two little snippets that allow you to rebel against an unfit dictator or is the right to bear arms only if you following the dictator?

you have to think like you are under attack from a unjust government -

What are you allowed to do? Well according the unjust leader what ever you do makes you the terrorist.


What can you do inaccordance with the "piece of paper" to defend your family friends and countries values?

Many of them are in fact not caught on American soil. A large majority of them in Gitmo for instance were rendered by the CIA from Middle Eastern nations to Egypt, where they were tortured until they gave a forced confession, and then locked up in Gitmo.

For the record, the only person 'successfully' prosecuted by the Gitmo military court was Australian David Hicks, and even that conviction is looking like it will be quashed.

Whatever the system needs to catch terrorists and so forth, it needs to be somewhat more efficient and fall under the adherence of international law.

Protectionism is over, especially if prisoners can be illegally rendered.

The U.S. Constitution and its amendments use at least 2 terms to refer to human beings. 1) Citizen; and 2) Person;

The 14th Amendment defines CITIZEN and it distinguishes between CITIZEN and PERSON. Everybody on Earth is a PERSON but only those meting the criteria are a CITIZEN.

Amendment 14
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.

The term PERSON would include what you or others are calling “terrorists” and “enemy combatants.”

SO YES, ENEMY COMBATANTS DO HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

reply to post by crmanager


Please define terrorist.

reply to post by harvib


-One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant.

-Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals

cant quite put my finger on it but it sounds like some other people we hear about on a regular basis ...

things that make you go hmmmmm.....

Ok, in the same constitution show me where the government has the right to spy on it's citizens without a warrant?

reply to post by harvib


I believe that people who make reference to the constitution can be deemed a domestic terrorist these days. So the OP may want to be careful.

reply to post by crmanager

That depends how you see it.

I think the Terrorist are in the White house.
And Millions of people are starting to believe it.

Maybe G-Bush should get a big dose of water boarding, he is a disgrace to our Country.

He is an oil pig, who suports oil profits, and big oil.

He is a war profiteer, him and Chaney.

I guess when you do a false flag operation, you Need to TORATURE INNOCENT PEOPLE, and make them confess to crimes that they did "NOT" do.

Our Government needs someone to be a terrorists.
Who know, maybe You will be selected to be a terrorist next.

Originally posted by Karlhungis
reply to post by harvib

 

I believe that people who make reference to the constitution can be deemed a domestic terrorist these days. So the OP may want to be careful.

yeah karl you're right a troublemaker.time to get homeland security on the line. He thinks he has some sort of rights....

Do you honestly believe everyone in GITMO is guilty without trial or "suspects" pending further investigation and being held till whenever the trial is set?

Are all those prisoners terrorists?

I seem to recall the prisons in Iraq were full of innocent people locked away without charges or any definitive court date. At one point it was claimed that 70% of prisoners in one area (I believe it was Abu Garieb) were innocent people arrested and locked up. Cabbies, farmers, shop owners...just anyone really.

You can't just lock people up and beat them till they tell you what you want to hear without proof they know anything. One prisoner was so abused he started saying he WAS Osama Bin Laden. Anything to get out of the hell they put him in.

I am against locking people away indefinitely without definitive proof of their crimes. That is not a shining example of freedom and democracy we cherish and wish to spread.

I don't believe in guilty until proven guilty.

- Lee

Here you go a quote from the declaration of independance;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. ”

The same sentiment appears in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which predates the U.S. Constitution by seven years, and was the first of its kind in the world.

“ Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

that would be "all men" ALL MEN!!

Well do you think they meant everyone exept???

That is the jist of it...habeas corpus and all...no dictators or monarchs holding without charges.

reply to post by crmanager


the constitution says people have rights

terrorists are people

people have rights

therefore, terrorists have rights



also, the USA is bound by treaties that have been ratified along the guidelines set in the Constitution

those treaties bind us to give people rights

terrorists are people

people have rights

therefore, terrorists have rights


two easy logical deductions for you

Originally posted by Demandred
reply to post by harvib

 

-One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant.

-Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals

cant quite put my finger on it but it sounds like some other people we hear about on a regular basis ...

things that make you go hmmmmm.....

That sounds pretty much like GW Bush and his cabinet, not to mention a certain mr T. Blair.

Funny, that.

Well for a nation like ours that consider itself by our politicians in the White House a Mecca of human rights example, I say our nations politicians are full of dirt.

Holding people with not prove of guilt is actually human rights violation.

Occurs the interpretation that our present government gives to that is just personal and do not apply to all.

Have you heard anyone mention the constitution to infer that it offers rights to non U.S. citizens? I have heard the Geneva Convention, common ethics, and American idealism brought up but not the constitution. I think you may be confusing points and counter points to several different debates.

I asked in a previous post what your definition of a terrorist was. You never responded. However someone did for you. Using there definition it was not specified that a terrorist is someone who is a non U.S. citizen. If an individual is accused of being a terrorist or anything else and they are a U.S. citizen they most certainly are entitled to all the liberties prescribed in the constitution including the Bill of Rights.

Originally posted by harvib
Have you heard anyone mention the constitution to infer that it offers rights to non U.S. citizens?

The Constitution does not "offer rights."

The Constitution guarantees that the US Government will not violate GOD GIVEN (or natural if you prefer) RIGHTS.

We, as humans, have certain basic rights that should not be overlooked for any reason. That is the point of the Constitution.

It applies to every living human being.

Has the OP even read the Supreme Court case?

Even the dissenting judges did not oppose the notion that the Guantanamo detainees have Habeas rights. Where they differed was on the notion of whether the special tribunal process Congress and the President hacked together was sufficient to protect those detainees' habeas interests.

Kennedy and the majority said no: it required an Article III court.

Alito and the dissenters essentially said the case was not ripe and should not have been heard until such time as the detainees actually went through the tribunal process and were then subsequently able to assert that the tribunal process was insufficient to protect their habeas interests.

Moreover, this case does not mean that our constitution has territorial reach beyond the 'territory' of the US. There is overwhelming court agreement that Guantanamo is within the US' territorial reach.

If people are going to bitch about this case, at least read it and understand what it says.

Stop feeding on the regurgitated slop they call 'news'... I have yet to see a single adequate description of what was really decided by the Supreme Court and why.


[edit on 18-6-2008 by loam]

The Constitution does not "offer rights."

The Constitution most certainly does offer rights. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 admendments to the Constitution.