[tomder55]

"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans-born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage-and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

JFK Inauguration Speech

[ordinaryguy]

YouTube - Have you forgotten Look this is why.....Enough Said.

There is simply no evidence that Saddam Hussein collaborated or conspired with Osama bin Laden in carrying out the 9/11 attacks. The CIA knew this and told the politicians so before the war began, and every investigation done since has confirmed it. Still, the lie lives on and gets endlessly repeated. Osama bin Laden is still alive and at large, recruiting ever more jihadis for the purpose of attacking the US and other western societies. The war in Iraq has been of great help to him in this enterprise.

[ordinaryguy]

"...unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

Would that our current political leadership and body politic were as committed to preserving these rights as JFK was. Too many of us are perfectly willing to witness and permit the not-so-slow undoing of these rights in the name of vengeance, thereby sacrificing the very ideals and values we claim to defend.

[ordinaryguy]

tomder55 agrees: I cannot comment on a broad sweeping generality like this . Care to be specific ? Which "human rights " have you lost ?

The President has asserted that he has authority to designate ANYONE and unlawful enemy combatant, that the courts have no authority to review such a desigation, and that anyone so designated is not entitled to any of the rights enumerated in the US Constitution or the Geneva Conventions, including, but not limited to the following:

Rights enumerated in the US Constitution:
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

5th Amendment: No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

6th Amendment: 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, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Rights enumerated in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which the US is a signatory:
Article 7: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 9:
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment.
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

[tomder55]

He is not designating anyone unlawful enemy combattants . He is designating unlawful enemy combattants as unlawful enemy combattants .

[Auttajasi]

Hey, mind if I jump in?
Ordinary guy, not saying I agree whether the pres. Should be able to designate anyone as an unlawful combatant, but do you agree that the rights of the 4th amendment apply to lawful citizens of the U.S. Don't felons give up some of their rights? I'm just talking about the ones guilty of terrorism. Do you feel that a foreigner, given that they are guilty of committing an act of terrorism, should be allowed to take part in the system that they are trying to destroy?

I agree that there should be more checks and balances with this presidential authority. I don't think the president should be allowed to do anything without someone else reviewing and OK-ing it. But I also believe that in 1949, we didn't have to worry about our own planes being used as bombs, nor did we have to worry about a group of guys trying to sneak onto a military installation in order to shoot and kill as many as possible. It is definitely a different war than what the 1949ers had to deal with. We pretty much knew who our enemies were back then. Of all the time I spent in Iraq (most of which was the spring of 2003) I never saw a single person in an iraqi uniform. Our enemies turned out to be the nice gentleman that shook my hand 5 minutes earlier and then tries to pick me off with an RPG.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do feel that a person who has been designated as an unlawful enemy combatant (however that happens) does not deserved to have the same rights as me until it is proven that they are an enemy combatant. I do think this process should be handled in a court of law, but definitely not the sam court of law that handles petty theft. We need to come up with more concise rules for these situations and not just leave it up to the president to decided what to do. I have a feeling that as time passes, this will become an even bigger issue than it is right now.

[inthebox]

Here is a historical reference
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...cument=425ence
Not saying Civil War is same as Iraq war, or ends justifies the means.



4th amendment - isn't that violated every time some other entity checks your credit report without your permission, or every time a program follows your internet browsing?

5th amendment - where does 'eminent domain ' figure in this?
Or for that matter the life of a fetus?


Since 9/11/01 should there be a change in the current paradigm of prosecution AFTER a criminal event?
Should not PREVENTION of terrorism come before reacting AFTER a terrorist event?
How to prevent can be a matter of open discussion, but I have no problem with tracking money or arms sources.

I know, completely off thread. I appreciate everyone's views. Thanks





Grace and Peace

[ordinaryguy]

He is not designating anyone unlawful enemy combatants . He is designating unlawful enemy combatants as unlawful enemy combattants .

You are quite right, and you pinpoint the problem exactly. The president's designation of them as unlawful enemy combatants is the only way they can actually become unlawful enemy combatants before the law. He recognizes no legal restraint or judicial review of his sole authority to determine which persons, regardless of citizenship, living anywhere in the world (including the US), are to be so designated, and may therefore be deprived of the rights they would otherwise be entitled to under the US Constitution and international treaties. Just because I haven't been disappeared yet doesn't mean my rights are not being violated. If ANYONE can be disappeared, I can be disappeared.

[ordinaryguy]

Hey, mind if I jump in?

Not at all, glad to have you.

Ordinary guy, not saying I agree whether the pres. Should be able to designate anyone as an unlawful combatant, but do you agree that the rights of the 4th amendment apply to lawful citizens of the U.S.

Yes, all lawful residents, not just citizens.

Don't felons give up some of their rights?

Of course they do, after being found guilty of a felony offense by due process of law.

I'm just talking about the ones guilty of terrorism.

Yes, but the whole reason for "due process of law" is to determine who actually is guilty before the law.

Do you feel that a foreigner, given that they are guilty of committing an act of terrorism, should be allowed to take part in the system that they are trying to destroy?

Anyone, foreigner or citizen, has the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty by due process of law. It is not "given" that someone is guilty, it is litigated and adjudged that they are guilty, and unless and until that process occurs, they may be charged with committing a crime, terrorist or otherwise, but they are not yet guilty of it.

I agree that there should be more checks and balances with this presidential authority.

More? How about Any?

I don't think the president should be allowed to do anything without someone else reviewing and OK-ing it. But I also believe that in 1949, we didn't have to worry about our own planes being used as bombs, nor did we have to worry about a group of guys trying to sneak onto a military installation in order to shoot and kill as many as possible. It is definitely a different war than what the 1949ers had to deal with. We pretty much knew who our enemies were back then. Of all the time I spent in Iraq (most of which was the spring of 2003) I never saw a single person in an iraqi uniform. Our enemies turned out to be the nice gentleman that shook my hand 5 minutes earlier and then tries to pick me off with an RPG.

Believe me, I see how impossible the situation is for a soldier on the street. The worst thing a Commander in Chief can do to the military is to send them into a situation where they can't tell who the enemy is. Fighting a guerilla war on the guerillas' home turf is hard enough. Trying to stop a civil war when you can't tell one side from the other is impossible. You're the enemy of both sides, ripe for manipulation by both sides trying to gain advantage over their adversary, held in contempt by both sides for being so clueless. Actually a civil war with only two sides would be much simpler than the multi-way power struggle going on in Iraq today.

I have a feeling that as time passes, this will become an even bigger issue than it is right now.

Hoo boy, I'm afraid you're right.