Jose Padilla Will Be Freed

WildCat said:

Sorry Shanek. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.
Click to expand...

War was declared? When did that happen?
 
WildCat said:

Well why don't you inform us as to who this fine, upstanding son of Australia is and what he was doing when he was "kidnapped"?
Click to expand...
1. This fine upstanding son of Australia's name is Mamdouh Habib, no doubt his name already has you pressing the guilty button. From your sarcastic post I can already see you have already snapped to attention and saluted your armys decision to kidnap people. No wonder they get away with it with so many compliant lemmings to cheer them on.

2. He was in Pakistan, he claims he was checking out Islamic Universities for his son to attend, a very common thing for Islamic men to do. In the face of ZERO claims of any other activities I think we should presume that to be true. He was kidnapped from Pakisan by US agents, take to Egypt, then on to Gitmo. No charges have been layed not one single statement has been made as to what he was supposed to have done.


Now wildcat.....got a problem with that? Or is the Arabic name enough evidence for you. Should Australia be allowed to kidnap a random American to exchange for him?
 
shanek said:


War has to be declared for it to be constitutional.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that in the Constitution? That is not the issue anyway. The issue is whether or not we were at war. Just because war is not declared does not mean that it is not a war. And why would the Constitution of the United States of America apply to anyone other than U.S. citizens?
 
shanek said:

Article I Section 8.
Click to expand...
Specifically, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:
Clause 11: [The Congress shall have Power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Click to expand...
Originally posted by ssibal
Just because war is not declared does not mean that it is not a war.
Click to expand...
In order for the US to be at war, one of two things must happen. Either the Congress declares war against someone, or someone declares war against the US. Have there been any formal declarations, and if so, by whom and when?
And why would the Constitution of the United States of America apply to anyone other than U.S. citizens?
Click to expand...
Same clause. Congress has the power to make rules concerning captures on Land and Water specifically within the context of war. Now, unless you think that only applies to only US citizens on US territory, you have a very funny definition of "War".

I have to agree with shanek on this one.
 
The Fool said:

Picked up in the field of battle? Kidnapped you moron. one From pakistan you moron.....what "fields of battle" were in pakistan? The other was arrested in Afghansitan, Not for being involved in any "battles" as you call them.....but for no other reason than he was in the Afghani Army and was not an arab......Try reading up on the facts before you shoot your mouth off.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they are fine upstanding people Fool...of course you should have them back. I'm sure they will find various and interesting ways of making themselves useful in Aussie society. :rolleyes:

The real question is who's the "moron"?? The people who want to keep these nuts locked up,...or the people that want to live next door to them??

-z
 
rikzilla said:
The real question is who's the "moron"?? The people who want to keep these nuts locked up,...or the people that want to live next door to them??
Click to expand...

Evidence that the person in question is a "nut"? Or do you just blindly trust your government?
 
The Constitution talks about "persons" not citizens so its protects more than just citizens.

Whats the deal wh the govt needing all these unchecked superpowers. They act like they have no police powers or laws at their disposal already.
 
Nasarius said:


Evidence that the person in question is a "nut"? Or do you just blindly trust your government?
Click to expand...

If I described Pat Robertson as a nut would you still demand evidence??

Now you might say well Pat is a well known nut. Well I say if someone is zealot enough to leave their home, travel to Pakistan/Afghanistan in order to follow the teachings of Osama and or the Taliban then he/she/it is a particularly dangerous nut.

-z
 
ssibal said:


Where does it say that in the Constitution? That is not the issue anyway. The issue is whether or not we were at war. Just because war is not declared does not mean that it is not a war. And why would the Constitution of the United States of America apply to anyone other than U.S. citizens?
Click to expand...

Why should our countries laws apply to foriegtn national while they visit our country? Why shouldn't all people be protected equally.

Do you mean that minors aren't protected by the Constitution, what about people who don't vote.

I see just becaus eyou weren't born in the US you aren't a citizen.

Sorry that logic is why the Constitution exists in the first place, the Bill of Rights does not say that the government shall not make any rules abridging the rights of citizens.
 
rikzilla said:
If I described Pat Robertson as a nut would you still demand evidence??
Click to expand...
Maybe not.

But if you wanted to lock him up 'forever', I would say he had a right to a fair trial first, to determine if he was dangerous or not. :p
 
Upchurch said:
Specifically, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:
In order for the US to be at war, one of two things must happen. Either the Congress declares war against someone, or someone declares war against the US. Have there been any formal declarations, and if so, by whom and when?
Click to expand...
In case you haven't noticed, A Queda has declared war on the US. The War Powers Act gave the POTUS broad powers to wage war, and has been upheld by the SCOTUS. Congress also specifically authorized the war in Afghanistan and Iraq (not that this thread has anything to do w/ Iraq).

You and Shanek can argue about how the Constitution should be interpreted, but the fact is if the SCOTUS says it is constitutional it is. And that is according to the Constitution.

Nowhere does the Constitution grant powers to Shanek or Upchurch to delare whether or not something is constitutional. ;)
 
rikzilla said:


I'm sure they are fine upstanding people Fool...of course you should have them back. I'm sure they will find various and interesting ways of making themselves useful in Aussie society. :rolleyes:

The real question is who's the "moron"?? The people who want to keep these nuts locked up,...or the people that want to live next door to them??

-z
Click to expand...
Quick Rik, snap to attention and salute. GWB has told you something so dammit...Its just gotta be true. I hope you are never arrested on a wink and a nod from an unknown official with no charge or evidence, although i would be Ironic considering this is the style of government action you are happy to be instructed to accept.
 
rikzilla said:


If I described Pat Robertson as a nut would you still demand evidence??

Now you might say well Pat is a well known nut. Well I say if someone is zealot enough to leave their home, travel to Pakistan/Afghanistan in order to follow the teachings of Osama and or the Taliban then he/she/it is a particularly dangerous nut.

-z
Click to expand...
your telepathy and remote viewing skills are improving rik......you can see as far as Pakistan now?
 
shanek said:


Article I Section 8.
Click to expand...

How do you make the jump from reading "Congress shall have power do declare war" to conclude that it means the only way we can technically be at war is if Congress has declared that we are at war? I suppose the fact that we have troops on the ground enganged in combat and are dropping bombs has no relevance?


Oh, sure, it's not the issue that our government is flagrantly ignoring the Constitution...
Click to expand...

What is there to ignore? Congress has the power do declare war, so let them declare it if they want. Congress did approve of the war in Afghanistan, does that count as a declaration or do we have to revert to 18th century formal declarations? Regardless, whether or not they have declared war does not change the fact that we were at war.
 
WildCat said:

Just what part of the Constitution covers foreigners who are illegal combatants (as defined in the Geneva Convention) in a war in a foreign land?
Click to expand...


One could make the argument that illegal combatants can be summarily executed. I might even listen to that argument.

But I don't see the relevance of foreigners vs. citizens. Due process is either a human right or it's not. The wording of Amendment XIV does not refer to "citizens" or "residents" in the "due process" clause.
 
The Fool said:

1. This fine upstanding son of Australia's name is Mamdouh Habib, no doubt his name already has you pressing the guilty button. From your sarcastic post I can already see you have already snapped to attention and saluted your armys decision to kidnap people. No wonder they get away with it with so many compliant lemmings to cheer them on.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I automatically assume all arab-named men are guilty. That's just the kind of simple doofus I am, right Fool?

2. He was in Pakistan, he claims he was checking out Islamic Universities for his son to attend, a very common thing for Islamic men to do. In the face of ZERO claims of any other activities I think we should presume that to be true. He was kidnapped from Pakisan by US agents, take to Egypt, then on to Gitmo. No charges have been layed not one single statement has been made as to what he was supposed to have done.


Now wildcat.....got a problem with that? Or is the Arabic name enough evidence for you. Should Australia be allowed to kidnap a random American to exchange for him?
Click to expand...
Zero claims of other activities? Here's one:
ASIO's attention began after a trip to America, where he met, and received phone calls from, a man who was later convicted of being an accessory in the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing.
Click to expand...
Just innocently hanging out w/ the wrong people I'm sure. And it was Australias gov't that has been casting a suspicious eye on him for the last 10 years.
Here's another:
Habib, aged in his late 40s from Sydney, was not arrested in battle but as he crossed from Pakistan into Afghanistan three weeks after the September 11 attacks in the United States.
"The government has been advised that both men trained with al Qaeda," said Ruddock.
Click to expand...
Frankly Fool, in a time of war I am willing to give the US gov't considerable benefit of the doubt. It is not in their interest to ship people off to Gitmo for no good reason, and the fact that after 2 years of this war there are only 600 or so prisoners there tells me they're not just randomly throwing people in there. Also, many people held there have been released after it was determined they were innocent. None has reported any mistreatment.

Scouting schools for his children! Just what do you think they teach in those madrasas (sp?) in the tribal regions of Pakistan Fool? Economics? Business? Literature? For some reason I'm under the impression that they just teach a narrow, intolerant form of Islam that the Taliban brought to actual practice. What wonderful things these teachings could bring to Australia!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom