Jose Padilla Will Be Freed

[ssibal]

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?

So I guess that 'thing' we recently did in Iraq was not a war? If bombing a country for weeks and sending in 250,000 troops to take control of the country is not a war then what is?

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".

This is not what I was talking about. People are arguing that foreigners should have the same protection under the Constituion as U.S. citizens. Where do you come up with that idea?

 

[ssibal]

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

They usually apply. But since they are not U.S. citizens they do not have nor deserve Constitutional privilages.

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

I never said or implied that.

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

You do not have to be born in the U.S. to be 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.

When foreigners are subject to the same taxes, laws, and regulations as U.S. citizens is when they can have their PRIVILAGES under the U.S. Constitution.

 

[The Fool]

Oh yes, I automatically assume all arab-named men are guilty. That's just the kind of simple doofus I am, right Fool?


Zero claims of other activities? Here's one:

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:

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!

Wow...he must be guilty, He is active in the Islamic community and he spoke to someone on the phone who was implicated in 9/11... Was the phone conversation about the 9/11 attack? Hmmmm... who knows. Apparently, talking to someone on the phone makes you automatically involved in any criminal activity that person has ever been involved in....

Anyway, here is the rest of the sinister phonecall story that you conveniently left out...

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. It is normal practice that such leads be followed, as so they were. But ASIO continued to harass, and complaints were made to the Attorney-General, lawyers were involved, and yet the harassment continued. For 8 years ASIO watched and questioned him, but never found any criminal activity for him to be arrested on. To this day there is probably no evidence that would convince an Australian court to convict him.


I guess you stopped reading after you saw what you wanted to see..


And your second quote is even more humerous. Who told the Australian government he has trained with OBL??? yep, the americans.... The people who kidnapped him....

Look folks, lets get this straight, this guy may be as guilty as hell for all I know. My problem is that there is not even a remote shred of justice occuring here and I'm disgusted at people who are willing to turn a blind eye to this.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

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

Where's the proof that this person left their home to follow the teachings of OBL or the Taliban?

 

[shanek]

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).

Congress cannot "authorize" war. Congress must DECLARE war. The reason for this is that there must be a full debate prior to entering the war, and that is exactly the process that has been short-circuited.

You and Shanek can argue about how the Constitution should be interpreted,

This is EXACTLY how the Constitution was "interpreted" right up through WWII. What changed? (And don't say the "War Powers Act;" that wasn't a Constitutional amendment.)

Nowhere does the Constitution grant powers to Shanek or Upchurch to delare whether or not something is constitutional.

Thank you for demonstrating your complete and total ignorance.

 

[shanek]

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?

Because that's what the Constitution is: declaratory and restrictive enumerations on the powers of government. The Constitution says Congress shall have the power to declare war. It doesn't mention any other way it can happen, so that is the ONLY way authorized by the Constitution.

I suppose the fact that we have troops on the ground enganged in combat and are dropping bombs has no relevance?

It has great relevance to the fact that our government is flagrantly ignoring the Constitution.

What is there to ignore? Congress has the power do declare war, so let them declare it if they want.

But if they don't, the President can't legally wage war!

Congress did approve of the war in Afghanistan,

No; it doesn't say Congress can "approve" of war, it says Congress should DECLARE war.

does that count as a declaration or do we have to revert to 18th century formal declarations?

The debate MUST happen. It's extremely important. Otherwise, we end up with the crap we have now.

 

[shanek]

So I guess that 'thing' we recently did in Iraq was not a war?

It was an unconstitutional war.

This is not what I was talking about. People are arguing that foreigners should have the same protection under the Constituion as U.S. citizens. Where do you come up with that idea?

Duh, maybe the fact that that's what the Constitution says? If it were limited to citizens, it should say "citizens" instead of "people" like it does in the 15th Amendment.

Oh, and by the way, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment there was NO SUCH THING as a United States citizen. You were a citizen of your sovereign state.

 

[shanek]

When foreigners are subject to the same taxes, laws, and regulations as U.S. citizens is when they can have their PRIVILAGES under the U.S. Constitution.

Well, they are, so I guess they do.

 

[WildCat]

Congress cannot "authorize" war. Congress must DECLARE war. The reason for this is that there must be a full debate prior to entering the war, and that is exactly the process that has been short-circuited.

6 of one, a half-dozen of the other. It's just nomenclature. And the SCOTUS agrees. And there was ample opportunity for debate, but very little of it after 9/11. I don't think there was much debate after Pearl Harbor either.

This is EXACTLY how the Constitution was "interpreted" right up through WWII. What changed? (And don't say the "War Powers Act;" that wasn't a Constitutional amendment.)

Interpretations of the Constitution change often! Surely you know this? What happened between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education? It sure wasn't a Constitutional Amendment. You may not like it, but what is constitutional one day may not be under a different SCOTUS another day.

And is that really how it was interpreted? Was there a formal declaration of war for every Indian war?

Thank you for demonstrating your complete and total ignorance.

So the Constitution does give citizens such as yourself the power to declare a law or action unconstitutional?

Your dodging of this issue and personal attack on me says more about you than it does me, Shanek.

 

[shanek]

6 of one, a half-dozen of the other. It's just nomenclature.

No, it isn't. In one, you have a debate, where all of the reasons for the war are stated and examined. In the other, you don't; you just go straight to war with no debate. I don't see how you can call the difference as "just nomenclature" and still call yourself a skeptic.

I don't think there was much debate after Pearl Harbor either.

You would be wrong. It didn't take much time, but they did have the debate, and they did declare war, as required by the Constitution. You can't get out of it that way.

Interpretations of the Constitution change often! Surely you know this?

Yes, but that doesn't make it right.

"That's what they say—that say that our founders couldn't foresee a modern America, and therefore a living breating document like the Constitution needs to be constantly reinterpreted. Yeah, because none of them had any idea that 200 years later people would be saying such stupid things!" —Tim Slagle

So the Constitution does give citizens such as yourself the power to declare a law or action unconstitutional?

Yes. It's called the First Amendment. I can declare whatever I want, and no one can shut me up.

Your dodging of this issue and personal attack on me says more about you than it does me, Shanek.

 

[fishbob]

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

As a US citizen, I implicitly agree to live according to the constitutional laws of our country. I pay my taxes, I drive on the right side of the road, I don't steal your stuff - in other words, I play by the rules. Excuse me if I get irritable when the administration changes the rules for the convenience of one group or another.

Is the moron the person that wants to play by the rules, . . . or the person that wants to change the rules when the situation gets complicated - like a little kid that takes his ball and goes home when the game gets difficult?

So I guess that 'thing' we recently did in Iraq was not a war? If bombing a country for weeks and sending in 250,000 troops to take control of the country is not a war then what is?

It could be called an invasion. War is a complicated business, with lots of rules and responsibilities. War is a life or death struggle for the continued existence of our country. What happened in Iraq looks a lot like a military excercise where a relative few of our troops, some Iraqi soldiers, and a bunch of bystanders got killed.

 

[ssibal]

Because that's what the Constitution is: declaratory and restrictive enumerations on the powers of government. The Constitution says Congress shall have the power to declare war. It doesn't mention any other way it can happen, so that is the ONLY way authorized by the Constitution.

So what does that have to do with a war not being a war unless Congress declares war? What does that have to do with the country going to war? Congress has the power to declare war but there is nothing in the Constitution preventing the armed forces from waging war.

It has great relevance to the fact that our government is flagrantly ignoring the Constitution.

What did they ignore?? Did someone other than Congress declare war? If the answer is no, the government did not ignore anything.

But if they don't, the President can't legally wage war!

The Supreme Court (the official interpreters of the Constitution) disagree with that.

No; it doesn't say Congress can "approve" of war, it says Congress should DECLARE war.

Actually, it does not say Congress SHOULD declare war it says they shall have power to do so. Regardless, there is nothing preventing Congress from approving the president's decision to wage war.

The debate MUST happen. It's extremely important. Otherwise, we end up with the crap we have now.

There was debate, but just because they did not come out and say "Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of X and the government and the people of the United States " does not mean that the war was not a war nor that the war was unconstitutional.

 

[ssibal]

It was an unconstitutional war.

Unless someone other than Congress declared war, it was not.

Duh, maybe the fact that that's what the Constitution says? If it were limited to citizens, it should say "citizens" instead of "people" like it does in the 15th Amendment.

So because one Amendment (maybe more) refers to 'people' you conclude that the ENTIRE Constitution applies to all people and not just U.S. citizens? Oops, I mean the ENTIRE Constitution except where it specifically says 'citizens.'

Oh, and by the way, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment there was NO SUCH THING as a United States citizen. You were a citizen of your sovereign state.

I guess all those presidents before the 14th Amendment was in effect were unconstitutionally elected, since there was no such thing as a U.S. citizen:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President

 

[ssibal]

It could be called an invasion. War is a complicated business, with lots of rules and responsibilities. War is a life or death struggle for the continued existence of our country. What happened in Iraq looks a lot like a military excercise where a relative few of our troops, some Iraqi soldiers, and a bunch of bystanders got killed.

Invasions are part of war. I always thought war was state of armed conflict carried on between nations or parties. Maybe modern wars are shorter and have less casualties than previously but I think it still fits under the categorization of war.

 

[shanek]

So what does that have to do with a war not being a war unless Congress declares war?

You keep proffering this strawman...No one is claiming that it isn't a war, just that it isn't Constitutional to wage war without first having Congress declare it.

What does that have to do with the country going to war?

Because without the Congressional declaration, what we have is government lawlessness and political anarchy.

Congress has the power to declare war but there is nothing in the Constitution preventing the armed forces from waging war.

Only if Congress first declares it. Otherwise, they are operating without the due authorization required by the Constitution.

What did they ignore?? Did someone other than Congress declare war?

Yes: George W. Bush did. His pappy did as well. In other cases (such as Vietnam and Korea) they tried to get around it by calling it a "police action," but it was still a war by any other name.

The Supreme Court (the official interpreters of the Constitution)

The Supreme Court is NOT the "official interpreters of the Constitution." In Article III Section 2, the Constitution specifically says that the Supreme Court and all the lower courts have power "arising under this Constitution." The Supreme Court is supposed to be there to defend the Constitution and shoot down bad laws, not to "reinterpret" it to make those bad laws okay. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court NO POWER WHATSOEVER to interpret its meaning. So the fact that the Supreme Court is ignoring the Constitution doesn't help your argument any.

Have you even read the Constitution?

Actually, it does not say Congress SHOULD declare war it says they shall have power to do so. Regardless, there is nothing preventing Congress from approving the president's decision to wage war.

Complete bull$#!7. There MUST be a Congressional declaration in order for the war to be Constitutional. The Constitution DOES NOT give Congress the power to "approve" war, or to delegate its responsibility of declaration to the President or anyone else.

Do you have ANY idea why the President is the head of the Executive branch, while Congress is the head of the Legislative branch? It's because Congress LEGISLATES; the President merely EXECUTES.

There was debate,

Where? Transcript?

 

[shanek]

Unless someone other than Congress declared war, it was not.[/qutoe]

Why are you having such stubborn problems with basic English? The Constitution DOES NOT give others the power to declare war, and it DOES NOT give others the power to wage war undeclared. IT'S NOT IN THERE ANYWHERE!

So because one Amendment (maybe more) refers to 'people' you conclude that the ENTIRE Constitution applies to all people and not just U.S. citizens?

It starts off by saying "We the people." Work it out.

I guess all those presidents before the 14th Amendment was in effect were unconstitutionally elected, since there was no such thing as a U.S. citizen:

Dishonest snivelling. You were a citizen of your state; therefore, one could be a citizen of one or more states and be entitled to the protection of the several states. The Constitution expressly says that.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article IV, Section 2.

 

[rikzilla]

There's a new detail in the story of another Australian who is facing even more serious terrorism allegations – Mamdouh Habib, who is being held captive by the US at Guantanamo Bay.

It relates to an encounter between Mr Habib and another alleged terrorist in Sydney three years ago. That man, Murat Ofkeli, has since appeared in court in the Netherlands charged with recruiting people for a holy war against the US and its allies. The case didn't proceed, though it is due to be appealed.

The link

Now, I might be wrong, but if I got a call from some terrorist by mistake I have no doubt I'd be investigated. Since I'm not a moslem fundie, am not affiliated with groups allied with terrorism, and am an American ex-military guy with longstanding ties to the comunity and a person who rarely travels abroad (and then only to the UK and Germany)...I suppose any investigation of myself would soon be dropped.

Now, use the same "phone call from a terrorist" scenario...but when the authorities investigate me they see a guy who is ideologically in accord with terrorism, is affiliated with groups supportive of terrorism, an outspoken opponent of "the west", and a guy who travels to Al Qaeda/Islamist strongholds of Afghanistan and Pakistan during wartime..... A guy who was indeed taken into custody in the warzone itself by US soldiers. I imagine that not only would this person be further investigated, but that he would also be incarcerated until such time that hostilities have formally ended in the WOT.

Now, that's just the American middle class reaction to this fellow's predicament. Here's the official Australian position:

Joint News Release
Attorney-General
The Hon. Daryl Williams AM QC MP

Minister for Foreign Affairs
The Hon. Alexander Downer MP

23 May 2002

DAVID HICKS AND MAMDOUH HABIB TREATED WELL
Last week Australian officials visited Australian detainees at the US Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay.

The purpose of the visit was to advance the Australian investigation into the activities of both men.

The investigation team has confirmed that both men are being detained in safe and humane conditions. Detainees receive full medical examinations on arrival and have access to medical treatment on request. They receive culturally appropriate meals and are permitted to observe religious practices. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has contacted the men's families about their wellbeing and has passed on letters from both men.

The Government will not be releasing details of the interviews for legal and privacy reasons, and in light of the fact that law enforcement and security investigations are ongoing.



Media Contacts:
Chris Kenny (Mr Downer) (02) 6277 7800 / 0419 206 890
Carina Tan-Van Baren (Mr Williams) (02) 6277 7300 / 0419 423 965

Apparently, the Aussie government is not too very anxious to have these fellows repatriated. I, of course, do not blame them. But these are your representatives Fool. If you have a problem with the "kidnapping" of these fine citizens of the great down-under, then you should seek to elect representatives who will courageously free these poor dags.

Failing that, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your Foolish opinion is in the minority down there. As for these two enemy combatants? They will be warehoused at gitmo until the WOT is declared to be formally over. Care to guess when that might happen? OTOH, these guys are well treated...medically cared for....and obviously still alive. That makes them luckier than their decaying brethren in the bombed out caves of Afghanistan.

-z

 

[Snide]

The Supreme Court is NOT the "official interpreters of the Constitution." In Article III Section 2, the Constitution specifically says that the Supreme Court and all the lower courts have power "arising under this Constitution." The Supreme Court is supposed to be there to defend the Constitution and shoot down bad laws, not to "reinterpret" it to make those bad laws okay. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court NO POWER WHATSOEVER to interpret its meaning. So the fact that the Supreme Court is ignoring the Constitution doesn't help your argument any.

This is true. Of course, in "cases and controversies," the Supreme Court has made itself the interpretor, overruling even Congress since Marbury v. Madison. But that does not mean that the Supreme Court is "the official interpretor."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, it does not say Congress SHOULD declare war it says they shall have power to do so. Regardless, there is nothing preventing Congress from approving the president's decision to wage war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complete bull$#!7. There MUST be a Congressional declaration in order for the war to be Constitutional. The Constitution DOES NOT give Congress the power to "approve" war, or to delegate its responsibility of declaration to the President or anyone else.

I guess it's possible that someday the Constitutional power given Congress may be interpreted as being only that (i.e., a power that is not necessarily exclusive to Congress). But that would go against what the "official interpretors" have said about the enumerated powers in the past - that if the power ain't mentioned, you ain't got it.

So yes, it is exclusive to Congress, and I agree with shanek that it's been ignored many times (and should not have been!!).

edited quotation format and typo

 

[The Fool]

The link

Now, I might be wrong, but if I got a call from some terrorist by mistake I have no doubt I'd be investigated. Since I'm not a moslem fundie, am not affiliated with groups allied with terrorism, and am an American ex-military guy with longstanding ties to the comunity and a person who rarely travels abroad (and then only to the UK and Germany)...I suppose any investigation of myself would soon be dropped.


-z

Quite possibly true rik, it may be dropped.....If, however, it wasn't and you were transfered to Gitmo for the next two years it would be completely in line with your beliefs and I have no doubt you would write letters of support to your gaolers from prison....


I guess growing up in america did not do much to develop your belief in the presumption of inocence or no imprisonment without trial (or even a statement of what you were supposed to have done). I wonder where america failed you rik? Your ancestors fought and died to enshrine these principles that you laughingly throw in the gutter.......Shame.

 

[Zero]

Not to ruffle any feathers, but in my mind, those people who disregard the rights of others don't deserve those rights themselves. And that includes those people who manipulate the laws in order to justify taking away rights from people.