OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
 

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:38:10 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:bs04l7$7r3t6


The righties make the argument that the U.S. Constitution only applies
to U.S. citizens in the USA or, at best, to some foreigners living in
the U.S.....Far too rigid.

On what legal basis would you hold that the US Constitution must apply to
non-citizens? US citizens in foreign countries are subject to whatever
laws apply in the host country, with no regard to whatever protections
they may enjoy at home. We owe no benefit or consideration to
non-citizens, particularly to non-citizens doing us harm.

On what legal basis would you not? The Constitution doesn't distinguish
between citizens and non-citizens. Nor does the Bill of Rights grant us
civil liberties. It specifically limits the government from infringing on
our rights. Or did you forget this line from the Declaration of
Independence: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all* men
are created equal..."

OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
 

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:06:19 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:38:10 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:bs04l7$7r3t6


The righties make the argument that the U.S. Constitution only applies
to U.S. citizens in the USA or, at best, to some foreigners living in
the U.S.....Far too rigid.

On what legal basis would you hold that the US Constitution must apply to
non-citizens? US citizens in foreign countries are subject to whatever
laws apply in the host country, with no regard to whatever protections
they may enjoy at home. We owe no benefit or consideration to
non-citizens, particularly to non-citizens doing us harm.

On what legal basis would you not? The Constitution doesn't distinguish
between citizens and non-citizens. Nor does the Bill of Rights grant us
civil liberties. It specifically limits the government from infringing on
our rights. Or did you forget this line from the Declaration of
Independence: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all* men
are created equal..."

Thunder, could you imagine us going into France and telling them they must live
under the provisions of *our* constitution? If you read the constitution, you
will find the Preamble to read: "We the people of the United States, in order to
form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, 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."

You'll have noted that the Constitution was ordained and established for the
United States of America. We can't just arbitrarily put the name of any country
at the end of the Preamble.

Look also at:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, *except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time
of war or public danger*[emphasis added]; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It's not that the "righties" are making up all this stuff to enable the
trouncing on the rights of bad guys.



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
 

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:13:45 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:06:19 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:38:10 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:bs04l7$7r3t6


The righties make the argument that the U.S. Constitution only applies
to U.S. citizens in the USA or, at best, to some foreigners living in
the U.S.....Far too rigid.

On what legal basis would you hold that the US Constitution must apply
to non-citizens? US citizens in foreign countries are subject to
whatever laws apply in the host country, with no regard to whatever
protections they may enjoy at home. We owe no benefit or consideration
to non-citizens, particularly to non-citizens doing us harm.

On what legal basis would you not? The Constitution doesn't distinguish
between citizens and non-citizens. Nor does the Bill of Rights grant us
civil liberties. It specifically limits the government from infringing
on our rights. Or did you forget this line from the Declaration of
Independence: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all* men
are created equal..."

Thunder, could you imagine us going into France and telling them they must
live under the provisions of *our* constitution? If you read the
constitution, you will find the Preamble to read: "We the people of the
United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

You'll have noted that the Constitution was ordained and established for
the United States of America. We can't just arbitrarily put the name of
any country at the end of the Preamble.

I wouldn't disagree, if that is what John meant. As I read his post, I
perhaps incorrectly assumed, that he would limit civil liberties to
American citizens. In point of law, they are extended to anyone on
American soil, citizens and non-citizens, and I personally think they
should be extended to anyone under American control, e.g. Guantanamo. If
my assumption was in error, my apologies.

OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
 

"thunder" wrote in message

...Or did you forget this line from the Declaration of
Independence: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all* men
are created equal..."

No, I don't think I have forgotten what is arguably one of the most famous
sentences ever put to paper, but I do, apparently, need to point something
out to you. The Declaration is an unparalleled source and foundation
document that clarifies and defines the political, moral, and ethical
philosophies that led us to revolution and independence, much like the
Federalist explores and analyses the political and logical underpinnings and
implications of the Constitution itself, by people of the time who were
closely associated with both the framing and the framers. But neither
document, fine as they may be, carries the force of law. Only the
Constitution is law. And the Constitution says, in part, before any other
statement, "We the people of the United States, .... do ordain and establish
this Constitution *for* the United States of America." [my emphasis added]

JG

OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
 

"thunder" wrote in message

.....that he would limit civil liberties to
American citizens. In point of law, they are extended to anyone on
American soil, citizens and non-citizens, and I personally think they
should be extended to anyone under American control, e.g. Guantanamo. If
my assumption was in error, my apologies.

No apology necessary, we deal here with a great deal of personal opinion and
interpretation. While true that we have, under law extended general
constitutional protections to anyone on our soil, I believe we have done so
at our discretion. In truth, I don't know any courts' holdings on the
subject, but my readings do not show me that we need *guarantee*
constitutional protections to non-citizens.

OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
 

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:16:23 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

.....that he would limit civil liberties to American citizens. In point
of law, they are extended to anyone on American soil, citizens and
non-citizens, and I personally think they should be extended to anyone
under American control, e.g. Guantanamo. If my assumption was in error,
my apologies.

No apology necessary, we deal here with a great deal of personal opinion
and interpretation. While true that we have, under law extended general
constitutional protections to anyone on our soil, I believe we have done
so at our discretion. In truth, I don't know any courts' holdings on the
subject, but my readings do not show me that we need *guarantee*
constitutional protections to non-citizens.

I'm not a lawyer, and you may be right. That discretion may be close to
precedent, but I couldn't find anything definitive searching the net. I
did find this debate:

http://www.generationvote.com/vnews/.../3ce1ce2357bd7

OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
 

"thunder" wrote in message

.....I couldn't find anything definitive searching the net. I
did find this debate:

http://www.generationvote.com/vnews/.../3ce1ce2357bd7

I would like to have been there for that debate. I give Buchanan points for
traveling to Williams, which is somewhat akin to Ariel Sharon visiting an al
Qaida camp.

The article was good, except for the author's final interpretation, wherein
he claimed that Strossen based her position on points of law (by referring
to the Declaration and positing that the Bill of Rights was *intended* to
apply to guarantee the human rights of all persons on US soil [see my other
post].) and Buchanan based his position only on fears and prejudices (by
referencing specific constitutional guarantees and provisions). Seems to me
that the author got it backwards. Of course, Williams College is hardly an
impartial venue. :-)

OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
 

JohnH wrote:


Read it for yourself, Harry.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, *except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time
of war or public danger*[emphasis added];

I agree. The case of the Gitmo prisoners is far from clear cut. However, if they are
'enemy combatants' then they are POWs and have certain rights, or they are citizens of
some country which presumably endows them with some legal rights.

The US has simply grabbed them and is holding them, for any or no reason, and apparently
is going to continue to do so as long as somebody in this or any future administration
finds it convenient. That is not showing respect for rule of law.

Personally, I think we *had* every right to send those people to Gitmo, and hold them.
But for how long? At some point, it gets ridiculous. And IMHO that point is fast
approaching.

In the other cases of the Patriot Act extinguishing constitutional rights, answer me this
John- if a gov't agent can search your home, or confiscate your property, or slam you
into a 'detainment facility' with no prior justification to a judge or grand jury, and
whence you have no recourse.... what friggin' rights do you actually have?

DSK

OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
 

DSK wrote:


JohnH wrote:


Read it for yourself, Harry.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, *except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time
of war or public danger*[emphasis added];

I agree. The case of the Gitmo prisoners is far from clear cut. However, if they are
'enemy combatants' then they are POWs and have certain rights, or they are citizens of
some country which presumably endows them with some legal rights.

One real problem with this methodology is that it lowers us down to the
level of those we are trying to combat.




The US has simply grabbed them and is holding them, for any or no reason, and apparently
is going to continue to do so as long as somebody in this or any future administration
finds it convenient. That is not showing respect for rule of law.


The Attorney General of the United States has no regard for law or
procedure, and the current POTUS is too stupid to know any better.




In the other cases of the Patriot Act extinguishing constitutional rights, answer me this
John- if a gov't agent can search your home, or confiscate your property, or slam you
into a 'detainment facility' with no prior justification to a judge or grand jury, and
whence you have no recourse.... what friggin' rights do you actually have?

DSK


Well, John can always put on his old uniform.


--
Email sent to is never read.

OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
 

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:37:49 -0500, DSK wrote:



JohnH wrote:


Read it for yourself, Harry.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, *except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time
of war or public danger*[emphasis added];

I agree. The case of the Gitmo prisoners is far from clear cut. However, if they are
'enemy combatants' then they are POWs and have certain rights, or they are citizens of
some country which presumably endows them with some legal rights.

The US has simply grabbed them and is holding them, for any or no reason, and apparently
is going to continue to do so as long as somebody in this or any future administration
finds it convenient. That is not showing respect for rule of law.

Personally, I think we *had* every right to send those people to Gitmo, and hold them.
But for how long? At some point, it gets ridiculous. And IMHO that point is fast
approaching.

In the other cases of the Patriot Act extinguishing constitutional rights, answer me this
John- if a gov't agent can search your home, or confiscate your property, or slam you
into a 'detainment facility' with no prior justification to a judge or grand jury, and
whence you have no recourse.... what friggin' rights do you actually have?

DSK

Afghanistan doesn't seem to care a whole lot. If they're Saudi's, that country
isn't doing a lot of crying either. In fact, the folks doing all the complaining
about the Gitmo detainees seem to be those who are anti-administration.

I think your last paragraph gives the Patriot Act a little more credit than it's
due. But I'm no lawyer.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD