"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.


....In the court of world opinion, we are judged .....

We are judged only as we allow ourselves to be judged. The term
"International Community" is an oxymoron. I have no regard for any nation
not similarly situated that would dictate to us the terms upon which we may
determine our own security and defense.

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.


....In the court of world opinion, we are judged .....

We are judged only as we allow ourselves to be judged. The term
"International Community" is an oxymoron. I have no regard for any nation
not similarly situated that would dictate to us the terms upon which we may
determine our own security and defense.




Wow...now here is a man who parrots reich-wing radio.

--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs0f0c$8b6c1


Wow...now here is a man who parrots reich-wing radio.

And this is your only answer?

John Gaquin wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs0f0c$8b6c1


Wow...now here is a man who parrots reich-wing radio.

And this is your only answer?


It doesn't require any more of a response, John. Once again, and
probably for the 99th time, it is not desire in life to engage the
devotees of the extreme right. If, for example, I put up a post that
states and documents that George W. Bush is only semi-literate at best,
and one of you righties tries to dispute that with 435 posts that
rationalize Bush's apparent lack of reading skills, well, that is your
windmill, not mine.

I don't even glance at most of the posts you righties put up here, let
alone read and comment on them. It is not my purpose in life to engage
in "dialogue" with you righties. There's not more than one or two of you
here with a political idea or concept that goes beyond reich-wing radio,
and that sort of pre-programmed thought simply does not interest me.

Sorry, Charlie. (Semi-obscure reference to tuna ad.)


--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs0hjn$81av2

I don't even glance at most of the posts you righties put up here,

We can assume, therefore, that the bulk of your posts are in response to
posts you have not read. And this is sensible because....... ??

The only consistent aspect of your postings is the use of HS freshman
debating tactics -- ad hominem insults, and the '...I refuse to engage in
this discussion because it is beneath me...' sort of evasion. It may have
worked for you in HS, Harry, and may still be effective in union halls, but
it doesn't float in the real world.

John Gaquin wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs0hjn$81av2

I don't even glance at most of the posts you righties put up here,

We can assume, therefore, that the bulk of your posts are in response to
posts you have not read. And this is sensible because....... ??

Your assumption would be wrong. You *still* don't get it.



The only consistent aspect of your postings is the use of HS freshman
debating tactics -- ad hominem insults, and the '...I refuse to engage in
this discussion because it is beneath me...' sort of evasion.

Wrong again.





--
Email sent to is never read.

Who just responded to my post? Wasn't you, was it, Harry? Couldn't have
been!

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..."

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

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.