NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 08:20 PM) That is not the actual text of the case. That is some conclusion of some message board you stole it from. http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/sc/494us259.html SB Wrong. That was taken from the Federalist Society. http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/Terror...rytribunals.htm

And furthermore............ And there you have it. Enemy belligerents HAVE NO RIGHTS. The Supreme Court set this precedence forth by denying Nazi Sabatouers constitutional rights for their actions.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 08:08 PM) Did you even read it? The first damn sentence: ALIENS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. In fact it was property outside of the state. Once again, non-citizen inside of the United States. (Edited because you missed the precedent your own case presented.) SB Now I will isolate the sailent point of this again because even though I put it in bold you overlooked it. In conclusion, under Verdugo-Urquidez, the Fourth Amendment does not operate to protect individuals; rather it operates to protect "the class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with the country to be considered part of that community." [56] The farther an individual is removed from the "community," the less claim he has to constitutional protection. [57] Accordingly, it would be reasonable to conclude that an unlawful belligerent--even within the United States (and certainly outside the United States)--has by taking up arms against the United States so far removed himself from the national community as to forfeit Fourth Amendment rights. Once again. What connection do these people have "to that community" aside from the fact that they were picked up shooting at our soldiers?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 07:50 PM) Nuke, see lawyers and law experts. See experts write. See experts own your incorrect position. In Odah v. U.S. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit faced the question of whether citizens of Australia, Kuwait, and Britain captured in Afghanistan and detained at the U.S. base in Guantanamo, Cuba have a legal right to challenge their detention. The fact that the detainees are non-citizens was not crucial to the decision: non-citizens in the U.S. enjoy many of the same constitutional rights that citizens do. Accordingly, the court in Odah acknowledged that the relief sought - a writ of habeas corpus - was indeed available to non-citizens. The courts have also ruled that suspects must receive Miranda warnings. People who will face our criminal law, as courts have stated, should receive the protections of our Constitution, especially when Guantanamo is US soil for all extensive purposes (Cuba can only opt out of the treaty which created Gitmo if the US agrees) See experts not look up the controlling precedent concerning the 4th amendment rights of non-citizens. See Apu put his foot in his mouth yet again.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 07:40 PM) No actually the reason that the SC has not shut down GITMO is far more complex than your misunderstanding of the constitution. I will gladly discuss how the United States government has created a loop hole that makes these detainees exist outside of both the Geneva Convention and US jurisdiction. But, I am pretty certain it is not because noncitizens do not have constitutional rights. SB The precedent set by this case confirms at least part of my argument.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 07:36 PM) No, I am arguing that anyone on US soil enjoys US protections. If I am correct US bases are considered US territory, and therefore subject to US jurisdiction. As for the US constitution applying to anyone anywhere, that is clearly not true. The US constitution only operates over territory where the US governs. It could not apply to Iraq, because Iraq has its own constitution which govern's its territory. So now that I went through that, can you answer my question? Why does the US constitution not apply to noncitizens on US territory? Thank you, SB If I read you right then you are saying that as soon as we bring terrorists to Guantanamo they supposedly entitled to the same rights as you and me sitting here? If that is the case then the Supreme Court would have shut down Guantanamo long ago.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 07:27 PM) Nuke...you're creating a straw man here. The argument is not that the U.S. constitution applies to everyone. The argument is that the U.S. constitution is the defining document regarding how the U.S. government operates. Therefore, when the U.S. government does something, it has to follow the U.S. constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say that it applies to all people. Rather, it says "We the people of the United States of America." Therefore, the constitution is rules made by the people of the United States governing how its government will operate. Thus, when the constitution says "No Person" it is giving an instruction to the U.S. government, and the U.S. government alone, that it must follow that rule. How many times must I repeat myself. These people we have down there are free lance terrorists who were captured ON FOREGIN SOIL. They are not US citizens or residents or whatever, they are not part of a standing Army and they are not part of any governmental organization. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 07:22 PM) You talk about the whining pussies of Amnesty and here you are crying a river. Pot meet kettle. And actually Amnesty has come out and condemned the activity of insurgants. And Nuke, you still haven't answered my question -- if we're so certain of their guilt, why no trials to prove it so? My shilling is not for Al Qaeda but for the erosion of Constitutional protections that has taken place in the name of national security when they can't prove that these eviscerations of the Bill of Rights has done anything to make us safer. I don't appreciate a government having the ability to say "Well, we say he's a suspect. We don't have to prove it. We'll just detain them for an indiscriminate amount of time and never bring charges. Even if acquitted in the illegal military tribunals, people could still be detained. And Nuke, it says no person in the Constitution as Soxbadger so noted. But let's say for the sake of argument that the Constitutional protections don't apply to people who are not US citizens. That brings up more trouble for the "f*** 'em all" side. What about the Americans like Jose Padilla who are being held at Guantanamo? It took 2+ years for him to get a trial -- talk about his constitutional rights of a speedy trial, due process and his writ of habeas corpus being violated. These terrorists WHO WE PICKED UP ON FOREGIN SOIL SHOOTING AT OUR TROOPS, have no right to a trial, they have no right to a Quran, they have no right to anything because there is no legal authority protecting FREE LANCE TERRORISTS. Padilla is another matter. Padilla is an American citizen and the government had to let him go because he actually has rights ( as much as it pains me to say so ). Stop trying to equate Jose Padilla to the other detainees. Their legal status is so radically different they may as well be from different planets.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 07:09 PM) Cleveland, I have heard this argument a variety of places and so far no one is willing to step up to my challange. Find any piece of precedent or language from the constitution that states that it only applies to citizens of the United States. Your suggestion is that immigrants and non-citizens do not get constitutional protections is questionable to my understanding of the law. First of all, your suggestion would mean that any non-citizen does not get constitutional protections. Therefore legal immigrants would be subject to being deprived a right to trial, or even not allowed to worship. It would also mean that police could do anything to illegal immigrants, as well as legal immigrants as the clause of cruel and unusual punishment would not apply. Now here is my precedent to suggest otherwise: Pay particular attention to the drafting. NO PERSON. Not, no-citizen, only citizens, etc, but instead NO PERSON. That means, every person in the US, citizen and non-citizen alike. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aclu/kyrengaclu.pdf http://ga.berkeley.edu/academics/rights.html Now if you would like to change your remark to noncitizens have lesser rights in regards to adminsitrative and deportation proceedings, than I would agree with you. But in terms of civil protections, the US SC has been consistent in applying the same standards to citizens and noncitizens alike. This does not mean a noncitizen can vote, or that congress can not make laws about noncitizens. It just means that with out law made by congress, noncitizens should be viewed in the same light as citizen. Or that is atleast my understanding of the law. SB By your logic the U.S. constitution applies to every person on the face of the planet then. If you want to split hairs about wording it said "no person" without mention of where they lived, you added the part about living here. -By your logic we could go into Russia and tell Vladimir Putin to cease and desist his manipulation of the media and supression of his opponents. -We could go into Saudi Arabia and say that they have to let women vote because women are guaranteed the right to vote under our constitution. For the sake of argument though lets say they meant "no person who lives in America". The terrorists we picked up in Afghanistan do not live in the United States. The people we detained in Iraq do not live in the United States. These people are not citizens, they are not resident aliens and they are not green card holders either. These are a bunch of people who were captured on a battlefield engaging our troops in combat. For the millionth time, their only connection to the United States is that they engaged our soldiers in combat on foregin soil. They aren't even entitled to geneva convention rights because they are not part of any army and are not representatives of any government. The people we're fighting are a bunch of free-lance terrorists and nothing more. They have no rights whatsoever. They are most fortunate to be in our custody because out of all nations we probably treat our captives a whole lot better than anyone else.

Hey everybody the chat is wide open. Stop by and say hi.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 04:26 PM) LCR is spot on. If we don't hold enemy combatants to the same courtesy we expect our captured fighters to face, we can't complain when they don't get that courtesy. Why should we show them any courtesy on the battlefield? You know what happens to our people when they get captured by these savages? -They get beaten to death and dragged through the streets with all the other assholes around cheering and spitting on them ( Mogadishu 1993) -They get their heads chopped off on live television and the video gets broadcast all over the internet ( SPC Matt Maupin, 2004, Iraq ) -They get hung from a bridge and used as human pinatas by a mob ( 4 Blackwater contractors, Fallujah, 2004 ) f*** these people. Where are all the cries of protest at the way our people get treated when they fall into enemy hands? You won't hear them because as far as Amnesty and all those other do gooder asshole groups are concerned our soldiers are nothing but murderers and baby killers so instead of sticking up for our people they run around and shill for a bunch of people who are only interested in killing as many Americans as possible. As I stated before we are going far too easy on these scumbags we have in our custody.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 11:38 AM) Nuke, fun American idea -- "innocent until proven guilty". If these "pieces of filth" are so guilty then perhaps the US government would have no qualms in actually bringing them before a trial where they have the right to counsel? Nah, instead they'll just wait for years without bringing charges like they did to Jose Padilla. Because that sounds like strict Constitutional protections of due process and the writ of habeas corpus to me And as Chuck Hagel said today on FNC, this sort of behavior is putting our own troops in a hard way if they are captured. Plus, military tribunals don't have a leg to stand on legally in this case of trying supposed terrorists. In the words of the Supreme Court's 1866 ruling Exparte Milligan, the leading precedent on this issue: "[T]he Constitution was intended for a state of war, as well as a state of peace, and is equally binding upon rulers and people at all times and under all circumstances." When the Sixth Amendment mandates that in "all criminal prosecutions" certain rights should apply, including the right to a jury trial, the framers mean what they say. And the Supreme Court has understood the injunction. It is undisputed law that if the civilian courts are open and functioning, the armed forces cannot convene a military commission or tribunal to try offenses that fall within the civilian courts' jurisdiction. There you go again trying to apply constitutional protections to people who's only connection to this country is that they were caught shooting at our soldiers. You can't compare Jose Padilla to anybody in Guantanamo because JOSE PADILLA IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!! Those people are not. They DO NOT have the same rights as American citizens do despite the best efforts of the left to give them to those who don't deserve them. Listen carefully. T-H-E C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N D-O-E-S-N-T A-P-P-L-Y T-O P-E-O-P-L-E W-H-O A-R-E N-O-T A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S!!!!!!! These people have no rights under the geneva convention either though because they are not part of the armed forces of or a part of any government agency either. That's how we can do what we're doing down there. Had that not been the case the courts would have shut down Guantanamo a long time ago. You people should find better things to do than to be shilling for a bunch of people who would gladly behead you on Al Jazeera if they had the opportunity.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 12, 2005 -> 11:30 PM) Atleast Kruker decided to give us a little love in his "Most Important Thing" statement, though it seemed he was eating something as he said it. When is that fatass not eating something? One time I was watching him do a broadcast and I swear it looked like he had crumbs all over his suit jacket.

QUOTE(soxman35 @ Jun 12, 2005 -> 11:25 PM) What do you say to some stupid friend of your that is a cub fan and will not stop talking about the cubs? I want to let him have it good what do u guys think i should say to him to get him to sit down and shut up Ask him what Jon Garland and Dontrelle Willis have in common. Answer? They both used to play for the Flubbs.

When I spotted this article while surfing earlier in the evening I said to myself "here comes another Soxtalk thread" and sure enough........... As far as I'm concerned this is just another cry-fest by the liberal media. AWWW The poor terrorists. They have to stay up all night, or they have to stand for a long time or a dog barked at them. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Listening to Christina Aguilera, well that's well beyond my defenition of torture however...... . I'm so sick and tired of the media and these do gooder groups like Amnesty running around whining about how these pieces of human filth are being treated in Guantanamo. As far as I'm concerned they are treated FAR too well. These people who are there are dangerous and if given half a chance would kill as many Americans as they possibly could because their warped interpretation of Islam tells them to.

QUOTE(DonkeyKongerko @ Jun 12, 2005 -> 08:00 PM) HEE SEOP CHOI HEE SEOP CHOI (repeat ad nauseum) Can we sign this guy to a 10 day contract dirung that stretch of games we have with Minny coming up in Sep?

Isin't it amazing what happens when you have a place that you can actually call home?

QUOTE(knightni @ Jun 12, 2005 -> 05:51 PM) I turned the radio off. That guy's question about the SPs was starting to make me feel dumber by just listening. I mean, that dumbass could be posting here. :headshake Just when you thought the postgame radio couldn't get worse here comes the host bragging on himself because he drives a Dodge Neon. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jun 12, 2005 -> 05:48 PM) First question of the postgame is about yesterday's game... :headshake Then one about how our starting pitching is a problem. As fans, we do not know how to win. How about that moron ripping on Contreras? LOL!!!

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jun 12, 2005 -> 05:45 PM) It would be absolutely huge if Viz can keep it going. Yeah, with Hermey having some trouble lately we need someone else to step up.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jun 12, 2005 -> 05:39 PM) And, oh yeah, props to Vizcaino. I'll admit when he's good and he's been much better recently. Not only that but how about throwing up some props for Uribe for showing some discipline at the plate taking a couple of walks including the one that tied the game up?

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jun 12, 2005 -> 05:37 PM) San Diego is a good team, and I like them...so they don't have to eat s***. But I think I speak for everyone when I say: EAT s***, PHIL NEVIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That f***ing dickhead did nothing but cry when a call didn't go his way then he ran his mouth when they won last night. WHADDYA GOTTA SAY NOW BIATCH?!?!?!?

YOU GUYS THOUGHT YOU WERE HOT s*** LAST NIGHT HUH?!?!?! GUESS WHAT??? YOU AINT!!!!!!!!!!!!! EAT s*** MOTHERf***ERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NICE WORK BY EVERETT, AROW AND CLIFFY!!!!!!!!!!! GIMMIE A HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Jun 12, 2005 -> 05:23 PM) Alright if we can't close a 3 run lead, we have problems. LETS GO BOYS - THREE BIG OUTS We gotta go handle business. Politte it is BTW.

QUOTE(knightni @ Jun 12, 2005 -> 05:22 PM) Will Marte come in? Marte is still hurting. I think the only way you'd see him is in a DIRE emergency.