Question About Rights?

[PadawanBater]

Are Americans the only people whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution or do those same rights extend to other people too?

This has been a debate for a while now, mainly centering on foreign detainees and the legality of the rights they hold. Should detainees be given the same rights an American is given if they are accused of a crime?

I'm open to hearing all opinions, I have a feeling there's going to be a mixed result so try to add facts that support your position.

 

[dukeofbaja]

Joe Biden said something about this years ago when he was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee that has stuck with me since. I do not remember and can not even paraphrase what he said, but I found this excerpt from an article about it:

Joe Biden was one of a few people to correctly intuit and loudly decry the basic moral failure of Abu Ghraib. Instead of making it another pissy bullet point for Bush's managerial incompetence, he made it a deeply personal issue of right and wrong. As the father of a soldier, he knew that the horrors of Abu Ghraib now gave the enemy license to practice the same indignity on his son.

Same principle should apply to giving basic legal rights to foreign detainees. How can we call ourselves the beacon of freedom and justice (a joke anyway) without upholding the principles upon which we were founded?

 

[laughingduck]

Joe Biden said something about this years ago when he was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee that has stuck with me since. I do not remember and can not even paraphrase what he said, but I found this excerpt from an article about it:

Joe Biden was one of a few people to correctly intuit and loudly decry the basic moral failure of Abu Ghraib. Instead of making it another pissy bullet point for Bush's managerial incompetence, he made it a deeply personal issue of right and wrong. As the father of a soldier, he knew that the horrors of Abu Ghraib now gave the enemy license to practice the same indignity on his son.

Same principle should apply to giving basic legal rights to foreign detainees. How can we call ourselves the beacon of freedom and justice (a joke anyway) without upholding the principles upon which we were founded?

It's hard to beat a good beheading as far as dignity is concerned. lmao

 

[vasioplunk]

Joe Biden said something about this years ago when he was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee that has stuck with me since. I do not remember and can not even paraphrase what he said, but I found this excerpt from an article about it:

Joe Biden was one of a few people to correctly intuit and loudly decry the basic moral failure of Abu Ghraib. Instead of making it another pissy bullet point for Bush's managerial incompetence, he made it a deeply personal issue of right and wrong. As the father of a soldier, he knew that the horrors of Abu Ghraib now gave the enemy license to practice the same indignity on his son.

Same principle should apply to giving basic legal rights to foreign detainees. How can we call ourselves the beacon of freedom and justice (a joke anyway) without upholding the principles upon which we were founded?

It is not the responsibility of the United States to guarantee the rights of all human beings on this earth. We are an isolated country in the western hemisphere. In order to protect the rights of all human beings there must be a global effort by all countries. We are supposed to abide by the Geneva Convention. Those guidelines set by the global collective of countries. This is subjective chatter. We are suppose to adhere to the constitution, and the supreme court interpretation of the constitution. Anything else is going out on a limb. We are not the world Police. We protect our citizens, those within our jurisdiction and our countries interests. We have no friends, only interests on the global stage.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, this depends where you are captured. Plain and Simple. Captured here in the U.S you get the rights of a U.S citizen, outside well eh.. Good luck to you.

 

[laughingduck]

VASIO....agreed!

 

[herbose]

Are Americans the only people whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution or do those same rights extend to other people too?

This has been a debate for a while now, mainly centering on foreign detainees and the legality of the rights they hold. Should detainees be given the same rights an American is given if they are accused of a crime?

I'm open to hearing all opinions, I have a feeling there's going to be a mixed result so try to add facts that support your position.

Every person in the borders of the US must abide by the laws of the US. If they come afoul of the law they are subjected to the due process of the law.
It's the same law for citizens, legal aliens, illegal aliens, tourists.....everyone.

The real question is why the US has not given the Guantanamo detainees the same rights. Is that what you're asking PwB?
It's a damn good question.

 

[vasioplunk]

Every person in the borders of the US must abide by the laws of the US. If they come afoul of the law they are subjected to the due process of the law.
It's the same law for citizens, legal aliens, illegal aliens, tourists.....everyone.

The real question is why the US has not given the Guantanamo detainees the same rights. Is that what you're asking PwB?
It's a damn good question.

Because Gitmo doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of any American State. It is leased. And going by international law totally illegal...

 

[herbose]

Because Gitmo doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of any American State. It is leased. And going by international law totally illegal...

Yes, it is leased but I believe it is American territory just as all US embassies all over the world are. Just as Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, etc. All American territory. Same laws, again.

 

[vasioplunk]

Yes, it is leased but I believe it is American territory just as all US embassies all over the world are. Just as Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, etc. All American territory. Same laws, again.

Yes, but

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

You have a good point, but the rules are a bit different....

 

[herbose]

Yes, but

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

You have a good point, but the rules are a bit different....

I don't get your point, could you explain more?

 

[vasioplunk]

I don't get your point, could you explain more?

Even tho it is under jurisdiction it doesn’t have the same rules that apply under the constitution. Congress controls it. This is why some detainees get trials and some do not. If you can get a representative or state to back your right to a trial then you can possibly get one. If not you are screwed. From what I understand Congress could say it is ok to take them all out back and shoot them. And there would be no problem with it. If the military, president etc are all for it…
Am not a lawyer, but I think that is how it works...

So, if am correct which am pretty sure am partly correct. The president has no control over gitmo. Gitmo is the product of Congress and human rights that are not enforced there are because of congress. So in essence congress is the guilty party when it comes to gitmo. Not the president..

 

[herbose]

I'm not a lawyer either, I'mm already in over my head.
Things get real complicated real fast when you start thinking about them.

 

[PadawanBater]

How can we claim to be better or more advanced if we practice the same things our "enemies" practice, while condemning them for it? The degree is irrelevant. They behead, we waterboard. Subjective opinion, in my opinion, is the only thing attempting to justify our actions. They decide it's right because they said it is...

There's gotta be some kind of standard, doesn't there? I don't think we need anyone [else] to tell us what that is, it's already been said and our Constitution outlines how to achieve it. I can't remember who said it, but it was pretty recent on one of these threads, "the system works fine, it's the people in power who fuck it up" (paraphrase)... wish I could remember who it was so I could give em credit. I used to be against the entire system, but I think that's a more accurate way to put it.

 

[vasioplunk]

I'm not a lawyer either, I'mm already in over my head.
Things get real complicated real fast when you start thinking about them.

Well if you think about it. For all the flakk people gave Bush for Gitmo. It was masterful as long as he could keep parts of congress on his side and support for gitmo up. He had nothing to worry about. They knew all human rights violation would fall on congress, and congress isn’t going to blame themselves. You can’t blame CIA agents for water boarding when it was authorized by the higher echelon and didn’t violate any human rights laws in the US. Because as soon as they said it was not torture it fell out of the Military code of conduct. And Abu Ghraib deal well the problem with that was it was against the Military code of conduct. You can’t wipe human shit on your prisoners and simulate intercourse with them while they are naked. That doesn’t jive in any army unless you are in Africa… The Convoy of Death in Afghanistan. Well that was legit. CIA/JSOC handed over and watched them massacre all those people. Our laws and the military rules of conduct which don’t apply to certain task forces within JSOC can do that legally… Which am surprised no one is upset about that. But I guess they all deserved it huh…

note: To be honest. I think far worse things have happened. Extortion, kidnapping of civilians, Targeting of civilians to apply political pressure. Targeting family members of our enemies. Straight up murdering of prisoners. And covert action against civilian and economic targets in countries outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to fuel political unrest. Obviously no one has proof of this current activity.

 

[Rob Roy]

Inalienable rights exist whether there is a government or not. Whether they will be respected or defended by any man made government is another story. I prefer a discussion of "rights" to be universal, rather than centered on what nationality a person is or isn't. In the moral and ethical argument, Everybody has rights, if anybody does. But not everybody has power to exercise their rights. Governments prevent that.

To claim that only Americans have inalienable rights, is a bit like declaring ourselves "god's choosen people".

For a moment let's not look at the constitution and instead look at a more basic understanding that little kids seem to grasp better than adults. Often kids will find justice simple. They boil things such as right and wrong down to questions like... Who started it? Is it because they innately know that if you leave others alone , you should be left alone? That thought process gets corrupted as they get older and realize that "power" can usurp rights.

Concerning constituional rights, they are subject to shift every time the Supreme court wants to reinterpret things or a new President appoints a new Supreme Court Justice that favors his particular ideology.

 

[Illegal Smile]

How can we claim to be better or more advanced if we practice the same things our "enemies" practice, while condemning them for it? The degree is irrelevant. They behead, we waterboard. Subjective opinion, in my opinion, is the only thing attempting to justify our actions. They decide it's right because they said it is...

There's gotta be some kind of standard, doesn't there? I don't think we need anyone [else] to tell us what that is, it's already been said and our Constitution outlines how to achieve it. I can't remember who said it, but it was pretty recent on one of these threads, "the system works fine, it's the people in power who fuck it up" (paraphrase)... wish I could remember who it was so I could give em credit. I used to be against the entire system, but I think that's a more accurate way to put it.

Is there ANY enemy of America that you are not totally in bed with?

 

[Johnnyorganic]

The Constitution places limits on the American government; no other.

The individual protections afforded it are reserved for Americans.

 

[PadawanBater]

Is there ANY enemy of America that you are not totally in bed with?

The American Government. Clearly.

 

[ilkhan]

Rights arn't granted by the constitution they are God given.
So unless Americans are some sort of master race
God loves more then his other children
our rights must naturally belong to everyone.

 

[PadawanBater]

Rights arn't granted by the constitution they are God given.
So unless Americans are some sort of master race
God loves more then his other children
our rights must naturally belong to everyone.

Disagree with the logic, but couldn't agree more with the conclusion. +rep