Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 194

Thread: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

  1. #131
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Nothing that applies to this situation, no.
    I didn't make such a qualification. I want to know if you think there is anything a US citizen can do to relinquish their Constitutional rights.

    The Constitution supersedes any treaty which contradicts it in any way, at least the contradictory portions of the treaty in question.

    In other words, no treaty can ever supersede the Constitution without an Amendment stating such.
    There is no contradiction.

  2. #132
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by Gander View Post
    I didn't make such a qualification. I want to know if you think there is anything a US citizen can do to relinquish their Constitutional rights.
    I suppose some rights could be relinquished either by forswearing citizenship, or signing on with a foreign government's military in a time of war, stuff like that. I'm really not familiar with the circumstances under which one can legitimately give up or lose citizenship in the United States.

    All the same, some Constitutional rights are guaranteed to persons rather than citizens -- like those secured by the 5th Amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gander View Post
    There is no contradiction.
    So there's nothing in the Laws of War which violate his 5th Amendment rights?
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Specific with reference to the requirement for an indictment prior to a trial on a capital offense.

    Additionally, the prohibition against stripping life, liberty or property without due process proceeds that initial statement, which makes it clear that due process is still required.
    What are you talking about? It clearly says...

    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...

  4. #134
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    I'd also like to know why the following portion of Article I, Section 9:

    The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
    . . . doesn't apply, seeing as how martial law hasn't been declared and the courts are all operating normally.

    That's two places in the Constitution that require some form of due process.

    How about Article III, Section 3:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
    That's three places.

    Come on!
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  5. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    I suppose some rights could be relinquished either by forswearing citizenship, or signing on with a foreign government's military in a time of war, stuff like that. I'm really not familiar with the circumstances under which one can legitimately give up or lose citizenship in the United States.
    AQ is a military entity which has declared war on the US. Why should it matter that they aren't a nation-state?

    All the same, some Constitutional rights are guaranteed to persons rather than citizens -- like those secured by the 5th Amendment.
    Except in cases arising from the land or naval forces.

    So there's nothing in the Laws of War which violate his 5th Amendment rights?
    Not that I'm aware of, no.

  6. #136
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by Gander View Post
    What are you talking about? It clearly says...

    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...
    You conveniently truncated your quotation:

    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; 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.
    Let me break it down for you.

    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;
    In other words, you can't be tried for a capital "or otherwise infamous crime" without an indictment, except in those cases specifically stated.

    It doesn't say you won't be tried, it just says an indictment isn't necessary.

    To continue:

    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.
    This portion is a separate statement, not a continuation of the first statement. We know this both because the exception follows the mention of being held to answer for capital offenses, rather than being tacked onto the end of the Amendment, and because, well, it's punctuated that way.

    As such, your interpretation is not correct.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  7. #137
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by Gander View Post
    AQ is a military entity which has declared war on the US. Why should it matter that they aren't a nation-state?
    Because they can call it whatever they want, but war is declared by nations, not by groups of men without a patch of land to call home or a uniform to wear or a flag to wave.

    In the case of AQ, it's conspiracy to do any number of felonious things, but not war.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  8. #138
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Does anybody here realize what it means if we decide that stateless organizations can declare war on the United States?

    It means that if the government wants to strip you of your rights, all it has to do is decice that you're an unlawful enemy combatant, or making war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or any number of similarly seditious accusations, and then treat you as if you had no rights to speak of.

    If a single man in posession of a soviergn patch of land (his own country) attacks people living on another soviergn patch of land (another country), it's war.

    If a single man lacking posesson of a soviergn patch of land attacks people living on a soviergn patch of land, he has comitted crimes against the laws of that soviergn patch of land, and is a criminal.

    Why is everybody so quick to throw that distinction away?
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  9. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    You conveniently truncated your quotation:



    Let me break it down for you.



    In other words, you can't be tried for a capital "or otherwise infamous crime" without an indictment, except in those cases specifically stated.

    It doesn't say you won't be tried, it just says an indictment isn't necessary.

    To continue:



    This portion is a separate statement, not a continuation of the first statement. We know this both because the exception follows the mention of being held to answer for capital offenses, rather than being tacked onto the end of the Amendment, and because, well, it's punctuated that way.

    As such, your interpretation is not correct.
    It also says "crime" and "criminal case", which obviously doesn't apply to warfare.

  10. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Because they can call it whatever they want, but war is declared by nations, not by groups of men without a patch of land to call home or a uniform to wear or a flag to wave.

    In the case of AQ, it's conspiracy to do any number of felonious things, but not war.
    War can be declared by any group of people; tribes in Africa have warred with one another since the beginning of human history.

    Ultimately, a nation-state is just a nominal social entity surrounded by invisible and arbitrary lines; it exists only in the abstract. Not to mention the fact that the Geneva Conventions do not limit warfare to nation-states.

Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •