LGP Political Discussion Thread

[shafnutz05]

That article says that Interpol cannot arrest an American on American soil. Only American law enforcement agencies may do so.

That is what I am saying. You would still (more than likely) be arrested by American law enforcement (or some other government entity). My point is, by granting full immunity to anyone associated with Interpol, the government can say they are investigating you under the guise of Interpol, thus allowing themselves to enjoy the sweeping immunity and "diplomatic" powers that are supposedly granted to Interpol.

[Hockeynut!]

Lighten up. Just because you're bored at work and can't play games doesn't mean you have to act like I'm the one who pissed in your Wheaties.

The reason the old language was removed was to eliminate an endless stream of red tape when it comes to paperwork requests regarding Interpol investigations (which they have been doing for decades). This gives Interpol the same type of classification awarded to every foreign embassy in the US.

[slappybrown]

That article says that Interpol cannot arrest an American on American soil. Only American law enforcement agencies may do so.

That is what I am saying. You would still (more than likely) be arrested by American law enforcement (or some other government entity). My point is, by granting full immunity to anyone associated with Interpol, the government can say they are investigating you under the guise of Interpol, thus allowing themselves to enjoy the sweeping immunity and "diplomatic" powers that are supposedly granted to Interpol.

What on Earth are you talking about? You are just making things up to suit your conclusions and speculating wildly.

This is particularly ironic, given that in the Nigerian terrorist thread, you are advocating the suspension of habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights based upon notions of citizenship.

[shafnutz05]

This is particularly ironic, given that in the Nigerian terrorist thread, you are advocating the suspension of habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights based upon notions of citizenship.

I don't believe that Nigerian citizens that attempt to kill hundreds of Americans are entitled to protections under the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. They are not American citizens. Isn't it funny that a foreign citizen is not entitled to all the protections that American citizens enjoy until they try to kill us?

[Hockeynut!]

nevermind

[slappybrown]

This is particularly ironic, given that in the Nigerian terrorist thread, you are advocating the suspension of habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights based upon notions of citizenship.

I don't believe that Nigerian citizens that attempt to kill hundreds of Americans are entitled to protections under the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. They are not American citizens. Isn't it funny that a foreign citizen is not entitled to all the protections that American citizens enjoy until they try to kill us?

You ignored the first part of my response, so I will presume I was correct in thinking you were just making stuff up.

Non-citizens do in fact receive fewer protections under the Constitution and under our laws, and that is fine. But for you to advocate that in a criminal proceeding, they not receive legal counsel or not be permitted an opporunity to defend...I guess that's just the statist in you! Let the government decide who receives counsel in criminal matters or who is entitled to a trial for their crimes!

[Pavel Bure]

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/10/cn ... cans-oppos

On your last point, you are sadly right. Americans get what they vote for.

The poll surveyed 1,041 adult Americans by telephone. The poll's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Certainly a big enough sample size to project over 300 million people.

[Firebird]

This is particularly ironic, given that in the Nigerian terrorist thread, you are advocating the suspension of habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights based upon notions of citizenship.

I don't believe that Nigerian citizens that attempt to kill hundreds of Americans are entitled to protections under the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. They are not American citizens. Isn't it funny that a foreign citizen is not entitled to all the protections that American citizens enjoy until they try to kill us?

You ignored the first part of my response, so I will presume I was correct in thinking you were just making stuff up.

Non-citizens do in fact receive fewer protections under the Constitution and under our laws, and that is fine. But for you to advocate that in a criminal proceeding, they not receive legal counsel or not be permitted an opporunity to defend...I guess that's just the statist in you! Let the government decide who receives counsel in criminal matters or who is entitled to a trial for their crimes![/quote]
Let the govt decide who is entitled?
Endquote
....................................

A government for the people and by the people.

And and foreigners who are not citizens and are terrorists are not in fact the people of the united states

[Firebird]

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/10/cn ... cans-oppos

On your last point, you are sadly right. Americans get what they vote for.

The poll surveyed 1,041 adult Americans by telephone. The poll's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Certainly a big enough sample size to project over 300 million people.

Called statistics.

Do the same for polling surveys as well

[Pavel Bure]

Called statistics.

Do the same for polling surveys as well

Pretty much my point. They're put together to generate media stories. They're not accurate representations of the nation as a whole. Used to push an agenda if you will.

[HomerPenguin]

I don't believe that Nigerian citizens that attempt to kill hundreds of Americans are entitled to protections under the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. They are not American citizens. Isn't it funny that a foreign citizen is not entitled to all the protections that American citizens enjoy until they try to kill us?

Are the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights universal and inherent to all individuals, or are they gifts from our government to its citizens?

[slappybrown]

This is particularly ironic, given that in the Nigerian terrorist thread, you are advocating the suspension of habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights based upon notions of citizenship.

I don't believe that Nigerian citizens that attempt to kill hundreds of Americans are entitled to protections under the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. They are not American citizens. Isn't it funny that a foreign citizen is not entitled to all the protections that American citizens enjoy until they try to kill us?

You ignored the first part of my response, so I will presume I was correct in thinking you were just making stuff up.

Non-citizens do in fact receive fewer protections under the Constitution and under our laws, and that is fine. But for you to advocate that in a criminal proceeding, they not receive legal counsel or not be permitted an opporunity to defend...I guess that's just the statist in you! Let the government decide who receives counsel in criminal matters or who is entitled to a trial for their crimes!

Let the govt decide who is entitled?
Endquote
....................................

A government for the people and by the people.

And and foreigners who are not citizens and are terrorists are not in fact the people of the united states[/quote]

********************************************* My response is below, since your quote was messed up.*******

_

What's funny to me is that you are openly advocating to revoke the protections of the Sixth Amendment in the name of the people of the United States. No thanks.

If you want to quote portions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, try this one:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

(emphasis mine)

You are in fact asking that the government, rather than a judge or jury, determine whether to detain a person and to provide them with a trial, let alone the right to counsel.

[Geezer]

I don't believe that Nigerian citizens that attempt to kill hundreds of Americans are entitled to protections under the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. They are not American citizens. Isn't it funny that a foreign citizen is not entitled to all the protections that American citizens enjoy until they try to kill us?

Are the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights universal and inherent to all individuals, or are they gifts from our government to its citizens?

They sure only should apply to our citizens and to legal immigrants. Unfortunately they have been applied to illegal aliens,for example, making it impossible to deport them on an efficient cost-effective basis. Someone sneaking into the country illegally shouldn't get a deportation hearing, they should be booted out the next day at the latest. Foreign terror suspects should be tried by military courts like the Nazi sabotuers caught on U.S. soil that FDR had tried and hung.

[slappybrown]

I don't believe that Nigerian citizens that attempt to kill hundreds of Americans are entitled to protections under the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. They are not American citizens. Isn't it funny that a foreign citizen is not entitled to all the protections that American citizens enjoy until they try to kill us?

Are the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights universal and inherent to all individuals, or are they gifts from our government to its citizens?

They sure only should apply to our citizens and to legal immigrants. Unfortunately they have been applied to illegal aliens,for example, making it impossible to deport them on an efficient cost-effective basis. Someone sneaking into the country illegally shouldn't get a deportation hearing, they should be booted out the next day at the latest. Foreign terror suspects should be tried by military courts like the Nazi sabotuers caught on U.S. soil that FDR had tried and hung.

IIRC, the Nazis in Quirin were represented by counsel and provided with a trial before the military commission. Whether a military commission predicated upon the notion of an unlawful combatant is approriate under the Constitution is/can be a different one from whether a trial/counsel should be provided by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the Hamdan court disagrees with your position.

Third, deportation hearings and whether the right to counsel exists in that context is a different ballgame than the criminal context. The Sixth Amendment says what is says, aside from what you think SHOULD be the law.

EDIT: Now that I re-read your post, I am not sure if you are advocating that terrorists should not receive counsel/a trial, or advocating that they do receive such rights, but only in the context of a military tribunal.

[ExPatriatePen]

I don't believe that Nigerian citizens that attempt to kill hundreds of Americans are entitled to protections under the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. They are not American citizens. Isn't it funny that a foreign citizen is not entitled to all the protections that American citizens enjoy until they try to kill us?

Are the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights universal and inherent to all individuals, or are they gifts from our government to its citizens?

GIFTS? Gifts from our benevolent government? GIFTS?

They're constraints placed on the government by the people. That's an important distinction. The founders recognized that the rights of the individual trumped those of the ruling class, not the other way around.

[Geezer]

I think terrorists should receive military counsel at a military trial.
The problem with the deportation process is that it is impossible to address the tens of millions of illrgals because of legal stalling tactics to subvert our laws and our constitution IMO. I tend to agree with what a former justce stated; " The constitution is whatever we say it is". That's why every administration tries to get "their kind of judge" on the court and the trend is to appoint young justices so they can be on the court for 30 years +.
I have no idea what the Hamdan court is and I likely don't give a hamdam for their opinion if it has a liberal bent.

[slappybrown]

I think terrorists should receive military counsel at a military trial.
The problem with the deportation process is that it is impossible to address the tens of millions of illrgals because of legal stalling tactics to subvert our laws and our constitution IMO. I tend to agree with what a former justce stated; " The constitution is whatever we say it is". That's why every administration tries to get "their kind of judge" on the court and the trend is to appoint young justices so they can be on the court for 30 years +.
I have no idea what the Hamdan court is and I likely don't give a hamdam for their opinion if it has a liberal bent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HomerPenguin]

Are the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights universal and inherent to all individuals, or are they gifts from our government to its citizens?

They sure only should apply to our citizens and to legal immigrants.

So gifts, then? Thank goodness Madison was feeling so generous that day.

[HomerPenguin]

Are the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights universal and inherent to all individuals, or are they gifts from our government to its citizens?

GIFTS? Gifts from our benevolent government? GIFTS?

I'm continually amazed by your apparent success in life when you only seem to pay attention to about a third of what gets said. I was asking a question, not making an argument.

They're constraints placed on the government by the people. That's an important distinction. The founders recognized that the rights of the individual trumped those of the ruling class, not the other way around.

Yes they did. We've decided otherwise, of course, now believing that your right to free speech or a fair trial should depend on your ability to buy same. They also believed that those rights ("rights" being the fundamental concept) belonged to all mankind. The only thing the Bill of Rights does is promise that the US government will not infringe upon those rights. It doesn't create a special list of rights that only apply to American citizens (which, if it did, would mean that they're not actually "rights" after all).

[HomerPenguin]

The problem with the deportation process is that it is impossible to address the tens of millions of illrgals because of legal stalling tactics to subvert our laws and our constitution IMO.

I can address illegal immigration in a one page bill that reads something like: any CEO or owner of a company found to be employing illegal immigrants will be charged with criminal conspiracy with an automatic sentence of one year per illegal if convicted. Any members of other senior management (from plant manager up) and/or the board of directors of a company found to be employing illegal immigrants will be charged with abetting criminal activity with an automatic sentence of six months per illegal if convicted.

Problem solved. Of course I wouldn't expect any corporate largess for my next campaign if I did that, which is why nobody ever will do it.

[Guinness]

I think terrorists should receive military counsel at a military trial.

Why is it that, to conservatives, all of government is a great big fail except when it comes to those agencies somehow associated with "security"?

Edit to add: I'd seriously like an answer to this question.

[Guinness]

I don't believe that Nigerian citizens that attempt to kill hundreds of Americans are entitled to protections under the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. They are not American citizens. Isn't it funny that a foreign citizen is not entitled to all the protections that American citizens enjoy until they try to kill us?

Are the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights universal and inherent to all individuals, or are they gifts from our government to its citizens?

[Guinness]

So gifts, then? Thank goodness Madison was feeling so generous that day.

[Gaucho]

The problem with the deportation process is that it is impossible to address the tens of millions of illrgals because of legal stalling tactics to subvert our laws and our constitution IMO.

I can address illegal immigration in a one page bill that reads something like: any CEO or owner of a company found to be employing illegal immigrants will be charged with criminal conspiracy with an automatic sentence of one year per illegal if convicted. Any members of other senior management (from plant manager up) and/or the board of directors of a company found to be employing illegal immigrants will be charged with abetting criminal activity with an automatic sentence of six months per illegal if convicted.

Problem solved. Of course I wouldn't expect any corporate largess for my next campaign if I did that, which is why nobody ever will do it.

[Geezer]

I think terrorists should receive military counsel at a military trial.

Why is it that, to conservatives, all of government is a great big fail except when it comes to those agencies somehow associated with "security"?

Edit to add: I'd seriously like an answer to this question.

I can't answer for all consevatives but I suspect that others have varying opinions of what role the federal gov't should play in different areas. I believe the Feds have a legitimate role in food inspection, drug safety and could even play a limited constructive in health insurance reform. I see little need for the the Dept of Education and most social engineering programs.

Although I don't agree that all conservatives consider "all of government a big fail "other than security I certainly do believe that national defense is the most important role of the Federal government and that the military , intelligence and national law enforcement have to be allowed to do their jobs. Without "security" the country as we know it ceases to exist.