Posted on 12/02/2001 8:50:01 AM PST by H.Akston
Bob Barr just said on Sam and Cokie's show that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and the Constitution covers "persons", not just citizens, and "the Bill of Rights applies to all persons on our soil."
"WHAT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER TO ESTABLISH A RELIGION FOR NON-CITIZENS?"
I never said there was one.
"WHAT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO IMPRISON NON-CITIZENS WITHOUT A TRIAL?"
I never said there was one
"WHAT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO QUARTER TROOPS IN THE HOMES OF NON-CITIZENS?"
I never said there was one
"WHAT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO INFLICT CRULE AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ON NON-CITIZENS?"
I never said there was one
"WHAT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO RESTRICT A NON-CITIZEN'S FREEDOM TO ASSOCIATE?"
I never said there was one
"WHAT CLUASE IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO SIEZE OR SEARCH A NON-CITIZEN'S PROPERTY WITHOUT A WARRANT?"
MY GOVERNMENT CAN DO THAT. SEE MESSAGE 183, IMBECILE:
" (d) The view that every constitutional provision applies wherever the Government exercises its power is contrary to this Court's decisions in the Insular Cases, which held that not all constitutional provisions apply to governmental activity even in territories where the United States has sovereign power. See, e. g., Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 . Indeed, the claim that extraterritorial aliens are entitled to rights under the Fifth Amendment - which speaks in the relatively universal term of "person" - has been emphatically rejected. Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 . Pp. 268-269. "
Don't you realize that our government can do things to illegals that the Bill of Rights prevents it from doing to us? How long is it going to take to get that through your thick skull? When will you "Get It"?
You said, exodus:
"if spies and saboteurs captured in wartime were accepted as having the right to challenge the court system, they legally, according to our courts, have all other rights as well."
You were stating that an illegal combatant has "all" the same legal rights as a U.S. resident and I pointed out that that was incorrect.
On a related note, any captured terrorist is entitled to a trial by a civilian jury. It's a crime against the country, and not a matter for military justice except in time of emergency.
If you don't like that, we could declare war legally, in Congress instead of in the news media. The President holding a press conference, saying "We are at war" and illegally assuming war powers is not of the same weight as a legal Declaration of War from Congress.
In regards to International Law, the terrorist attack was not a civil crime. Legally, under the Geneva Convention, it was perpetrated by individuals who met the definition of "illegal combatants" and who, in addition, committed actions defined as "war crimes".
In regards to U.S. law, you are perpetuating the fallacy that only a Congressional Declaration of War defines a legal "war".
A Declaration of War is only used when sovereign nations are involved. When a sovereign nation is not involved, a Congressional authorization to use force carries all the Constitutional weight of a Declaration of War.
Thus, war was never declared during the Babary War:
Terrorists by Another Name: The Barbary Pirates
"Congress did not actually declare war on the pirates," Turley wrote in a memo, "but 'authorized' the use of force against the regencies after our bribes and ransoms were having no effect. This may have been due to an appreciation that a declaration of war on such petty tyrants would have elevated their status. Accordingly, they were treated as pirates and, after a disgraceful period of accommodation, we hunted them down as pirates."
But let's not quibble about a two-bit war like the Barbary War. How about the bloodiest war in American history the Civil War; not "The Civil Time of Emergency" but "The Civil War".
Even in the Civil War, the United States of America never declared war on the Confederate States of America because the United States did not consider the Confederate States to be a sovereign nation.
I addressed this subject on another thread as follows:
I would agree with this article, if there was a Declaration of War. There isn't, yet. The justification for these tribunals needs to come from history--both Lincoln and FDR had obtained such Declarations prior to their restriction on liberties. What a Declaration tends to do is clearly define the belligerents
Actually, Abraham Lincoln did not obtain a Declaration of War against the Confederate States of America. Try finding the text of such a declaration of war. You will never find it.
The United States of America never declared war during the Civil War. This was in keeping with its position that the rebel states did not form a new nation, rather they were states in which a rebellion was taking place. Abraham Lincoln issued a Proclamation that an insurrection existed in the states of SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, and TX on 15 Apr 1861 (Messages & Papers of the Presidents, vol. V, p3214). He also proclaimed a blockade of Southern harbors on 19 Apr 1861, and the date of this proclamation was taken by the Supreme Court in several cases to be the official beginning of the insurrection.
In the war against terrorism, a declaration of war is not appropriate when you are fighting what legally amount to saboteurs, filibusters, pirates and terrorists. Wars are declared against sovereign states. These individuals represent no sovereign state.
Congress has passed an authorization to use force against all the organizations linked to the 11 September attack. That is the Constitutional equivalent of a declaration of war when a sovereign nation is not the enemy.
Legally, anyone who attacks the U.S. automatically becomes a belligerant the instant that the attack starts. The U.S. Navy was shooting back at the Japanese on 7 December 1941 although Congress had not yet declared war. Japan clearly defined itself as a belligerent by it's own action. Any foreign group, either known or previously unknown, who attacks or facilitates an attack on the U.S. is likewise an automatic and defined belligerent by it's own action.
But we're sure.
I read that on 9/11, there were several members of the Chinese media in our country. They cheered when they watched the WTC attacks on TV. They were told to leave the country. Hmmm... perhaps their right to free speech was denied. I'm still not sure that they have ALL of the same rights that are recognized for citizens.
BTW...sorry... I don't have the source for this story handy.
America has never to this day been defeated by an enemy from without. Every defeat or draw that America has been embarrassed by, would never have happened without weak, wimpy, self serving nobodies occupying high places in Government, that should be reserved for somebodies, big enough to fill that seat. Nothing can defeat us! But sadly nothing has defeated us in the past, and that same nothing threatens to defeat us now in this war on terrorism-the nothing that has been elected to and fills too many seats in the House and the Senate in Washington, DC.
Self serving politicians will never be tried for aiding and abetting terrorist, both foriegn and domestic, even though not one terrorist act that occured on 911, could have happened without the incompentence caused by politicians, so wrapped up within their own ambitions that nothing else mattered.
How in the world did you arrive at those conclusions? There is nothing in the US Constutition that prevents people being arrested who are comitting crimes.
Are you sure you want to let that statement stand or would you care to re-think it?
That said, (and I don't personally foreclose someone arguing otherwise) whether as public policy, it should be treated as an act of war is still a "whole 'nother question"; and, I agree, one complicated by varied considerations.
But to examine an issue without first defining it's main aspect is fruitless.
To: exodus
Okay exodus....I have listened to this drivel for weeks that we are not at war because there was not a formal declaration of war. You are still wrong....but I have a question. Exactly which nation would you have Congress declared war against? Because that is what Congress does, it declares war against nations. Comments?
# 317 by JD86
************
Hey!
Finally, an intelligent question from you!
Yes, war must have a nation to declare against.
How about Afganistan, where we have been fighting an un-Constitutional, un-delared war for the last 2 months or so?
For another, we could declare war on Iraq, where we have been fighting an un-Constitutional, un-declared war for about 8 years.
Both are known terrorist sponsors.
We also have an often-ignored ally in the Middle East,
Israel, which has been fighting against terrorist nations also. We could stop setting on our hands and actually do something about terrorism, instead of talking and making speaches.
How about it, Mr. President?
Don't violate the Constitution, use it.
Ask for a Declaration of War against Afganistan, the nation that attacked us, and add a Declaration of War against Iraq, whose leader considers us his enemy. Play along with Hussain. Declare war on him, it would make his day.
(Expletive deleted) peace.
I want a Declaration of War against terrorist nations.
Congress declared war on the Barbary Pirates. They were not a nation. They were very similar to modern terrorists.
That may be true, but I tell you he was playing a dangerous game. The INS could have yanked his green card, and he could have faced deportation. I am writing this from personal experience. You will not believe what my friends had to go through over a podunk mayoral campaign. And you will not believe the extent we had to go to help them stay here.
All your friend from Cuba needed was to have someone file a formal complaint, and he would have been in big trouble. Of course the Clinton Administration probably wouldn't have touched it because it would have been a hot potato after the Elian fiasco.
All of our circle screamed like eagles and used all the same arguments you are using; and we found, to our dismay, that alien residents do not enjoy the right to freedom of political speech if someone complains. This was confirmed by numerous attorneys and played out in a very expensive battle that my friends nearly lost. I'm not going to explain to you on the forum how they won the right to stay, but it was not through the courst or the INS.
Ok then. If a burglar enters your home does he retain his rights?
O.K. I thought you were among those arguing against that point... :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.