Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr. Keys

So what part of "No person shall be compelled to testify against himself" or
"No person will be subject to cruel and inhumane treatment" do
you disagree with?


30 posted on 06/18/2005 2:29:50 AM PDT by djf (Government wants the same things I do - MY guns, MY property, MY freedoms!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: djf

Is that what you feel is being done to Al Qaida? What is cruel and inhumane here. What laws apply to them?


32 posted on 06/18/2005 2:44:37 AM PDT by Mr. Keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: djf; Mr. Keys
If AQ can demand protections under the Fifth Amendment, then they should demand the Second...

http://www.californiarepublic.org/archives/Columns/Guest/20040527KopelEisentrager.html

Explaining Eisentrager
Nazis, Gitmo and the Second Amendment...
[Dave Kopel] 5/27/04
36 posted on 06/18/2005 3:17:12 AM PDT by endthematrix (Thank you US armed forces, for everything you give and have given!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: djf
***So what part of "No person shall be compelled to testify against himself" or "No person will be subject to cruel and inhumane treatment" do you disagree with?***

Well I disagree with everything you posted for one because you misquoted both parts of the U.S. Constitution, to wit;

  1. U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment
    No person shall (yada, yada) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, (more yada, yada)....

    Note the words criminal case in the actual 5th amendment, makes a big difference as those at GITMO aren't criminals, they are terrorists.

  2. U.S. Constitution: Eighth Amendment
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Note the words "unusual punishments". Very distinct from "cruel and inhumane." Unless of course you're French or a Democrat, then everything the USA does to protect itself is "inhumane".

And secondly I disagree as there's the quaint idea that some of us hold in that the protections granted by the U.S. Constitution only pertain to U.S. Citizens and legal residents of the USA and only where the US has Legal Jurisdiction, like say Guam or Puerto Rico. And said protections certainly DO NOT extend to nationless terrorists (aka 'armed combatants') formally of Syria, Pakistan, etc. via some cave in Afghanistan.

Then there's the tiny fact that we are at WAR with these toads all of whom would slit your throat in a NY minute and chop off the heads of all your family members - while they make you watch. And in fact some of those at GITMO who have been released were subsequently RECAPTURED after a fire fight.

Also, in a 'War' the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply anyway, and neither does the Geneva Convention to these maggots as they are not "soldiers" they're terrorists. But I don't want to confuse you with more facts.

65 posted on 06/18/2005 7:25:31 AM PDT by Condor51 (Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites - Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson