One-party rule is even worse, you know.
This isn’t a Democrat vs Republican thing. It’s a Legislative branch vs Executive branch debate.
If Bush’s alleged crimes should be investigated, Congress should be doing it. White Houses don’t investigate past regimes because each new regime thinks it can use the power stolen from the legislature better than the previous regime. And year after year Congress has shown itself willing to allow its power to be eroded.
Unless the citizenry pushes Obama and the congress to do so, they are unlikely to. We choose here how we want to be governed. I think it’s a nonpartisan issue. I’ve been pleased to see some high profile Democratic politicians pushed out of power recently. I hope it keeps up as long as necessary.
Are you, a lawyer, seriously arguing that there should be no consequences for violating someone’s Constitutional rights?
No, he isn’t. He’s saying that you can’t just make them up as you along if there is no written penalty for it, though. Can’t you see that?
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Bricker is speaking only of CRIMINAL prosecutions for violations of the 4th Amendment. Although I strongly suspect he is either ignoring or unaware of 18 USC 242.
" Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any."
I wish somebody would take the time to explain to me why prisoners of war/enemy combatants (if they were arrested in error, because the “insurgents” were blending into the general population without uniforms, etc whose fault is that, anyway?) are entitled to rights under the U.S. Constitution. I may be mistaken, but I always just assumed that those rights applied to U.S. citizens, not just any (ahem) Schmoe who turned up. The reason the Japanese internment was wrong was that the detainees were citizens!
I guess I also have a problem with the U.S. beating itself up for making Gitmo detainees uncomfortable. Does anybody remember what Iraqis did to our people? Daniel Perl, anyone? He was a journalist, for Pete’s sake, and they sawed off his head with a dull knife. And filmed it and put it on TV.
shrug Whatever.
I’m not sure why I even bother, since I’ll be shouted down anyway.
They’re under US custody and control, for one thing. For another, the Fifth Amendment says “any person”, not “any citizen”.
They also have rights under the Geneva Conventions, to which the US is a signatory and therefore subject to them. Except that, according to the Gonzalez memo, those are “quaint” and “obsolete”.
Now, what does “what Iraqis did to our people” have to do with the Gitmo detainees? :dubious:
Not all of them are entitled to all Constitutional rights. Detainees who are detained in the US or on US territory are entitled to, at least, challenge their detention through habeas corpus. The latest case on the issue is Boudemiene v. Bush.
I kinda want my country to be better than evil terrorists. Apparently, you don’t. That’s sad.
THAT is precisely what this administration has been counting on. A nice collective shrug so they don’t have to worry about the consequences of their actions. That’s sad.
If you have an actual argument to make, cites to add, or intelligent rationale for your position, it can be a debate. But you, apparently, are happy just to play the “poor poor pitiful conservative me” card. That’s sad too.
Excellent, Hamlet.
This is exactly why I’ve been a member since 2005 and only made 268 posts. I’m by nature a peacemaker (or, as would be considered here, a wimp) and I don’t like to get into arguments. I especially don’t like to get into arguments with people who I know will do exactly what you just did - pounce on me just because I (apparently) am a conservative, and as a conservative am clearly In League with the Forces of Eeeeeeeeevil. I don’t quite understand why defending the right of the U.S. to defend itself, and to make a moral distinction between depriving a person of sleep and depriving them of their HEAD is “not wanting my country to be better than evil terrorists.” I resent the implication that I’m a pitiful person who is not worthy of being treated as an individual, but can be dismissed as one of “those people.” This entire forum isn’t about debates, it’s "dogpile on the conservative and/or theistic and/or anyone who’s not part of the “cool kids club.” I’m not going to play this game anymore. How about a nice game of chess, Professor Falken?
As you were, folks.
Quit being a martyr. Nobody’s picking on you because you’re a conservative.
But your argument that being arrested is sufficent proof of a crime is wrong. People can be arrested by mistake. That’s why we’re supposed to have trials. So that people who were arrested have a chance to defend themselves. I know it seems inconvenient but you might be arrested by mistake yourself someday and it will make a lot more sense then.
I didn’t “pounce on you”" because you’re a conservative, I pointed out what you were wrong about and invited you to further debate. You, instead, decided to play the victim. And you continue to do so. Good luck with that.
It would help, if you are interested in actual debate, if you stuck with actual facts instead of making stuff up. No one in this thread has equated, as you do, lack of sleep, with brutal murder.
I didn’t dismiss you, I pointed out the flaws in your … well, lets generously call it an “argument”.
This is a debate forum. If you want to engage in intelligent debate, you have to expect people to disagree with you. If that makes you run away whining about being oppressed, I’m sorry.
Or Daniel Pearl, who was killed in Pakistan.
Was that supposed to be an answer of some kind?
Okay, so it looks like there is a law against violating the Fourth Amendment. Problem solved, if you can prove a violation to a jury beyond reasonable doubt.
I have a question though: why don’t police who violate the Constitution get sentenced if there is a law against it? To my knowledge, the evidence just gets thrown out, and the police usually just get disciplined or fired.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
When America was still a gleam in Tom Paine’s mind, torture was wrong. When the Constitution was ratified, it was still wrong. If, tomorrow, the Constitution is canceled by a signing statement from The Leader - it will be just as wrong. Indeed, if a special amendment to the Constitution permitting torture at the discretion of the President establishing legal innocence for anyone acting at his directon - it wouldn’t be a bit better. We would simply be that much the worse.
Which carries the punishment against The People in that they don’t have an entitlement to their rights when The Man comes after them. The People as a whole and non-infringed citizens don’t have recourse (the aggreived prisoners perhaps have (or more rather had) habeas corpus writ rights which have narrowed tremendously over the years. If the constitution is not upheld with respect to the accused and the guilty, then the innocent are not in a position to say that they are entitled to at least what the accused and guilty get, because, after all, they are innocent. Well, innocent is a presumption, as I’ve discussed elsewhere. It’s a meaningless presumption if it is only a legal technicality that everybody, including judges and juries, snicker at under their breath. It is a presumption that protects everybody, including the actual innocent, which is rarely even known.
You can amend the constitution all you want if you get enough people to go along with it, but that doesn’t mean that actions such as torture or targeting civilians aren’t fundamentally evil. Remember who came to power legally and had the legislature ratify each of his evil actions? Yep, that guy.
It’s supposed to be me pointing out the additional absurdity of PerditaX using the case of Daniel Pearl, who was killed in Pakistan, to justify the abuse directed at the mainly Afghani population of Gitmo.