RoR: Forum

Really? I think someone who thinks that after I capture an enemy on the battlefield committing an atrocity I should send them back to the USA for trial by some rich leftist lawyer.

Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who fight out of uniform or commit atrocities – i.e., murder prisoners or target and kill noncombatants – may be sent before firing squads.

Wehrmacht soldiers who penetrated American lines in the Battle of the Bulge by wearing U.S. Army uniforms hastily shed them to fight in German uniforms – or else they could have been shot when captured. OSS agents, dropped behind enemy lines to kill German pilots and Nazi collaborators, knew they were not entitled to the same protections as 82nd Airborne troops dropped behind German lines on D-Day.

I contend that people planting bombs in marketplaces are exactly the same, and in fact the US is showing too much restraint, not too little.

So when leftists or libertarians who are so far off the deep end they are the same as leftists tell us the "US violates the Geneva Convention" they are full of SHIT.

Post 41

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 12:01pm

Chris, you are correct that there has not been a formal declaration of war - so far as the US - if not between you and me. "Mr" Lord, they miss you on SOLO. Be aware that as the only poster here who uses the phrase King George (and several other idiosyncrasies) your identity with a certain poster there becomes quite obvious.

Post 42

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 12:04pm

The Battle of the Bulge happened long after a Congressional declartion of war. There has been no declaration of war.

How do you know who is planting bombs in marketplaces? Do you have some type of super senses of hearing and/or vision that enable you to see everything? If you have such senses, you could easily prevent such things from happening.

Post 43

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 12:19pm

Thanks, Chris, as usual, for injecting the sole note of sanity in this discussion. The other two folks are strictly from outer space. But what else is new ?

I've seen these people make extremely rational and intelligent comments with regard to other issues. What has been going with the movement since 9/11? I do not know.

People are hard to analyze. But sometimes they lose that sanity when they get really desperate. The American people really are waking up. The question is: What will they do? What kind of soul-searching will happen?

I was reading an article today which mentioned that there is a danger of encirclement, especially if the US makes the extremely stupid decision to attack Iran. It's a definite possibility. It's happened before.

Post 44

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 11:39am

Kurt, as usual you are reduced to obscenities. Bush
has not even charged 99.99% of the people he has
been illegally detaining for over five years. His suspension
of habeas corpus is an ominous move towards a police state, fortunately there are people other than yourself
who can recognize that. I read the old SOLO before it
happily became polycentric and I can't recall a single
posting of yours that was at all thoughtful, just a knee
jerk Archie Bunker response. "Rich leftist" lawyers !
That's rich coming from you. And spare us the WW2
analogies, that was not a good war, and Iraq & Iran
are not the Wehrmacht.

Post 45

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 11:45am

By the way, did anyone else notice the way the Peikoff thread on the elections disappeared ? Can't even find
it in the archives.

Post 46

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 12:47pm

Jack,

That thread is still there.

Stop being a jerk. Your self righteous attitude is annoying me.

Ethan

Edited for profanity

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 10/31, 7:44pm)

Post 47

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 12:59pm

Where is the thread, Ethan ? Like your brain brother Kurt
you are reduced to obscenities. If I had seen it I wouldn't
have inquired about it.
As far as annoying you, I don't know you and could care less.

/

Post 48

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 1:33pm

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/1545.shtml

Here you go jerk! :-)

Edited for profanity.

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 10/31, 7:43pm)

Post 49

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 2:52pm

Well, thank you, but I don't need to stoop to profanity....

Post 50

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 6:54pm

Must be something in the water around here...

Post 51

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 7:20pm

Kurt wrote:

Jonathan Fauth & John Armaos - Read the article on CONTEXT that Joe posted. That is the difference between enemy combatants/non-citizens and domestic criminals. One action is done on a small scale in order to rob or kill or gain some individual benefit to the criminal, the other (say, a Terrorist attach) is an attack upon the entire Nation, its people, infrastructure, and morale. See 9/11 for what can happen. No domestic criminals ever did anything close to that. First of all, they don't want to die. Second, it gains them nothing. Again, the CONTEXT matters a great deal here!

Kurt, I don't think I said anything to the contrary did I? Of course a distinction can be made between types of crimes, such as petty theft or acts of terrorism. But what does that have to do with due process and the powers the government has? If we let government operate unaccountable to public scrutiny, when due process is no longer uniform, and held from public view, when the government has the power to do what it can on a whim, is that healthy for a free society? If someone is accused of terrorism by the government, what if they were falsely accused? How do you know the government has the right person in detention? What due process can the accused hope to have when they're deprived a lawyer and access to a public trial, i.e. deprived of due process?

Post 52

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 7:43pm

I'd like to take a moment to apologize to jack lord for my use of profanity. It was far too harsh. I'm editing the two posts to reflect this.

Ethan

Post 53

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 8:00pm

Ted wrote:

All I want is a few specific unredressed civil rights violations

I already gave you several examples. Just because we may not know specific individuals that were victims of these civil rights violations, does not mean we do not have evidence such violations took place. To use an analogy, if we see an individual hacked to death in a back alley way, it is reasonable to assume the individual fell victim to a murderer, but just because we can't name the assailant, it doesn't mean we can't use some basic deductive reasoning here and come to the conclusion SOMEONE committed murder.

We know about the illegal NSA wiretapping program. We know some individual's 4th amendment rights were violated. I can't produce for you a name because the government has done this in secret and will not reveal the people that were wiretapped. Does it make a difference to you if I can give you a specific name for a civil rights violation? The FACT is we know civil rights for some individuals were violated. What more do you want? Or are you so wrapped up in whatever idealogy you have trapped yourself into from listening to reason?

During war, using powers that have been established by Congress, it is proper for our government to take such actions as monitoring, through overseas conduits, communications with suspected terrorists and enemies, even if the people calling them happen to be calling from the United States. This information could not be used properly in domestic civil or criminal proceedings against citizens for non-war related matters. Even when it is used, it is still subject both to Judicial and Congressional review and oversight, as it should be. The Congress is not ignorant of the NSA program, it established the NSA. The Federal Courts, even when they have been denied jurisdiction under the Constitution and by the Congress, over the disposition of the Guantanamo detainees, have had no problem lording it over the administration, a true abuse of the Court's power which no one in the media cares to bring to our attention, and about which, like the fact that we have indeed found WMD’s in Iraq, the Administration has curiously chosen to remain silent, rather than to protest vigorously.

Ted, you are so woefully ignorant of the facts and of Constitutional law. The NSA wiretaps were not given Judicial oversight. Why do you keep insisting on contradicting reality here? No Judicial oversight was done when this program was operating. I'm all for wiretapping suspected terrorists. As a matter of fact it is quite easy to do by legal means. Congress established the FISA courts, which allows the NSA to get secret wiretaps by court order. These court orders are given in secret when National Security is an issue. In fact, these FISA court orders can be made AFTER THE WIRETAP WAS DONE when time is an issue and the NSA cannot get a court order in time, i.e. FISA court orders can be done retroactively within a specified time frame. When done right, all three branches of government are involved and an investigation is not compromised. But you keep missing the sailent point here, they did these wiretaps without a FISA court order!!!

You also said:

The Federal Courts, even when they have been denied jurisdiction under the Constitution and by the Congress

First off let's get our Constitutional legalities straight here. Congress has the power to decide jurisdictions for courts that are inferior to the Supreme Court. So when you say "Federal Courts" you have to be more specific. Congress DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE THE SUPREME COURT'S JURISDICTION. The Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction ANYWHERE THE GOVERNMENT OPERATES, that includes battlefields where our Military operates, secret prisons set up by our government, and all US military installations located anywhere in the world. (A military base in Guatanomo Bay is still considered American soil, anything owned by the military, such as a base or intallation, is property of the Federal Government and thus the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over it)

Now, the Supreme Court, made the descision that the detainees in Guatanomo Bay had their rights violated. You can spin this any way you want just like President Bush and his attorneys have been trying, but the Supreme Court does not answer to Congress or the President. That's what an independent Judicial System means and why it is so important to have that to ensure freedom. That is PROOF that rights were violated by the Presidency.

The Congress is not ignorant of the NSA program, it established the NSA.

D'uh! Of course they established the NSA! Who is arguing that??? They didn't allow for the NSA to wiretap American citizens without a court order. Capisce?

We also know Bush was content with using torture. Why is there all of a sudden a distinction made between the intent or the moral sanction of using torture and the actual act of using torture? If I was willing to commit murder and my gun jammed am I absolved of all moral culpability because the victim was eventually not harmed? Do we now think Presidents who at the very least we know morally sanction torture, now are not held accountable for this because we can't name a person who was tortured? For crying out loud the President and his Attorney General were content with using any force in interrogations only stopping short at organ failure or death. Are we to throw out any and all deductive reasoning here and say no one was tortured or at the very least no conspiracy to torture or attempt was made?

Post 54

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - 6:34pm

John, my reading of clause two below refutes your CAPITALIZED claim on jurisdiction in your post #41:

Article. III.
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, [i.e., in clause 1 - Ted] the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

I assume you withdraw your claim and your bald accusation of my ignorance? Given that I concede my own errors, when proven, few people get far by just calling me ignorant. I'll answer the rest of your post after we reach an agreement here.

Ted Keer

BTW, I will grant that the Supreme Court, through the established precedent of judicial review, has arrogated to itself the authority to rule acts of Congress unconstitutional, and hence, invalid. But this arrogation does not repeal III.2.2, which would require nothing less than a constitutional amendment, or 5 Justices Souter feeling uppity.

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 11/01, 6:46pm)

Post 55

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - 10:22pm

Ted I can understand how you think I'm wrong as I did not specify the context of jurisdiction I was referring to. But I'm not wrong and I do not take anything back for the following reasons I state below:

Congress can pass laws to regulate the Supreme Courts "appellate jurisdiction" not "original jurisdiction", as you said "judicial review" as established precedent allows for the Supreme Court to review a law or an official act of a government employee or agent for constitutionality or for the violation of basic principles of justice. This is established Constitutional law. Judicial review is not an arrogation of the Supreme Court's powers. Arrogate meaning to unduly assume powers. Let's look at judicial review and what it means and why it is not an arrogation of powers and why Congress under the Constitution does not have the power to decide the Supreme Courts "original" jurisdiction.

Marbury vs. Madison stated that the power for Judicial Review is an implied power based on Articles III and VI of the Constitution. Through a "writ of mandamus" (an issue by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly) which is made directly to the Supreme Court, falls under "original jurisdiction" as it states the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over "Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls" and there is nothing in Clause 2 that allows Congress to regulate or limit this kind of jurisdiction. It only says it can regulate "appellate jurisdiction" which refers only to the ability to overturn decisions made by "inferior" courts such as the Federal Court of Appeals. But here too appellate decisions are made by "public ministers and Consuls" and such if they act in an Unconstituional manner, a writ of mandamus can be made to command this court to behave in a Constitutional manner.

The essentials here that I argue is still relevant. Let's look at clause 2 again:

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction anywhere the government operates and cannot be limited by Congress which includes "Guantanamo Bay" as the people who run Gitmo are "public ministers and Consuls" are they not?

I still stand by the accusations and my proof is still valid and you are still woefully ignorant of Constitutional law. This Presidency has violated civil and human rights. And the Supreme Court's jurisdiction still includes anything a government official does anywhere at anytime and Congress still CANNOT limit this jurisdiction.

So sorry, no agreement here Ted. Nice try though with the jurisdiction equivocation argument but it didn't work.

BTW: I use Caps only to emphasize a point because I find it quicker to do rather than use HTML tags for bold and underline type font because I use Firefox and not Internet Explorer. But for you Ted, I'll take the time and use HTML codes :)

Post 56

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - 11:44pm