Thread: A question on the constitution

Originally Posted by prodigy

Your quote is from the Declaration of Independence, which is an entirely different document than the Constitution. The context in which it was written was basically challenging the monarchy. The assumption in Europe at that time was that royal blood was of a higher value than common people.

Yes the language of the Constitution is a lot more ho-hum because its role is to describe how the federal government is supposed work.
However, I disagree with your contrast to Europe. Take a look at Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for the views on human rights in Europe and specifically England, long before the american colonies decided to become their own country. Secondly US's history on slavery doesn't support a superior value system.

Originally Posted by prodigy

So just to clarify, if a known terrorist was captured and he has knowledge of future attacks, it's not ok to force him to give up this information? I mean he obviously is not going to want to say anything, so I guess we can just let him go? It is wrong to torture him, it is wrong to hold him in prison... what is the best way to handle these people? It's a bad situation, there is no right way to do it, but saying all the ways we have used are wrong without acknowledging the options are very limited doesn't really help. These guys don't play by the rules, if they did they wouldn't be here still. If you play a game against someone who doesn't play by the rules, do you think you can still win?

But isn't this the exact same argument for torturing US citizens who are 'known criminals' so that they can confess and lives be saved? What makes people who happen to possess US citizenship inherently different from those who don't?

Originally Posted by gugi

But isn't this the exact same argument for torturing US citizens who are 'known criminals' so that they can confess and lives be saved? What makes people who happen to possess US citizenship inherently different from those who don't?

I didn't say "known criminals", I said "known terrorists". Terrorists do not have rights. They forfeit their rights when they become a terrorist. US citizenship does not make anyone inherently better than anyone else, I'm in no way implying that it does. When you commit a crime in the United States you still have rights. Committing terrorist acts forfeits those rights, applies to all people, everywhere, in my eyes.

Originally Posted by prodigy

I didn't say "known criminals", I said "known terrorists". Terrorists do not have rights. They forfeit their rights when they become a terrorist. US citizenship does not make anyone inherently better than anyone else, I'm in no way implying that it does. When you commit a crime in the United States you still have rights. Committing terrorist acts forfeits those rights, applies to all people, everywhere, in my eyes.

That's fine and then the question is what is the difference between terrorist and criminal. Should Timothy McVeigh and any of his accomplices or people who may share his view be treated the same way as the accomplices and people who may share the views of the 9/11 bombers have been treated?
I mean if you insist there is a difference you must explain where it is and where do you draw the line

Originally Posted by gugi

That's fine and then the question is what is the difference between terrorist and criminal. Should Timothy McVeigh and any of his accomplices or people who may share his view be treated the same way as the accomplices and people who may share the views of the 9/11 bombers have been treated?
I mean if you insist there is a difference you must explain where it is and where do you draw the line

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, and he was treated as such. The FBI drew a line...

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; andOccur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

I'm a United States Marine, I have strong feelings on this issue because I've lost brothers to these Islamic extremists, aka terrorists. I'm curious as to your connection to them? I understand the concept of devils advocate, but you seem more like an advocate.

Originally Posted by gugi

Not really - you can vote for candidates you pick yourself. You just have to convince them to run first and then convince enough of your fellow citizens to do the same and your candidate wins. You can run yourself too.
Do you need money and power to convince somebody? At which point you get what you want at a gun point, and why do you think it's better?

Frankly, when people have the option to vote and elect those who govern them in a peaceful manner, yet keep being unhappy with those they elect, how would killing each other will change anything? Sure the side that wins gets to pick the rulers, but are they going to make better choices, or agree among themselves when they had just killed a whole lot of people they disagree with?

At the end of the day you can't fix your own failures by killing other people.

Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to pull it and use it :<0) Funny how your mind automatically went there

Yes, there may be some who think targeting a few in the spotlight would silence the rest if not change the mindset about the whole situation. It doesn't take more than 1 killing to get the whole country focused. Sometimes no one has to get hurt at all. Approximately 2,000 armed citizens just told the Feds from their State Capitol, " No we won't comply " and no shots were fired.(the number varies from 1,000 to 4,000) The largest felony civil disobedience rally ever in the nation’s history. The police at the scene said it was probably the safest place on the planet at that time. No citation was given for not having a permit to assemble :<0)

This is the sort of thing I was referring too. Watch for more of this kind of protest. If and when it gets violent, will be up to people/ authorities actually involved at the scene. Pushing, shoving, and name calling is all anybody is ready for right now. No response from the Feds ? Good call ! Stay tuned.

And thanks for pointing out more details about this statement " Many believe the system is working and to some extent it is."

Yes I agree with you, the elections are bought and paid for.

As for Terrorists,,, WTHeck do you do ?
First, I want to know what we are shooting at ? Seems we may be wasting a lot of ammo.
Then, why are they driving around in and using old US stuff ? Seems like we are leaving too many toys behind.
Where is the good intell on this ? If I am supposed to control what my government does I want to know facts upon which to base my opinion. Not what is fed to me via public television. Not what I have to hunt down and decipher.

This may be a wild off road trip "for this thread" but I just read that The President told the DHS that radical right wing extremists are the biggest terror threat to America. So I guess this would be the Fed response to the other thing I mentioned ?
And what is the definition of that exactly ? McVeigh comes to mind but does he mean Snowden ?
Does this mean we are no longer worried about the other threats so much anymore ?

Originally Posted by prodigy

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, and he was treated as such. The FBI drew a line...

I'm a United States Marine, I have strong feelings on this issue because I've lost brothers to these Islamic extremists, aka terrorists. I'm curious as to your connection to them? I understand the concept of devils advocate, but you seem more like an advocate.

Since you're asking me I will simply answer your question - I have no connection to terrorists, domestic or international. I've lived in a country with oppressive government and now I live in US with much less oppressive one, so I do not like when it wants to move towards a dictatorship under the pretense of 'saving lives'.

Originally Posted by prodigy

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, and he was treated as such. The FBI drew a line...

As far as I know McVeigh was not waterboarded, he was tried convicted and ultimately executed. You are advocating that something different needs to be done with international terrorists, why?

Originally Posted by 10Pups

Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to pull it and use it :<0) Funny how your mind automatically went there

There are two ways to resolve a problem - peacefully through discussion or at a gun point. And we have agreed that nobody has the right to threaten to kill somebody else because they disagree with them.
If you bring weapons to protest in order to strengthen your point that's not exactly following the framework of the constitution where political changes are enacted through the ballot box.
I have no idea what protest you are describing but it sounds like violation of the constitution - according to it disagreements need to be settled in court, not by simply non-compliance.

Edit: one more point

Originally Posted by 10Pups

Yes I agree with you, the elections are bought and paid for.

I think many people agree with this, but that makes no difference. The only difference is to stop selling them - basically for voters to stop being swayed by the most expensive political campaign, or in other words we have only ourselves to blame and can only change it by changing ourselves.

Originally Posted by gugi

As far as I know McVeigh was not waterboarded, he was tried convicted and ultimately executed. You are advocating that something different needs to be done with international terrorists, why?

I can't see anything wrong with due process for either domestic or foreign terrorists followed by execution if found guilty. Seems a fitting end.

Bob

Originally Posted by prodigy

I didn't say "known criminals", I said "known terrorists". Terrorists do not have rights. They forfeit their rights when they become a terrorist. US citizenship does not make anyone inherently better than anyone else, I'm in no way implying that it does. When you commit a crime in the United States you still have rights. Committing terrorist acts forfeits those rights, applies to all people, everywhere, in my eyes.

Ignoring what rights terrorists have or don't: the huge problem is that the US has a habit of kidnapping anyone they 'think' might be a terrorist, or look like one in bad light. Killing, maiming, or disappearing people on a hunch is an utterly indefensible act.

I might be old fashioned this way, but I think that torturing people on the premise that they 'may' be terrorists is morally corrupt. It's what happened in the Soviet Union and many other oppressed countries.

Here. This is a perfect example of everything that can go wrong when people can label someone a terrorist and when, once the label is applied, torture is just fine. Once he was labeled, he had no defenses anymore. No representation. No help. He was an innocent man, utterly at the mercy of his US captors, and they didn't have any.
Dilawar (torture victim) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the man did not have an American nationality. And foreign lives are worthless so you might as well torture them, just in case?
Imo, the people who did this to him are the real evil men and deserve to burn in hell.

Originally Posted by prodigy

There has to be a line where you no longer have the rights that law abiding, beneficial members of the human race follow. These people you are so strongly defending would kill you in a heartbeat and not have the slightest remorse.

That may be true, but that is also why our society is BETTER than there's. BECAUSE we follow the rule of Law . . . BECAUSE we refuse to debase ourselves by descending to their level . . . BECAUSE we value life, even the lives of the scum you refer to . . . BECAUSE we do not casually discard our humanity like some soiled shirt, to be laundered an put back on AFTER we have done the dirty work you describe.

There IS a line between who WE are as a society, and who THEY are . . . and we DARE NOT cross it. If we do, we are not better than the animals we portray them (accurately) to be.