Officer plans to refuse to go to Iraq

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:42 am

This is basic Constitutional law, Fuggle. Anyone who has read the document even once should know these things. There are 38 other posts in this forum dealing with it.

As for the Declaration of Independence, it carries no legal weight. It was an explanation of why the colonies were seceding from the British Empire. It ceased to have any legal meaning when the Articles of Confederation were passed, and even less legal meaning when the Constitution was accepted. It has great symbolic meaning, but the courts defer to the Constitution alone in determining rights.

The US Constitution applies to all people in all US states, territories, and possessions, except where it explicitly states that a particular right or privilege is for citizens only (voting, running for office, etc). It ceases to have any power whatsoever once outside of US territory. If a British citizen is on US territory, then that person has a right to be free of unwarranted search and seizure. A US citizen does not have that right when he is on British soil, or indeed anywhere that is not US soil. An Iraqi citizen in US custody in Baghdad does not have protections that are in the Constitution. He falls under Iraq law in that case. A US soldier turned over to another nation for a civilian crime has the rights under that law.

Sometimes I really, seriously wonder if you're just a troll, in here only to feed on posts. Even Salvation didn't go to the lengths you do sometimes.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:07 am

As for the Declaration of Independence, it carries no legal weight. It was an explanation of why the colonies were seceding from the British Empire. It ceased to have any legal meaning when the Articles of Confederation were passed, and even less legal meaning when the Constitution was accepted. It has great symbolic meaning, but the courts defer to the Constitution alone in determining rights.

I don't cite it as a precedent for law, I merely cite it in the hope of giving weight to the question of why you think the ideas upon which this country were supposed to have been founded should be so wholly ignore in determining how it should act. Is there to be no standard, no sense of how we should act? Should the whole of the law and the whole of action be whatever the heck we can get away with?

It's not wholly a question of if it's legal or not, but also a question of, is it right, or not?

Not a troll, Martin. Just someone who can't comprehend your world or what's supposed to be my "fellow man", and gets a bit frustrated when his best efforts fail, and is too prone to returning hostility with hostility in kind.

Besides... I get a massive headache from dealing with some people here who my posts irritate. Ask Wocket, or Kitsune, or Azurain, Furre, Layla, Blair or Mike - I ernestly believe in what I say, and it hurts my soul and sometimes gives me physical headaches, dealing with some people here. The arguments are anything but 'feeding' me, and I don't get a sense of pleasure, let alone trollish delight, from this.

Phong · Post by **Phong** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:08 pm

Wow, it litterally hurts MY head how you seem to miss basic concepts sometimes, Fuggle.

I swear, it's like you've never had any responsibilities in your whole life, that you just fail to understand the concepts of duty, and obligation. I mean seriously, I was raised to believe that my WORD was my bond, and that if I ever went so far as to sign a contract I was bound to it. I was taught to consider who I gave my word to, and think very carefully about what a contract was and what it was binding me to, because once you give your word, or sign your name you can't back out of it.

You just don't seem to get the very concept of self-sacrifice. I'm not saying you don't have an academic knowledge of it, but you don't seem to understand it, to use a cliche, with your heart. I can't imagine having a world-view that includes expecting everyone to allow me to break my word because of something I FEEL is unconsionable, because the very existance of a legal system is the biggest proof there is that most people don't consider morals as fluid and relative as you do. I don't know how justice fits into your apparent view that every person can individually have their own moral code, and those codes can all be right?

SunTzu · Post by **SunTzu** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:38 pm

So you people totally agree with keeping people who in many cases have not done anything in custody for YEARS, with nothing even close to a trial? People who have been classified by someone as an enemy combatant, but not had a chance to defend himself?

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:45 pm

SunTzu, did you reply to some post on a previous page without realizing that there were more posts to follow, because you certainly don't seem to have read the posts that describe the way those things work.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:56 pm

[quote="SunTzu";p="645216"]So you people totally agree with keeping people who in many cases have not done anything in custody for YEARS, with nothing even close to a trial? People who have been classified by someone as an enemy combatant, but not had a chance to defend himself?[/quote]
No, I don't, at least not in the ambiguous state that is the "enemy combatant." The treaties and laws that we have recognize criminals and POWs, and both have certain rights and responsibilities. However, the Constitution does not apply at Gitmo. I was addressing that fact.

SunTzu · Post by **SunTzu** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:37 pm

Ah, im sorry then, i got the impression that you were in favor with it.

Americans seems to idealize the constitution sometimes, and thats why it puzzles me how people can look at the letter of the law, and not the intent. I hardly think that is what your founding fathers wanted.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:41 pm

Thank you, SunTzu. And again, the question, not of legality, but of principle, that no one has answered: According to the founding ideals of this country, everyone, not just american citizens, have basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is it not, in principle, this idea that our government was founded on respecting? Do the limits on the government's action not exist in the name of respecting this idea? If they do, then why do you want to throw it away, disregard it, in principle, when dealing with foreign nationals, just because you can legally get away with it?

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:44 pm

Because dealing with the enemy, or with civilians in a combat zone, is fundamentally different than dealing with the average trouble-maker down the street.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:50 am

But you'd make the effort for a citizen enemy?

Or, basically, you could restate that as "they don't deserve human rights once they become my enemy"?

Seraphim · Post by **Seraphim** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:05 am

POW's are nothing new Fuggle. Sometimes you just don't have the time to give them war crime trials.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:11 am

However, no one's talking about POWs.

And why don't you have the time? We already hold people for a span of time before trying them, if we catch them in the act. And a trial for POWs would be pretty quick & easy, even given due process. Why can't you try them once you've got them in a POW camp to make sure they belong and keep with the whole "we'll only ignore your rights after moving through the due process"?

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:29 am

Normal POWs will provide you their name, rank, and serial number. They know that they can and likely will be held until the end of hostilities; there were people on both sides of WW2 that were held for years unless traded in prisoner exchange programs. Generally speaking, POWs do not go on trial unless suspected of war crimes, and that does not include simply taking a shot at the capturing force. He could have machine-gunned an entire company rushing to take a hill, and cannot be punished for it. In any case, attempting to try hundreds or thousands of POWs in many cases is impractical as it removes valued personnel from the field.

Combat zones are very different places than you're used to.

Now, in the current situation, I don't see the reason that many of them have been held for so long. The moment there's no doubt that they were anything other than a foot soldier, even as the Taleban (and they should probably be treated as POWs due to their de facto governance status), they should be returned to their home country if at all possible.

SunTzu · Post by **SunTzu** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:55 pm

And especially if you werent even a "soldier" but someone mistakenly incarcereted with no trial.

Dont get me wrong, if you invade South Korea, feel free to hold their POWs until the fighting is (basically) over. But dont hold people who you are not sure of are fighters, with no trial.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:24 pm

So you are ignoring the part where some of the Gitmo prisoners, released because they were thought not to be a danger, and after they had sworn that they would not return to the fight, have turned up participating in terrorist activities?

Real Life Forums

Officer plans to refuse to go to Iraq

Who is online