"[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
--- Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787
"[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
--- Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787
Array title="Craic has a reputation beyond repute">
I understand that. However, it was within the context of constricting the govts. ability to remove the rights of citizens, not British soldiers that they would be fighting.Originally Posted by Vis
Your confusing the Decl of Ind with the Const. The Const and the Bill of rights came after the war. The Bill of rights were controversial in that it was felt they might reduce liberty by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon. (right to privacy, anyone?) The rights applied to all men. (it didn't apply to women, blacks or indians because they weren't "men". Our national shame)
Array title="Craic has a reputation beyond repute">
No, I am not. Though my sentence upon reading it probably seemed that way, I was thinking of the war of 1812. However, what I should have said was, "they were not thinking about bringing soldiers off the battlefield to try them in courts in later wars." Sorry for the confusion-cause my actual statement couldn't have been true, there was no way they saw the war of 1812 coming while the BOR was being written, except in the most general, "We will probably fight them again someday" idea.
As for our national "Shame"... that is a different discussion. IMO, a little anachronistic.
Enemy soldiers weren't accused of committing a crime.
Array title="NJarhead has much to be proud of">
These tactics yield results. Those results save lives; American Lives. We've thwarted roughly 60 attacks since 9-11. We were vulnerable to an event such as 9-11 due to Bill Clintons cuts in Human Intelligence. The Bill of Rights was intended to protect citizens of the United States.
What exactly does King George III have to do with any of this?
Array title="NJarhead has much to be proud of">
Right, and our just government has not refused it for its people. What is your point? Do you have one?
Getting rid of many rights would save lives. The government should be able to search you and detain you and listen to every word you say at all times for the greater good. Give me liberty or give me death? No, give me safety and screw liberty.
Array title="NJarhead has much to be proud of">
Sounds like YOU are confusing the two. The Declaration of Independence was written by Jefferson using the words of John Locke and in it he declared "ALL MEN are created equal." The UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION defines the rights of the People of the United States and establishes the balance of power within its people Government.
December 15, 1791 Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Last edited by fansince'76; 05-03-2011 at 02:26 PM. Reason: No need to get personal. Thanks.
Array title="Craic has a reputation beyond repute">
That is the answer then. Don't put it in the court system. They are enemy soldiers, so treat them as such. Period. No bill of Rights to worry about.
The Constitution grants limited powers to the government. All others are retained. The founders believed in natural rights. They were products of the Enlightenment. You can't look at it through the prism of today's meaning of rights and governmental powers and understand what they meant.
Array title="NJarhead has much to be proud of">
And which U.S. Citizen (or citizens) has had to endure this? Hmm? These detainees aren't even protected under the Geneva Convention as they aren't uniformed personnel.
What about the liberties of 3,000 innocent civilians?
Array title="NJarhead has much to be proud of">
WTF does any of that have to do with what I said or the fact that you are the one confusing the two documents and how they pertain to a U.S. Citizen, a uniformed enemy combatant and a terrorist????
The detainees aren't protected because of the interpretation the government wanted to use. Just like WWII internment camps, or the McCarthy hearings, America has a long history of losing its ideals to fear. Decades later we apologize.
those terms mean nothing from the standpoint of the natural right of men in the language of the founders. I understand that you want the government to be able to point at someone and label them in a way that strips them of all rights to due process. It gives you comfort. But what if they point and label you that way? What could you do about it?
Array title="Craic has a reputation beyond repute">
By that same token, the enlightenment concept of rights was that God gave them to man. Founded in the Enlightened religion of Deism. That is why man cannot take them from each other. Hence, the establishment of religion clause should not be interpreted as removing God from govt. but rather, not establishing any particular methodology such as Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Judaism, etc.
So sadly, I feel that your last statement, while true, is exactly what IS being done in the courts today, especially when it comes to the issue of religion.
Array title="NJarhead has much to be proud of">
Bullshit. They DO NOT fall under the blanket of the U.S. Constitution.
Your other two examples are of American Citizens and they do not apply here.
It sounds like YOU are the one who wants the Constitution to say something it doesn't.
What I am stating are facts. What you are stating is.....specualtion? wishful thinking? Fantasy?
Array title="NJarhead has much to be proud of">
BTW - You never answered my question. Since you're a SpecOps expert, I was curious as to when you were a CIA Operative. I wonder if we didn't cross paths over at SOTG.
I'm sorry, I must be speaking over your head. You invoked the Geneva Convention. That's what i was responding to about the interpretation. Still with me?
read this (slowly):
All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another. —
When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.—
Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact necessarily ceded remains. —
All positive and civil laws, should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity. —
As neither reason requires, nor religeon permits the contrary, every Man living in or out of a state of civil society, has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. —
"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty" in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former. —
In regard to Religeon, mutual tolleration in the different professions thereof, is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced; and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind: And it is now generally agreed among christians that this spirit of toleration in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society "is the chief characteristical mark of the true church" (footnote: See Locks Letters on Toleration.) & In so much that Mr. Lock has asserted, and proved beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society….
The natural liberty of Men by entering into society is abridg’d or restrained so far only as is necessary for the Great end of Society the best good of the whole—
In the state of nature, every man is under God, Judge and sole Judge, of his own rights and the injuries done him: By entering into society, he agrees to an Arbiter or indifferent Judge between him and his neighbours; but he no more renounces his original right, than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to Referees or indifferent Arbitrations. In the last case he must pay the Referees for time and trouble; he should be also willing to pay his Just quota for the support of government, the law and constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial Judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil ecclesiastical, marine or military. —
Do you begin to see?
(yes I'm being condescending but he raised his voice at me)
You mean when you were conflating prudent preparation with delay? I ignored those posts out of kindness.
Array title="NJarhead has much to be proud of">
But clearly you're a know-it-all, aren't you? You ignored that post because I called you're ass out and you don't have a fucking answer. Let's be honest.
Let's try to keep this civil, please.
Array title="NJarhead has much to be proud of">
What a complete moron. I brought up the Geneva Convention and you hit me with the Rights of the Colonists???
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/right_col.htm
What planet are you from? Do you always struggle with reading comprehension and finishing a discussion/staying on topic? Or are you just high? You are trying so hard to make us believe you are some kind of intellectual, yet you've done nothing but use a couple of $0.25 phrases and evasion in your arguments.
Are you still with me or are we going to discuss the Magna Carta next?
I said lets keep this civil.
For my part, this is all in fun
Might be fun for you but we are not doing this here....
We have different discussions going. I was explaining natural rights. You need an understanding of those to understand the meaning of the Bill of Rights and the fact that it wasn't meant to grant anything. It was just an incomplete listing of some of the things the gov't wasn't supposed to try to exercise power over.
We can just talk about how we need to be true to ourselves and not lower ourselves to the level of our enemies. When you lower yourself like that it's hard to raise back up.
I'll use this prior post as a springboard to admit that I was wrong in this case about the timing...it was originally planned for the prior night.
However the condescending and superior tone, as if you were a special forces operative or something, are duly noted...
Fire Goodell
Array title="LLT has a reputation beyond repute">
Everyone has already been warned about this thread....the next baited thread, is going to get the entire thread locked down.
Last warning.
Everyone of you are smart enough to debate civilly...I know that for a fact. Please do so.
"I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play"
-- Jack Lambert --
Array title="NJarhead has much to be proud of">
I'm sorry but you are jumping all over the place. You are attempting to implement what you believe our founding fathers were thinking into what they actually agreed on would be the law of our land. You mentioned The Geneva Convention because I brought it up, and then cited Colonists Rights in the view of Sam Adams. I still can't help but notice that you are going way off topic. Maybe not in your mind, but this discussion is bout THIS day and age.
I also would like an explanation for the "are you clueless about how these operations work" comment by you. Because I can assure you that I do. It would appear that you attempted to pass yourself off as an expert and you mentioned moonlight because you heard it on the news. Do you actually know how/why moon light plays a role, for instance? Anyway, I'm curious as to the basis for your stance as an expert in this regard. Thank you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote