I just noticed something

[NYcarbineer]

For God's sakes, is TK now actually arguing FOR killing US citizens with no Due Process? My, how conservative.

lol, the last time he said so many stupid things in one of his threads he had the thread closed.

 

[deltex1]

Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey
The truth is clear: Bergdahl is home.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He is home...at a time convenient to the regime...that is the truth, Gertrude.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Where in the Constitution does it say that non-citizens don't have the same rights as citizens?

Are Constitutional rights "inalienable" and from god, or are they just figments bestowed only on citizens by various governments?

Good question. The Constitution applies to Government treatment of US citizens. As I have read, I cannot find any clause in the constitution that we are to grant non-citizens any constitutional rights. We have law that says they must be naturalized before they can enjoy protections of the US Government. I've read supreme court decisions saying we should anyway, but they violate the essence of the 14th Amendment.

So, by strict legal interpretation, Constitutional rights can only be bestowed by a government on it's own citizens. Philosophically, they are granted by God as inalienable rights.

You know that's complete nonsense, right?

Non-citizens are protected within our legal system with the same constitutional rights as citizens. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone within the jurisdiction of our government, not just citizens.

As the Eisentrager Supreme Court Case in 1950, and Braden in 1973 both made clear, jurisdiction relies on the capabilities of the courts to process the someone being held in custody. In Bergdahl's case, he is subject to our jurisdiction, only because he still has to answer for possible crimes committed against the United States. Otherwise, his renunciation of his citizenship severely limits the courts ability to prosecute him. He as at the mercy of a military court, not a civilian one. In the 5 terrorists case, they are no longer being held, nor are they within our jurisdiction to prosecute. Thus, they have no constitutional rights, they were freed and absolved of any crime of wrongdoing. It however doesn't stop us from killing them on the battlefield instead of capturing them again.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Wow.

Tahmooressi is innocent. He had no intent of being in Mexico or to illegally smuggle weapons across the border. But he's being treated like he committed an act of war. He is being beaten and abused by Mexican authorities.

Bergdahl is guilty. You have a man who deserted his country, left a note to his fellow comrades, settled his affairs, renounced his citizenship, took a few select items with him and left. The evidence points to guilt. When we get him home, there is no signs of abuse or maltreatment.

If Obama had gotten both men out subsequently, then I wouldn't be raising such a fuss, now would I?

According to the Mexican authorities, Tahmooressi is not "innocent". He's being held because he broke Mexican law.

According to our legal system, Bergdahl is not "guilty" until it's been proven in a court of law (or a military court martial).

You aren't in a position to offer judgement in either case, since you clearly don't have enough information on either situation.

"According to Mexican authorities..."

So what makes you think they are telling the truth? Their system works on 'guilty until proven innocent.'

"He's being held because he broke Mexican law"

How can you prove he broke Mexican law? He had no intent of being there or smuggling weapons anywhere. If my knowledge serves, intent is key in convicting anyone of a crime. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"According to our legal system..."

What I have heard so far is that we should respect the Mexican Justice System in this matter. All we've heard from them is that he is 'not innocent.' We've heard from him that he has been mistreated.

"You are not in a position to offer judgement in either case..."

Are you? You want to talk down to me as if I know little to nothing, but my history here shows I do tons of research. Do you have sufficient information to form a conclusion? I don't make conclusions wantonly. I rarely debate on emotion alone.

1. Why would the Mexican authorities be lying? What purpose would that serve? What does Mexico gain from having this guy locked up?

2. I don't have to "prove" that he broke Mexican law, it's accepted knowledge that he did. It's against the law to cross the border into Mexico with guns in your car. He did just that.

3. Who have you heard that from? We don't have to "respect" the Mexican legal system, it's corrupt and awful. But Mexico is still a sovereign country and an ally - and it's not as simple as you seem to think it is to get Tahmooressi out.

4. The information necessary to make a valid judgement in either case is not available by Google search. No matter how many op-eds you've read in your "research", it's not enough. Has your "research" given the Mexican authorities side of the Tahmooressi story? Does your "research" into Bergdahl include testimony from his command structure, or anything official - or is it just third-hand stories from retired soldiers?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Good question. The Constitution applies to Government treatment of US citizens. As I have read, I cannot find any clause in the constitution that we are to grant non-citizens any constitutional rights. We have law that says they must be naturalized before they can enjoy protections of the US Government. I've read supreme court decisions saying we should anyway, but they violate the essence of the 14th Amendment.

So, by strict legal interpretation, Constitutional rights can only be bestowed by a government on it's own citizens. Philosophically, they are granted by God as inalienable rights.

You know that's complete nonsense, right?

Non-citizens are protected within our legal system with the same constitutional rights as citizens. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone within the jurisdiction of our government, not just citizens.

As the Eisentrager Supreme Court Case in 1950, and Braden in 1973 both made clear, jurisdiction relies on the capabilities of the courts to process the someone being held in custody. In Bergdahl's case, he is subject to our jurisdiction, only because he still has to answer for possible crimes committed against the United States. In the 5 terrorists case, they are no longer being held, nor are they within our jurisdiction to prosecute. Thus, they have no constitutional rights, they were freed and absolved of any crime of wrongdoing.

You realize that this post is esentially agreeing with what I said, and completely refuting your previous point?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wow.

Tahmooressi is innocent. He had no intent of being in Mexico or to illegally smuggle weapons across the border. But he's being treated like he committed an act of war. He is being beaten and abused by Mexican authorities.

Bergdahl is guilty. You have a man who deserted his country, left a note to his fellow comrades, settled his affairs, renounced his citizenship, took a few select items with him and left. The evidence points to guilt. When we get him home, there is no signs of abuse or maltreatment.

If Obama had gotten both men out subsequently, then I wouldn't be raising such a fuss, now would I?

According to the Mexican authorities, Tahmooressi is not "innocent". He's being held because he broke Mexican law.

According to our legal system, Bergdahl is not "guilty" until it's been proven in a court of law (or a military court martial).

You aren't in a position to offer judgement in either case, since you clearly don't have enough information on either situation.

"According to Mexican authorities..."

So what makes you think they are telling the truth? Their system works on 'guilty until proven innocent.'

"He's being held because he broke Mexican law"

How can you prove he broke Mexican law? He had no intent of being there or smuggling weapons anywhere. If my knowledge serves, intent is key in convicting anyone of a crime. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"According to our legal system..."

What I have heard so far is that we should respect the Mexican Justice System in this matter. All we've heard from them is that he is 'not innocent.' We've heard from him that he has been mistreated.

"You are not in a position to offer judgement in either case..."

Are you? You want to talk down to me as if I know little to nothing, but my history here shows I do tons of research. Do you have sufficient information to form a conclusion? I don't make conclusions wantonly. I rarely debate on emotion alone.

Nobody here thinks you do tons of research. Trust me.

All you do is "debate" on emotion. This thread is clear evidence.

 

[Ravi]

Are we at war with Mexico?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are we at war with Mexico?

Do we need to be?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

According to the Mexican authorities, Tahmooressi is not "innocent". He's being held because he broke Mexican law.

According to our legal system, Bergdahl is not "guilty" until it's been proven in a court of law (or a military court martial).

You aren't in a position to offer judgement in either case, since you clearly don't have enough information on either situation.

"According to Mexican authorities..."

So what makes you think they are telling the truth? Their system works on 'guilty until proven innocent.'

"He's being held because he broke Mexican law"

How can you prove he broke Mexican law? He had no intent of being there or smuggling weapons anywhere. If my knowledge serves, intent is key in convicting anyone of a crime. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"According to our legal system..."

What I have heard so far is that we should respect the Mexican Justice System in this matter. All we've heard from them is that he is 'not innocent.' We've heard from him that he has been mistreated.

"You are not in a position to offer judgement in either case..."

Are you? You want to talk down to me as if I know little to nothing, but my history here shows I do tons of research. Do you have sufficient information to form a conclusion? I don't make conclusions wantonly. I rarely debate on emotion alone.

Nobody here thinks you do tons of research. Trust me.

All you do is "debate" on emotion. This thread is clear evidence.

I disagree. I'm sure that TK has done a lot a "research", in the sense that he's read a lot of different opinions on the subject from various pundits on both sides.

The problem is that all that shows is what various other people think about the situation, not anything close to the objective reality of the situations.

 

[Ravi]

Are we at war with Mexico?

Do we need to be?

No, but you are making an invalid comparison of the two situations.

 

[bendog]

"According to Mexican authorities..."

So what makes you think they are telling the truth? Their system works on 'guilty until proven innocent.'

"He's being held because he broke Mexican law"

How can you prove he broke Mexican law? He had no intent of being there or smuggling weapons anywhere. If my knowledge serves, intent is key in convicting anyone of a crime. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"According to our legal system..."

What I have heard so far is that we should respect the Mexican Justice System in this matter. All we've heard from them is that he is 'not innocent.' We've heard from him that he has been mistreated.

"You are not in a position to offer judgement in either case..."

Are you? You want to talk down to me as if I know little to nothing, but my history here shows I do tons of research. Do you have sufficient information to form a conclusion? I don't make conclusions wantonly. I rarely debate on emotion alone.

Nobody here thinks you do tons of research. Trust me.

All you do is "debate" on emotion. This thread is clear evidence.

I disagree. I'm sure that TK has done a lot a "research", in the sense that he's read a lot of different opinions on the subject from various pundits on both sides.

The problem is that all that shows is what various other people think about the situation, not anything close to the objective reality of the situations.

Well, a lot is impossible to really know. Was he abused? He says he was, but there's no other evidence. He says his lawyer told him to "lie" about how many times he was in Mexico. Maybe so. Maybe also his lawyer had a deal with the Mexican authorities to let him go. Maybe the marine is guilty of something. We don't know. We don't know what the DOS has done with Mexico. We certainly have no right to demand they let the guy go, which some of the RW loony brigade here posited last week. Imo, at times TK has asserted certainty when none existed.

 

[Moonglow]

99% of the detainees are insane from the treatment received at Gitmo and other secret prisons...plus the long incarceration periods..
Now, you can't evaluate the situation because you do not have all the facts....After the facts do get out and the man has his day to tell his side, then you can make an assessment...until then you are just jumping on the band wagon for a hot hayride.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Nobody here thinks you do tons of research. Trust me.

All you do is "debate" on emotion. This thread is clear evidence.

I disagree. I'm sure that TK has done a lot a "research", in the sense that he's read a lot of different opinions on the subject from various pundits on both sides.

The problem is that all that shows is what various other people think about the situation, not anything close to the objective reality of the situations.

Well, a lot is impossible to really know. Was he abused? He says he was, but there's no other evidence. He says his lawyer told him to "lie" about how many times he was in Mexico. Maybe so. Maybe also his lawyer had a deal with the Mexican authorities to let him go. Maybe the marine is guilty of something. We don't know. We don't know what the DOS has done with Mexico. We certainly have no right to demand they let the guy go, which some of the RW loony brigade here posited last week. Imo, at times TK has asserted certainty when none existed.

That's precisely my point.

 

[LoneLaugher]

"According to Mexican authorities..."

So what makes you think they are telling the truth? Their system works on 'guilty until proven innocent.'

"He's being held because he broke Mexican law"

How can you prove he broke Mexican law? He had no intent of being there or smuggling weapons anywhere. If my knowledge serves, intent is key in convicting anyone of a crime. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"According to our legal system..."

What I have heard so far is that we should respect the Mexican Justice System in this matter. All we've heard from them is that he is 'not innocent.' We've heard from him that he has been mistreated.

"You are not in a position to offer judgement in either case..."

Are you? You want to talk down to me as if I know little to nothing, but my history here shows I do tons of research. Do you have sufficient information to form a conclusion? I don't make conclusions wantonly. I rarely debate on emotion alone.

Nobody here thinks you do tons of research. Trust me.

All you do is "debate" on emotion. This thread is clear evidence.

I disagree. I'm sure that TK has done a lot a "research", in the sense that he's read a lot of different opinions on the subject from various pundits on both sides.

The problem is that all that shows is what various other people think about the situation, not anything close to the objective reality of the situations.

Dude checks his in box, googles and uses Wikipedia. That is not research. Especially when the ideological filter is used at every turn. He does NOT read opinion from both sides. Not a chance.

 

[TemplarKormac]

According to the Mexican authorities, Tahmooressi is not "innocent". He's being held because he broke Mexican law.

According to our legal system, Bergdahl is not "guilty" until it's been proven in a court of law (or a military court martial).

You aren't in a position to offer judgement in either case, since you clearly don't have enough information on either situation.

"According to Mexican authorities..."

So what makes you think they are telling the truth? Their system works on 'guilty until proven innocent.'

"He's being held because he broke Mexican law"

How can you prove he broke Mexican law? He had no intent of being there or smuggling weapons anywhere. If my knowledge serves, intent is key in convicting anyone of a crime. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"According to our legal system..."

What I have heard so far is that we should respect the Mexican Justice System in this matter. All we've heard from them is that he is 'not innocent.' We've heard from him that he has been mistreated.

"You are not in a position to offer judgement in either case..."

Are you? You want to talk down to me as if I know little to nothing, but my history here shows I do tons of research. Do you have sufficient information to form a conclusion? I don't make conclusions wantonly. I rarely debate on emotion alone.

1. Why would the Mexican authorities be lying? What purpose would that serve? What does Mexico gain from having this guy locked up?

2. I don't have to "prove" that he broke Mexican law, it's accepted knowledge that he did. It's against the law to cross the border into Mexico with guns in your car. He did just that.

3. Who have you heard that from? We don't have to "respect" the Mexican legal system, it's corrupt and awful. But Mexico is still a sovereign country and an ally - and it's not as simple as you seem to think it is to get Tahmooressi out.

4. The information necessary to make a valid judgement in either case is not available by Google search. No matter how many op-eds you've read in your "research", it's not enough. Has your "research" given the Mexican authorities side of the Tahmooressi story? Does your "research" into Bergdahl include testimony from his command structure, or anything official - or is it just third-hand stories from retired soldiers?

1. My point precisely. So if they have nothing to gain from his detention, why are they holding him? Perhaps they want some sort of leverage over the US in some thing or another. What it might be is anyone's guess.

2. Prove that this is "accepted knowledge" then we can go forward. There are accusations that he was funneled into Mexico. In that case any charges against him would be illegitimate.

3. Then by that statement alone, you rendered your first point invalid.

4. Actually, Cody Full and Gerald Sutton aren't retired. They were his platoon mates, they both contend he deserted. You have others in his platoon making the same allegations. Colonel David Hunt has 29 years operational experience in the field, and is privy to classified information on the subject. I take his word over anyone else's. I also have the CIA expressing concerns that Bergdahl did in fact desert.

I have witnesses, an intelligence agency and a source privy to classified information saying that he deserted. But until a military trial is convened, I cannot assert one way or another.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"According to Mexican authorities..."

So what makes you think they are telling the truth? Their system works on 'guilty until proven innocent.'

"He's being held because he broke Mexican law"

How can you prove he broke Mexican law? He had no intent of being there or smuggling weapons anywhere. If my knowledge serves, intent is key in convicting anyone of a crime. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"According to our legal system..."

What I have heard so far is that we should respect the Mexican Justice System in this matter. All we've heard from them is that he is 'not innocent.' We've heard from him that he has been mistreated.

"You are not in a position to offer judgement in either case..."

Are you? You want to talk down to me as if I know little to nothing, but my history here shows I do tons of research. Do you have sufficient information to form a conclusion? I don't make conclusions wantonly. I rarely debate on emotion alone.

1. Why would the Mexican authorities be lying? What purpose would that serve? What does Mexico gain from having this guy locked up?

2. I don't have to "prove" that he broke Mexican law, it's accepted knowledge that he did. It's against the law to cross the border into Mexico with guns in your car. He did just that.

3. Who have you heard that from? We don't have to "respect" the Mexican legal system, it's corrupt and awful. But Mexico is still a sovereign country and an ally - and it's not as simple as you seem to think it is to get Tahmooressi out.

4. The information necessary to make a valid judgement in either case is not available by Google search. No matter how many op-eds you've read in your "research", it's not enough. Has your "research" given the Mexican authorities side of the Tahmooressi story? Does your "research" into Bergdahl include testimony from his command structure, or anything official - or is it just third-hand stories from retired soldiers?

1. My point precisely. So if they have nothing to gain from his detention, why are they holding him? Perhaps they want some sort of leverage over the US in some thing or another. What it might be is anyone's guess.

2. Prove that this is "accepted knowledge" then we can go forward. There are accusations that he was funneled into Mexico. In that case any charges against him would be illegitimate.

3. Then by that statement alone, you rendered your first point invalid.

4. Actually, Cody Full and Gerald Sutton aren't retired. They were his platoon mates, they both contend he deserted. You have others in his platoon making the same allegations. Colonel David Hunt has 29 years operational experience in the field, and is privy to classified information on the subject. I take his word over anyone else's. I also have the CIA expressing concerns that Bergdahl did in fact desert.

I have witnesses, an intelligence agency and a source privy to classified information saying that he deserted. But until a military trial is convened, I cannot assert one way or another.

And yet, you've been doing just that this entire thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why wouldn't McCain support returning an American POW?

Why would he support giving up 5 high level Taliban leaders for a guy that walked off his post?

What were they accused of?

What are our plan for Taliban leaders once we leave Afghanistan?

Read the papers, or watch CNN, no one is hiding it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nobody here thinks you do tons of research. Trust me.

All you do is "debate" on emotion. This thread is clear evidence.

I disagree. I'm sure that TK has done a lot a "research", in the sense that he's read a lot of different opinions on the subject from various pundits on both sides.

The problem is that all that shows is what various other people think about the situation, not anything close to the objective reality of the situations.

Well, a lot is impossible to really know. Was he abused? He says he was, but there's no other evidence. He says his lawyer told him to "lie" about how many times he was in Mexico. Maybe so. Maybe also his lawyer had a deal with the Mexican authorities to let him go. Maybe the marine is guilty of something. We don't know. We don't know what the DOS has done with Mexico. We certainly have no right to demand they let the guy go, which some of the RW loony brigade here posited last week. Imo, at times TK has asserted certainty when none existed.

Yes, yes I have. But in this case I know I'm right. How many times must I state and restate the evidence here?

 

[LoneLaugher]

1. Why would the Mexican authorities be lying? What purpose would that serve? What does Mexico gain from having this guy locked up?

2. I don't have to "prove" that he broke Mexican law, it's accepted knowledge that he did. It's against the law to cross the border into Mexico with guns in your car. He did just that.

3. Who have you heard that from? We don't have to "respect" the Mexican legal system, it's corrupt and awful. But Mexico is still a sovereign country and an ally - and it's not as simple as you seem to think it is to get Tahmooressi out.

4. The information necessary to make a valid judgement in either case is not available by Google search. No matter how many op-eds you've read in your "research", it's not enough. Has your "research" given the Mexican authorities side of the Tahmooressi story? Does your "research" into Bergdahl include testimony from his command structure, or anything official - or is it just third-hand stories from retired soldiers?

1. My point precisely. So if they have nothing to gain from his detention, why are they holding him? Perhaps they want some sort of leverage over the US in some thing or another. What it might be is anyone's guess.

2. Prove that this is "accepted knowledge" then we can go forward. There are accusations that he was funneled into Mexico. In that case any charges against him would be illegitimate.

3. Then by that statement alone, you rendered your first point invalid.

4. Actually, Cody Full and Gerald Sutton aren't retired. They were his platoon mates, they both contend he deserted. You have others in his platoon making the same allegations. Colonel David Hunt has 29 years operational experience in the field, and is privy to classified information on the subject. I take his word over anyone else's. I also have the CIA expressing concerns that Bergdahl did in fact desert.

I have witnesses, an intelligence agency and a source privy to classified information saying that he deserted. But until a military trial is convened, I cannot assert one way or another.

And yet, you've been doing just that this entire thread.

Yes. He has. Emotionally.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. Why would the Mexican authorities be lying? What purpose would that serve? What does Mexico gain from having this guy locked up?

2. I don't have to "prove" that he broke Mexican law, it's accepted knowledge that he did. It's against the law to cross the border into Mexico with guns in your car. He did just that.

3. Who have you heard that from? We don't have to "respect" the Mexican legal system, it's corrupt and awful. But Mexico is still a sovereign country and an ally - and it's not as simple as you seem to think it is to get Tahmooressi out.

4. The information necessary to make a valid judgement in either case is not available by Google search. No matter how many op-eds you've read in your "research", it's not enough. Has your "research" given the Mexican authorities side of the Tahmooressi story? Does your "research" into Bergdahl include testimony from his command structure, or anything official - or is it just third-hand stories from retired soldiers?

1. My point precisely. So if they have nothing to gain from his detention, why are they holding him? Perhaps they want some sort of leverage over the US in some thing or another. What it might be is anyone's guess.

2. Prove that this is "accepted knowledge" then we can go forward. There are accusations that he was funneled into Mexico. In that case any charges against him would be illegitimate.

3. Then by that statement alone, you rendered your first point invalid.

4. Actually, Cody Full and Gerald Sutton aren't retired. They were his platoon mates, they both contend he deserted. You have others in his platoon making the same allegations. Colonel David Hunt has 29 years operational experience in the field, and is privy to classified information on the subject. I take his word over anyone else's. I also have the CIA expressing concerns that Bergdahl did in fact desert.

I have witnesses, an intelligence agency and a source privy to classified information saying that he deserted. But until a military trial is convened, I cannot assert one way or another.

And yet, you've been doing just that this entire thread.

There's another thread in the Politics section of mine that you might want to see. I dare you to look for it. This entire thread has been my way of taking in facts, information and looking for a viable position on this issue. I have argued both for and against on purpose. I work by making both arguments and melding the two. So it might appear to you that I am arguing for one case or another, when in reality I am assessing them in earnest.