Should we be force feeding gitmo prisoners?

[Circe]

Yemen will take the Yemenis back.

The last lot we gave them tunnelled straight out, by the dozens. And vanished into the hinterlands. And Yeman hasn't got much, but it DOES have big hinterlands.

Let's don't give them back to Yemen, at least not till they are rather older and tamer.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Where is that spelled out in the Constitution?

I believe it's in the 14th Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Nowhere does it say that the U.S. government has the power to treat non-citizens, be they in the country or out of the country, differently from citizens within the borders of the United States.

What part of "The Constitution of the United States" is confusing?

If it was meant for every swinging dick in the world it would be "The Constitution of the World".

Did you even bother to read the link?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Link!

Yemen begins push to get citizens out of Guantanamo detention | McClatchy

Yes they will take them back if we pay them.

“Of course we will need money, we will need logistical support; of course we are committed to doing what’s necessary,” she said. “But also, the American government has a duty to support us.”
Hooria Mashhour, Yemen’s minister of human rights


That the best you got?

As it proves exactly what I said I don't need to do any better.

 

[Meathead]

Yemen will take the Yemenis back.

The last lot we gave them tunnelled straight out, by the dozens. And vanished into the hinterlands. And Yeman hasn't got much, but it DOES have big hinterlands.

Let's don't give them back to Yemen, at least not till they are rather older and tamer.

Better yet, dead.

 

[Circe]

Where exactly does the U.S. Constitution say that the legal mechanisms prescribed therein apply only to U.S. citizens? In other words, where does the Constitution give the U.S. government the power to craft an entirely different legal system for non-U.S. citizens?

Maybe you've figured out why they are not in the US, and why they shouldn't be.

Yep. Revelations-R-US.

You were thinking Cuba was.......an ACCIDENT? We just happened to have some extra space there?

I don't think you've been following this situation very closely over the years.

 

[Circe]

Impossible.

There are NO prisoners at Gitmo.

All the prisoners who Bush was holding were sent home (or flown to Washington) in January, 2009 exactly as He promised.

Weren't they????

I can't remember a prez who made such unwise and broad promises and then totally forgot about them as soon as he got into office. There should be some protection against that; suing him for nonperformance or something. Why should they be able to get into office by promising total lies and then ---- it doesn't matter anymore so they don't do any of it?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yemen begins push to get citizens out of Guantanamo detention | McClatchy

Yes they will take them back if we pay them.

“Of course we will need money, we will need logistical support; of course we are committed to doing what’s necessary,” she said. “But also, the American government has a duty to support us.”
Hooria Mashhour, Yemen’s minister of human rights


That the best you got?

As it proves exactly what I said I don't need to do any better.

If they truly wanted them back they wouldn't be demanding to be paid for their troubles.

They want the money more than they want their terrorist back.

In the entire article only a small part of it mentioned repatriation and when it was mentioned then that's when they said they needed money and America should have to pay.

And why should we have to pay for their citizens being terrorist?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Certainly convoluted stuff, but I'll tell you what, if I get arrested here in the Czech Republic and try to assert my constitutional rights as an American citizen, I'd either get laughed at or patiently told that those rights are for those in the US. The constitution holds no sway outside of the US, it really isn't that difficult to understand.

That's because you're making out what I'm saying into something else entirely. I'm not saying that the Czech Republic will recognize the U.S. Constitution. I'm saying that, regardless of your citizenship or location on the Earth, the U.S. Constitution restricts what the United States government may do to you.

Ok, not a very sharp tack, I see. The rights entitled to those in the US are not applicable to those outside of US soil. The human excrement in Gitmo do not have those rights because Gitmo, like other overseas military bases are not on US soil. The Constitution makes no stipulations as to what the US government can or can't do outside of the US. I know of no constitution that does.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth Amendment

Since, as you admit, the Constitution makes no stipulation as to the U.S. government being allowed to create a military detention center on foreign soil where they can indefinitely detain people, the U.S. government does not have the authority to do so, as per the Tenth Amendment.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yemen will take the Yemenis back.

The last lot we gave them tunnelled straight out, by the dozens. And vanished into the hinterlands. And Yeman hasn't got much, but it DOES have big hinterlands.

Let's don't give them back to Yemen, at least not till they are rather older and tamer.

So people we have no evidence of any wrongdoing migrated elsewhere should have some relevance to future policies regarding people we have no evidence of wrongdoing?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe it's in the 14th Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Nowhere does it say that the U.S. government has the power to treat non-citizens, be they in the country or out of the country, differently from citizens within the borders of the United States.

What part of "The Constitution of the United States" is confusing?

If it was meant for every swinging dick in the world it would be "The Constitution of the World".

Did you even bother to read the link?

Which means absolutely nothing. The Constitution gives the U.S. government certain limited powers, none of which involve being able to kidnap and indefinitely detain foreigners in Cuba.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes they will take them back if we pay them.

“Of course we will need money, we will need logistical support; of course we are committed to doing what’s necessary,” she said. “But also, the American government has a duty to support us.”
Hooria Mashhour, Yemen’s minister of human rights


That the best you got?

As it proves exactly what I said I don't need to do any better.

If they truly wanted them back they wouldn't be demanding to be paid for their troubles.

They want the money more than they want their terrorist back.

In the entire article only a small part of it mentioned repatriation and when it was mentioned then that's when they said they needed money and America should have to pay.

And why should we have to pay for their citizens being terrorist?

We have no evidence that many of these people are terrorists.

 

[Meathead]

That's because you're making out what I'm saying into something else entirely. I'm not saying that the Czech Republic will recognize the U.S. Constitution. I'm saying that, regardless of your citizenship or location on the Earth, the U.S. Constitution restricts what the United States government may do to you.

Ok, not a very sharp tack, I see. The rights entitled to those in the US are not applicable to those outside of US soil. The human excrement in Gitmo do not have those rights because Gitmo, like other overseas military bases are not on US soil. The Constitution makes no stipulations as to what the US government can or can't do outside of the US. I know of no constitution that does.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth Amendment

Since, as you admit, the Constitution makes no stipulation as to the U.S. government being allowed to create a military detention center on foreign soil where they can indefinitely detain people, the U.S. government does not have the authority to do so, as per the Tenth Amendment.

Do you have any idea at all of what you're talking about?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ok, not a very sharp tack, I see. The rights entitled to those in the US are not applicable to those outside of US soil. The human excrement in Gitmo do not have those rights because Gitmo, like other overseas military bases are not on US soil. The Constitution makes no stipulations as to what the US government can or can't do outside of the US. I know of no constitution that does.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth Amendment

Since, as you admit, the Constitution makes no stipulation as to the U.S. government being allowed to create a military detention center on foreign soil where they can indefinitely detain people, the U.S. government does not have the authority to do so, as per the Tenth Amendment.

Do you have any idea at all of what you're talking about?

Yes.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That's because you're making out what I'm saying into something else entirely. I'm not saying that the Czech Republic will recognize the U.S. Constitution. I'm saying that, regardless of your citizenship or location on the Earth, the U.S. Constitution restricts what the United States government may do to you.

Ok, not a very sharp tack, I see. The rights entitled to those in the US are not applicable to those outside of US soil. The human excrement in Gitmo do not have those rights because Gitmo, like other overseas military bases are not on US soil. The Constitution makes no stipulations as to what the US government can or can't do outside of the US. I know of no constitution that does.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth Amendment

Since, as you admit, the Constitution makes no stipulation as to the U.S. government being allowed to create a military detention center on foreign soil where they can indefinitely detain people, the U.S. government does not have the authority to do so, as per the Tenth Amendment.

Due process also protects/regulates conditions of confinement for pretrial detainees, who are not protected by the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. The requirements of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in this context are essentially the same.

Jails and the Constitution

 

[Lonestar_logic]

As it proves exactly what I said I don't need to do any better.

If they truly wanted them back they wouldn't be demanding to be paid for their troubles.

They want the money more than they want their terrorist back.

In the entire article only a small part of it mentioned repatriation and when it was mentioned then that's when they said they needed money and America should have to pay.

And why should we have to pay for their citizens being terrorist?

We have no evidence that many of these people are terrorists.

We have enough to detain them, obviously.

Unless of course you think we're in the habit of imprisoning just any regular joe because we can.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ok, not a very sharp tack, I see. The rights entitled to those in the US are not applicable to those outside of US soil. The human excrement in Gitmo do not have those rights because Gitmo, like other overseas military bases are not on US soil. The Constitution makes no stipulations as to what the US government can or can't do outside of the US. I know of no constitution that does.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth Amendment

Since, as you admit, the Constitution makes no stipulation as to the U.S. government being allowed to create a military detention center on foreign soil where they can indefinitely detain people, the U.S. government does not have the authority to do so, as per the Tenth Amendment.

Due process also protects/regulates conditions of confinement for pretrial detainees, who are not protected by the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. The requirements of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in this context are essentially the same.

Jails and the Constitution

These are not "pretrial detainees," they are detainees who will never receive a trial which is prohibited by the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If they truly wanted them back they wouldn't be demanding to be paid for their troubles.

They want the money more than they want their terrorist back.

In the entire article only a small part of it mentioned repatriation and when it was mentioned then that's when they said they needed money and America should have to pay.

And why should we have to pay for their citizens being terrorist?

We have no evidence that many of these people are terrorists.

We have enough to detain them, obviously.

Unless of course you think we're in the habit of imprisoning just any regular joe because we can.

"We" have nothing. The U.S. government has certain justifications, but the fact that it will not bring these people to trial or allow them to go on their way is unconstitutional.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth Amendment

Since, as you admit, the Constitution makes no stipulation as to the U.S. government being allowed to create a military detention center on foreign soil where they can indefinitely detain people, the U.S. government does not have the authority to do so, as per the Tenth Amendment.

Due process also protects/regulates conditions of confinement for pretrial detainees, who are not protected by the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. The requirements of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in this context are essentially the same.

Jails and the Constitution

These are not "pretrial detainees," they are detainees who will never receive a trial which is prohibited by the Constitution.

Have they been to trial yet? And again, they are not protected under our Constitution. Our Constitution protects US citizens. Try going to Saudi Arabia and exercising your Constitution rights. Do you honestly think they will honor OUR Constitution?

It's painfully obvious you've never left Kansas (or whatever state you're from).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Due process also protects/regulates conditions of confinement for pretrial detainees, who are not protected by the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. The requirements of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in this context are essentially the same.

Jails and the Constitution

These are not "pretrial detainees," they are detainees who will never receive a trial which is prohibited by the Constitution.

Have they been to trial yet? And again, they are not protected under our Constitution. Our Constitution protects US citizens. Try going to Saudi Arabia and exercising your Constitution rights. Do you honestly think they will honor OUR Constitution?

It's painfully obvious you've never left Kansas (or whatever state you're from).

The term "pretrial detainees" rests on the assumption that there will be a trial in the future. These detainees will never receive a trial, thus they are not "pretrial detainees."

You're looking at the Constitution from the wrong perspective. None of us are "protected under our Constitution," but the United States government is limited by the Constitution. The Saudi Arabia quip is the same straw man argument Meathead came up with regarding the Czech Republic, and that I already effectively addressed.

That would be Ohio. Which is what it says right next to "Location." Also, I was recently in New Jersey, so yes, I have left Ohio.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

We have no evidence that many of these people are terrorists.

We have enough to detain them, obviously.

Unless of course you think we're in the habit of imprisoning just any regular joe because we can.

"We" have nothing. The U.S. government has certain justifications, but the fact that it will not bring these people to trial or allow them to go on their way is unconstitutional.

You have no idea what evidence they had. But logic would dictate that they had enough evidence to send their ass to Gitmo!