10-18-2006, 11:47 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Bush will now provide a military trial (and I have no problem wiith that). What upsets me is the fact that he can hold people for as long as he wants before any trial is granted and that, if given the choice, he would give no trial at all. It also bothers me to see how pervasive those thoughts have become in our society. |
|
10-18-2006, 11:56 PM | #22 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
I am not bothered that intentionally disenfranchised individuals do not receive due process rights, especially those intent upon harming our nation or its citizens and interests. These aliens have become non-entities devoid of rights as a result of their actions. Due process is important for our citizens and for resident aliens, but for those combatting elsewhere, it makes perfect sense to NOT apply the Constitution.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
10-19-2006, 12:59 AM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. |
|
10-19-2006, 01:00 AM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
10-19-2006, 01:04 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
10-19-2006, 01:21 AM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
There are certainly some problems with how Bush has handled these people. I have little problem seeing them all rot in Cuba at one level, but I also feel that we owe ourselves more than we have demonstrated there. As sure as I am that most of them would just as soon kill us all as look at us, I am also sure that there are some who shouldn't be there at all. ANd it does offend my sense of propriety, borne of long years living in this country, to see them held in perpetual limbo. In answer to your original query as to why poeple don't approach the topic from a natural rights point of view, I think the answer is becasue it is very, very difficult to craft a persuasive argument as to what rules should apply under that scheme. Moreover, I think very little process is due or even assumed in the world of natural rights. The very concept of a state of nature is truly questionable, empirically, meaning that a certain curtailment of the rights alluded to and specified by jefferson is inherent in the very existence of Homo Sapiens. So how do you use that as a means of deciding how to handle Sheik Khalid as he groggily ambles out of a CIA lear jet in Cuba? Jefferson wrote grandly but the natural rights he asserted (e.g. Liberty) are by their very definition curtailed immediately upon the creation of even the most rudimentary social compact, let alone a governemnt as set forth in the consitiutuion. While you are correct that the Founders believed in natural rights, they did not all share Jefferson's Rousseau-esque view of those rights and some were not fully supportive of the preamble to the Declaration of Ind., except to the extent it turned George III's source of legitimacy on its head and placed it firmly with the people instead of God. If the PEOPLE decided who ruled, then the poeple could avoid paying those pesky taxes the King wanted. So even from the beginning in this country these 'natural' rights were situationally allowed, at best. I guess I better stop, becasue even I have lost my point. Let me know if you find it.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
10-19-2006, 01:22 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
As I am sure you know, this maxim is not found in the constitution or the dec of ind.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
10-19-2006, 03:15 AM | #28 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
So, how do we decide what the appropriate process is? I think you start with the assumption that there must be due process. It must be fair. The trier of fact must be impartial. It must be conducted expediently. Within each of those conditions there is a lot of latitude. I don't argue that our court system is the only system that can produce a fair outcome. A military trial very well could produce a fair outcome and may be the only practicable form of trial available. If it follows the broad criteria set forth above, I believe it satisfies the detainee's natural right to due process. Let's compare that to what is actually occurring. People have been captured and detained for as many as 5 years now without a trial. They have not been told what the charges against them are. They have not been allowed to present a defense. Their case has not come before any impartial tribunal. Until the Supreme Court ruled on the issue, there was no plan to provide them with any of the relief discussed above. There was only a plan to hold them indefinitely. Even now, Congress has granted Bush the authority to capture people and hold them without a trial (and we will have to see how the Court will react given the new factor of congressional approval). As to this: Quote:
I also disagree with this: Quote:
As to my original premise, I am not arguing natural rights should be the basis of an argument to decide what degree of due process should be afforded. It IS the basis of the argument to decide that due process should be afforded in some degree that results in fair treatment. |
|||
10-19-2006, 03:16 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
10-19-2006, 03:31 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
Quote:
Don't mind me, I'm just here for the entertainment. Last edited by tooblue; 10-19-2006 at 03:37 AM. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|