Yet another misleading lead in on a slashdot story...does it ever end?
This is a story about the very weak possibility that 802.11n may never be 'standardized' NOT that it will never "happen". It's already happened. I've been using 802.11n on all my home computers for months now.
Well, actually we are on the same side. You are posting the ONLY argument that makes sense for extending rights to non-citizens, in that everyone should have rights if detained. Just because this SHOULD be the case, doesn't mean it IS the case though, as so many here on slashdot keep asserting. So I'm with you and I'm glad YOU understand the limits of the Consitituion.
Ok, so you still lack people skills. I'm trying to figure out how being an absolute prick about this makes your point any more correct or intelligible?
Yet, you're the only one making that claim [that habeas corpus applies to non-citizens too]. The sane people who know what they're talking about are not saying that.
Oh, the SANE people aren't saying that the Constitution applies to non-citizens too? Well, let's take a look, shall we:
The American constitution, federal and state laws apply to non-citizens
The bottom line of course is that habeus corpus is a fundamental component of Western law.
Therefore it should and does apply to everyone arrested in the US, whether citizens or not.
US has no right to remove those rights from non US citizens within the US.
The Consititution says that says that ALL the constitutional rights apply to all men.
the Constitution refers to human beings, and not just "citizens"
Notice that the 14th amendment says "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". It's an inherent right of a *person*, not just a citizen.
Whether or not the law sets guidelines that apply to US Citizens (the point which you are presumably mistakenly trying to argue)
the constitution clearly states that Habeus Corpus is a right afforded to all people, anywhere, that our government might arrest or detain.
Habeas Corpus applies to everyone, as written in the constitution. Ever single person the Federal government comes into contact with. Everyone.
"We the People of the United States" was not for citizens only.
The idea that the word "person" in the Constitution ever refers only to "citizens" is pure fantasy.
These are _human_ rights that the Constitution speaks of, not just US Citizen's rights.
The Bill of Rights requires the US government to recognize and honor the Natural Rights of humanity and forbits it from removing those rights or operating as if they have been removed.
So contrary to your selective reading skills, it seems that indeed, MANY people in this thread have claimed the Constitution applies to non-citizens, and that I indeed didn't just fucking make it up off the top of my head.
Go ahead, rob and murder foreign nationals in America. According to you, you can't be punished in any way since the laws don't apply to them.
Pretty fucking stupid, huh?
No, what is stupid is the fact I never said anything like this. What I'm saying is it is stupid of you to want to extend habeas corpus to non-citizens, when we already have a process in place for that; it's called extradition.
What I'm saying is that the slashdotters who think all people of Earth should enjoy the liberties of the US, and that the US is constitutionally obliged to do so, are crazy.
What I'm saying is a nay vote didn't prevent the restoration of the right of habeas corpus, because that right was never revoked in the first place, because what they voted nay to was extending the rights of habeas corpus to non-citizen combatants.
What I DIDN'T say is nearly everything you claim I did.
So the twisted logic that led you to illogically deduce that I said I can indiscriminantly kill foreign nationals, is the same logic that makes this conversation useless. Quit thinking of your next insult and read what I say, not what you think I say.
Finally someone from the other side of the argument that I can agree with. At least you accept the fact that the constitution doesn't afford rights to ALL persons... Now if the rest of your crew would accept this fact, we could move on to discussions about how to ensure the US doesn't abuse non-citizens, instead of this partisan bickering about who gets what for how many cookies bullshit.
Wow, I can't believe I missed this post before, because it is the best post in this thread! That's why several of my responses say the story is misleading, because you can only reinstate something that has been revoked, which obviously never happened.
No, my argument is that this vote is stupid politics as usual, and has nothing to do with the reality of threats to US citezens rights to habeas corpus. People voting nay don't feel that non-citizens should be afforded the rights of citizens, yet this article paints the phony picture that the nay voters are voting against habeas corpus, which they aren't. This is tied into the Democrats' desire to extend habeas corpus to non-citizens, not the Repbulicans' perceived desire to deny habeas corpus to citizens, even though the article tries to distort it to appear as such.
As for the Hamdi case, it is quite clear that the circumstances involved and the extensive court systems it has been through, that no one man (Rumsfeld, Bush) or even political party can single-handedly illegally steal one person's rights. Hamdi tested his case with habeas corpus and it went through several courts. I'm not even going to pretend I'm half as smart as the hundreds of attorneys and judges that have had their hands in this case (although I'm sure most of the slashdotters will).
13 out of 24 is better than 0 out of 24. Now is that worth the cost? That's another debate altogether. If humans are misappropriating an otherwise fool-proof tool, then it is the humans that are the problem, not the technology.
Great. So stop the war and drugs and watch 50% of Americans become hooked on coke, instead of just a few Hollywood idiots. Great idea. So NOT spending ANY money is going to make the drug situation better? I'm glad, then, that politicians don't pay attention to the facts, because at least they are doing SOMETHING about it.
Thank you for unspinning Mike's lead-in to the story, which is easily the most loaded and inaccurate summary of a story this week. Law enforcement cameras are suddenly "public spy networks"? Come one. Could you at least TRY to post a lead-in that isn't a dead give away of your preconceived biases?
they do follow the customs of war. As for laws, seems those go out the window with all parties in a conflict.."
Um, no. They don't, and no, they don't. That's why the US military is afforded Geneva Rights conventions and Al Qaieda in Iraq, for example, isn't. If you are confused about what the laws of land warfare are, you should read up on it...they are clearly laid out, and Al Qaieda in Iraq mostly ignores them. For example, medical vehicles clearly marked as such are not to be used as assualt vehicles and are not allowed to be shot at. Certain types of weapons are not allowed to be used against personnel, but that doesn't stop them. Then there's the whole issue of, I dunno, killing prisoners of war? In Jihad, there are no customs or laws, so in Jihad, they get no Geneva conventions protections.
Fair enough, I'll buy that. I fully support the idea of the politicians TRYING to vote for things they want. I don't like the way they play with words, but that's what they do.
That's why this entire news article is a troll. It makes it sound as if habeas corpus was suspended, and US citizens everywhere are in danger of being held indefinitely, because those nasty Republicans voted along partisan lines (also not entirely true, but what troll ever lets truth get in the way anyway?). The fact is, no US Citizen has had their habeas corpus rights taken away. The Democrats just want to try and apply habeas corpus to non-citizens, which is a different argument altogether (as seen on this thread). In doing so, the Dems are simply trying to undercut the perceived unjust authority that the Republicans have bestowed upon themselves (not a bad assertion, btw). So why not just call it THAT!? Why the misleading fear tactic?...because it isn't a popular notion to extend rights normally associated to citizens to non-citizens, REGARDLESS if it is constitutional or not (god, drop the stupid arguments about people vs. citizens already).
Try telling that to any one of the millions of oppressed people of the world. "No, Ndrjk, you were BORN with constitutional rights. Have another government beating. And here's a female circumcision for your daughter! Oh , what's this? This is your SECOND daughter? Ok, we'll take her now, thank you. No need to be having TWO useless children!"
"Citizen" refers to the *citizens* of this country. "People" refers to all people. It's what the word means, Sparky, perhaps you should shut your mouth when opening it proves you to be a fool?
Hmmm, let's see who is the one who should be shutting their mouth, shall we Sparky? So please, since you refuse to shut your mouth, defend your ignorance after this dialogue already cleared it up:
The rights written in the Bill of Rights apply to all humans
No shit? Let's read the first sentence of the Bill of Rights [earlyamerica.com], then:
"After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons."
Son of gun, you're right, it says "persons" not "citizens!" So I guess every forty thousand persons -- anywhere on the planet, whether or not they're the subject of some other king, or citizen of some other republic -- have been entitled to a representative in the US Congress since 1789. Amazing! And those bastards in Washington have just ignored this fundamental right of South Africans, Samoans, Libyans and Mongolians since the very founding of the Republic. Most of the planet has been disenfranchised for the last 220 years, apparently.
So it seems your superflame is without merit, your moderation skills lacking, and your fundamental understanding of English missing. So please explain again, how "persons" refers to ALL people of the world, and why don't Ugandans have representation in our government?
So you sir, can shut the fuck up, and keep your liar and fool labels for yourself. I may be a fool, but I have nothing to lie about, because I support the right of habeas corpus in this case. I'm just not so zealous that I insist it is a constitutional right of all foreigners anywhere on Earth to have habeas corpus, when they clearly don't.
Now if a constitutional attorney would like to disprove my claims that the constitution does not extend to citizens of other countries not within the borders of the US, then I'll retract all my statements. Until then, I'll just side with the common knowledge that the US Constitution is for people of the US. It's nice and all that you want world peace and civil rights for everyone, but the US Government is not consitutionally bound to participate in your fantasy world.
So I actually doubt you are ignorant, but I have NO doubt that you have such a heavy agenda that you want the constitution say things it doesn't, so YOU are the one picking and chosing words out of context to fit your need.....Sparky. Good luck in life with those people skills--you're gonna need it.
So how do we disagree then? It IS a vote that would restore the right of habeas corpus...that is not contended. The fact this politician is voting on whether or not we should "restore the image of the US", instead of voting on the matter at hand, proves it is politics as usual.
The last I checked, there is no mention of murder or manslaughter in the US Constitution. There's nothing wrong with your expectation, other than it is not guaranteed. I assume you hold a green-card, since you pay taxes. I'm sure there are all kinds of laws established for the protection of green-card holders, that couldn't have possibly been thought of at the inception of the Constitution. If you are held without charges, and are legally allowed to be here, then fine, you have a point, but not on Constitutional bounds.
Yeah, you are right, because being availabe immediate after air, BUT ONLY BEING AVAILABLE FOR ONE WEEK, is soo much better. Good luck picking up season 3 episode 13 of the Office.
The US Government is not obliged anywhere in the Constitution or otherwise to ensure the civil liberties of the people of Earth. It is a nice IDEOLOGY, however.
You are asking the US Government to extend rights reserved for citizens to non-citizens, under the guise of holding the Government accountable to the Constitution...which is a stretch under any imagination. Citizens have these rights because they have stood up and fought (and died) for these rights, and they didn't do it just so non-citizens could have the same rights. Non-citizens get to enjoy the rights of their own governments. They have no explicit right to be protected from our government. That's why we have diplomats, and yes, Armies.
...which only goes to show that the Republicans where the ones crossing party lines here, not the Democrats. Spin it however you like, but 6 Republicans voted against party lines as opposed to only 1 Democrat.
And before you dismiss me as a partisan myself, I land fully in the camps of those Republicans who voted yea, but I refuse to accept your notion that this is the "norm" and any opposing view is the extreme. They are both ideologically drive, obviously. You just tend to agree with the ideology of the side you support (as do I in this case, but that doesn't make it any less partisan). If it were a cut and dry case of the sky is blue, yea or nay? Then 6 Republicans voted yea, with all the Democrats, then you'd have a point, but this isn't a matter of one side being right and the other being wrong.
The idea that the word "person" in the Constitution ever refers only to "citizens" is pure fantasy.
No, your fantasy is that the word person refers to everyone in the world. This ignorant stance has been totally pwned already in other posts. Besides, far too many service members have died in this country to be protecting NON-citizens rights. I don't know a single person in the military who willingly signed up to Defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with your fantasy caveat of, "and all people everywhere" ammended to it. If that were the case, we wouldn't have a military filled with people who freely make the sacrifices they do every day. We would have a conscripted Army of illegal immigrants? Your stance on the Constitution's applicability around the world is more frightening to me than the threat of actual enemies of the United States. It's people like you that cause all the Fox News loonies to call you unpatriotic. If you want to extend the Bill of Rights to everyone in the world, and use the US military to defend those rights, then you indeed are no patriot (and that's about the only thing I'll ever agree with Fox News about.)
Who stuck to party lines more, Reuplicans or Democrats? It seems six Republicans broke away, but only 1 Democrat did the same...hmmmm. So what you really meant to say is, "why can't those stupid Republicans see they are voting incorrectly and they should vote the way I want them to vote". Or maybe you meant to say, "since I agree with the Democrats on this issue, it is obvious that Republicans are stupid." Scary.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a story about the very weak possibility that 802.11n may never be 'standardized' NOT that it will never "happen". It's already happened. I've been using 802.11n on all my home computers for months now.
Well, actually we are on the same side. You are posting the ONLY argument that makes sense for extending rights to non-citizens, in that everyone should have rights if detained. Just because this SHOULD be the case, doesn't mean it IS the case though, as so many here on slashdot keep asserting. So I'm with you and I'm glad YOU understand the limits of the Consitituion.
No, what is stupid is the fact I never said anything like this. What I'm saying is it is stupid of you to want to extend habeas corpus to non-citizens, when we already have a process in place for that; it's called extradition.
What I'm saying is that the slashdotters who think all people of Earth should enjoy the liberties of the US, and that the US is constitutionally obliged to do so, are crazy.
What I'm saying is a nay vote didn't prevent the restoration of the right of habeas corpus, because that right was never revoked in the first place, because what they voted nay to was extending the rights of habeas corpus to non-citizen combatants.
What I DIDN'T say is nearly everything you claim I did.
So the twisted logic that led you to illogically deduce that I said I can indiscriminantly kill foreign nationals, is the same logic that makes this conversation useless. Quit thinking of your next insult and read what I say, not what you think I say.
Finally someone from the other side of the argument that I can agree with. At least you accept the fact that the constitution doesn't afford rights to ALL persons... Now if the rest of your crew would accept this fact, we could move on to discussions about how to ensure the US doesn't abuse non-citizens, instead of this partisan bickering about who gets what for how many cookies bullshit.
Wow, I can't believe I missed this post before, because it is the best post in this thread! That's why several of my responses say the story is misleading, because you can only reinstate something that has been revoked, which obviously never happened.
As for the Hamdi case, it is quite clear that the circumstances involved and the extensive court systems it has been through, that no one man (Rumsfeld, Bush) or even political party can single-handedly illegally steal one person's rights. Hamdi tested his case with habeas corpus and it went through several courts. I'm not even going to pretend I'm half as smart as the hundreds of attorneys and judges that have had their hands in this case (although I'm sure most of the slashdotters will).
13 out of 24 is better than 0 out of 24. Now is that worth the cost? That's another debate altogether. If humans are misappropriating an otherwise fool-proof tool, then it is the humans that are the problem, not the technology.
Great. So stop the war and drugs and watch 50% of Americans become hooked on coke, instead of just a few Hollywood idiots. Great idea. So NOT spending ANY money is going to make the drug situation better? I'm glad, then, that politicians don't pay attention to the facts, because at least they are doing SOMETHING about it.
Thank you for unspinning Mike's lead-in to the story, which is easily the most loaded and inaccurate summary of a story this week. Law enforcement cameras are suddenly "public spy networks"? Come one. Could you at least TRY to post a lead-in that isn't a dead give away of your preconceived biases?
Fair enough, I'll buy that. I fully support the idea of the politicians TRYING to vote for things they want. I don't like the way they play with words, but that's what they do.
That's why this entire news article is a troll. It makes it sound as if habeas corpus was suspended, and US citizens everywhere are in danger of being held indefinitely, because those nasty Republicans voted along partisan lines (also not entirely true, but what troll ever lets truth get in the way anyway?). The fact is, no US Citizen has had their habeas corpus rights taken away. The Democrats just want to try and apply habeas corpus to non-citizens, which is a different argument altogether (as seen on this thread). In doing so, the Dems are simply trying to undercut the perceived unjust authority that the Republicans have bestowed upon themselves (not a bad assertion, btw). So why not just call it THAT!? Why the misleading fear tactic?...because it isn't a popular notion to extend rights normally associated to citizens to non-citizens, REGARDLESS if it is constitutional or not (god, drop the stupid arguments about people vs. citizens already).
So you sir, can shut the fuck up, and keep your liar and fool labels for yourself. I may be a fool, but I have nothing to lie about, because I support the right of habeas corpus in this case. I'm just not so zealous that I insist it is a constitutional right of all foreigners anywhere on Earth to have habeas corpus, when they clearly don't.
Now if a constitutional attorney would like to disprove my claims that the constitution does not extend to citizens of other countries not within the borders of the US, then I'll retract all my statements. Until then, I'll just side with the common knowledge that the US Constitution is for people of the US. It's nice and all that you want world peace and civil rights for everyone, but the US Government is not consitutionally bound to participate in your fantasy world.
So I actually doubt you are ignorant, but I have NO doubt that you have such a heavy agenda that you want the constitution say things it doesn't, so YOU are the one picking and chosing words out of context to fit your need.....Sparky. Good luck in life with those people skills--you're gonna need it.
So how do we disagree then? It IS a vote that would restore the right of habeas corpus...that is not contended. The fact this politician is voting on whether or not we should "restore the image of the US", instead of voting on the matter at hand, proves it is politics as usual.
The last I checked, there is no mention of murder or manslaughter in the US Constitution. There's nothing wrong with your expectation, other than it is not guaranteed. I assume you hold a green-card, since you pay taxes. I'm sure there are all kinds of laws established for the protection of green-card holders, that couldn't have possibly been thought of at the inception of the Constitution. If you are held without charges, and are legally allowed to be here, then fine, you have a point, but not on Constitutional bounds.
Yeah, you are right, because being availabe immediate after air, BUT ONLY BEING AVAILABLE FOR ONE WEEK, is soo much better. Good luck picking up season 3 episode 13 of the Office.
"provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war"
The US Government is not obliged anywhere in the Constitution or otherwise to ensure the civil liberties of the people of Earth. It is a nice IDEOLOGY, however.
You are asking the US Government to extend rights reserved for citizens to non-citizens, under the guise of holding the Government accountable to the Constitution...which is a stretch under any imagination. Citizens have these rights because they have stood up and fought (and died) for these rights, and they didn't do it just so non-citizens could have the same rights. Non-citizens get to enjoy the rights of their own governments. They have no explicit right to be protected from our government. That's why we have diplomats, and yes, Armies.
And before you dismiss me as a partisan myself, I land fully in the camps of those Republicans who voted yea, but I refuse to accept your notion that this is the "norm" and any opposing view is the extreme. They are both ideologically drive, obviously. You just tend to agree with the ideology of the side you support (as do I in this case, but that doesn't make it any less partisan). If it were a cut and dry case of the sky is blue, yea or nay? Then 6 Republicans voted yea, with all the Democrats, then you'd have a point, but this isn't a matter of one side being right and the other being wrong.
Why in the hell is this marked insightful (inciteful, yes, insightful, hardly)? Where's the -5 "factually incorrect" mod?
You lost me at "spritual destiny". Flame-bait indeed.
Who stuck to party lines more, Reuplicans or Democrats? It seems six Republicans broke away, but only 1 Democrat did the same...hmmmm. So what you really meant to say is, "why can't those stupid Republicans see they are voting incorrectly and they should vote the way I want them to vote". Or maybe you meant to say, "since I agree with the Democrats on this issue, it is obvious that Republicans are stupid." Scary.