[extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 07:56:08 -0800 (PST)
> Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > Wrong again Samantha. The Constitution makes room for signing
> treaties
> > with other nations. The Geneva Conventions are such treaties, and
> THEY
> > specifically make terrorism a military or war crime that is treated
> and
> > ajudicated differently from civil crimes.
> 
> As I understand it the Constitution prohibits entanglements with
> foreign nations that threaten the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom
> of the American people.  If it doesn't I strongly suggest we work for
> such an Amendment.

Wrong again. There is no such prohibition. George Washington warned
against getting involved in foreign entanglements, but the context of
that is getting involved in wars that in no way relate to our national
interest (like the Balkans). Protecting our nations oil supply IS in
our national interest and thus is not a foreign entanglement, but that
is a separate issue. Signing a treaty about ajudicating proper behavior
of people engaged in military action is not an 'entanglement', and it
has served to protect our boys on a number of occasions.
 
> > > Your civil rights being violated is a crime committed against you
> by
> > > your government.  It is a small or large act of treason by
> government
> > > officials who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and be
> properly
> > > limited by it.   
> > 
> > With an emphassis on *your* government. Non-citizens have
> > constitutionally protected rights by courtesy. Yes, they have
> natural
> > rights, which we as a signor to the Geneva Conventions have agreed
> to
> > *recognise* to belong to non-combantats, legal combatants to a
> slightly
> > lesser degree, and to a far lesser degree, illegal combatants. I'll
> > bet, Samantha, that after two years of my needling you about it,
> you
> > STILL haven't read the Geneva Conventions.....
> > 
> 
> The Constitution does not specify that only American citizens have
> human rights acknowledged and protected by our form of government.  
> I do not recognize "illegal combatant" as being a very precise
> category or as somehow removing one's human rights as soon as some
> government slaps the label (with or without evidence and a hearing)
> on.   I bet after two years of these exchanges that you still don't
> get that the Geneva Conventions are actually largely irrelevant to
> the central issue.

On the contrary, you still don't seem to get that they are the central
issue. An illegal combatant loses all rights in the country he is
caught in, and loses any expectation that his home government will do
anything for him. This is well settled law both here in the US and
elsewhere, even in the Hague.

The US is being extremely tolerant of these fellows in Gitmo. Under the
Geneva Conventions, they can all be summarily executed, and could have
been from the time they were captured.
 
> > > 
> > > Then the SCOTUS is simply wrong.  There is nothing in the
> > > Constitution, btw, that says the SCOTUS is the legitimate final
> > > arbitrar of what is and is not Constitutional.  
> > 
> > You know, Samantha, I've heard this claim made by some of the
> militia
> > bunker mentality types who wait for the black helicopters to come,
> but
> > never by anyone who knows the law and the Constitution.
> >
> 
> Hell, the claim was made by Jefferson.  So I wouldn't mind being
> included in that "bunker" type mentality.

The only authority over the Supreme Court is that the Congress can
impeach a justice. In that sense, there is a higher authority, but that
only applies to truly criminal behavior by a justice, not just a mere
difference of opinion. Otherwise there would have been a lot more
impeachements in our history.

> > > 
> > It's definition is only loosely defined in the minds of those who
> > consistently refuse to read, and remain proudly ignorant of, the
> Geneva Conventions. 
> 
> Hell.  Read the Patriot Act and tell me it is well-defined.

That is changing the subject.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003