Duke Juker wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Paraphrase for light readers and skimmers: The United States should be allowed to indefinitely detain non-U.S. citizens only if it's in the best interests of national security and with the proper just cause (evidence).
I see no reason for distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens.
The reason to distinguish is because citizen's actually have rights, where as non-citizens/foreigners don't. For example, there is no basis for the Guantanamo Bay trial to be brought to court because the detainees are not citizens, and as such aren't guaranteed a fair and speedy trial by the Constitution (especially before the Supreme Court). Granted, I'm not saying it wasn't fair and that 'bad things' should continue to happen to prisoners at military bases.
I apologies- I think I may have been too brief and not explained myself properly. My intention was not to question what is going on right now- I don't know enough about US politics to do so- I am talking hypothetically:
Duke Juker wrote:
All I'm saying is, if you don't live here, we aren't going to protect you, especially if you are in prison for being an enemy combatant or terrorist.
No matter how justified you are to lock somebody up, citizen or non-citizen, and for whatever crime, that person should be afforded fair and humane treatment whilst being held. Whether that person is a mass murdered or a petty theft, they should be treated in the same way once imprisoned. If you're keeping someone in your country against their will. for whatever reason, that person should be treated in a fair and humane way.
Duke Juker wrote:
What's the whole point of having the Constitution if you can't distinguish between what people have rights and who doesn't? Then nobody knows and it's chaos. The Constitution only applies to citizens, not to outsiders.
When I said, "I see no reason for distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens", I meant in
these circumstances. No, of course non-citizens can't be treated in the same manner as citizens
overall, but by imprisoning someone in your country (or area under your control), that person should be treated in the same way as if they were a citizen. This could mean anything from good accommodation, to a fair trial.
ryan1 wrote:
I guess I'll just take a trip up to Canada, bring Shane back to the USA, say he was a suspected terrorist and lock him in my basement for the rest of his life. He's foreign, so clearly he has no rights... Don't be absurd.
I totally agree.
Duke Juker wrote:
Why would you let suspected (and most likely probable) terrorists demand habeas corpus when we ourselves clearly put them in prison for a reason? It's a total contradiction between the judicial and executive branches of the government.
In that case, why have courts at all? Let's just lock everyone up who we
think could have done something wrong!
Duke Juker wrote:
I don't think habeas corpus should be given to people who probably just want to get out, turn around, and hurt the system they just escaped from.
Of course they want to get out! If someone is found innocent under a fair trial then it's a failing on the part of the court system if they later turn out to be guilty. Of course we can't look into the future and prosecute people for crimes they may commit in the future, but if there's evidence to suspect someone is planning a terror attack, yet that person is found innocent, there's really nothing you can do about it.
)
