guigsy Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) here ya go! "Foreigners, in foreign countries, have no rights under the American Constitution," Scalia said deleted: read that wrong...edit to add: i forgot this bit.."I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son, and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy."i wonder how he'd feel about detainees rights if his son was captured, and was the foreigner in the foreign country... Edited March 27, 2006 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggest Fan Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 To H@LL with the Geneva Convention... were Americans for Petes sake. Without 'US' the world might not go around any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 *choke*please tell me you're not serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guigsy Posted March 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timouse Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 To H@LL with the Geneva Convention... were Americans for Petes sake. Without 'US' the world might not go around any more. sarcasm is denoted around here by the use of [color:purple]purple text. i'm presuming that you were indeed being sarcastic and indeed, even in a non-sarcastic sense, the US makes the world go round...without the destabilizing hand of the US, this would be a pretty boring planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 "I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son, and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy."i wonder how he'd feel about detainees rights if his son was captured, and was the foreigner in the foreign country...I wish I could remember better, but there was either a Senator or Rep who, after the Abu Ghraib thing was really blown open, made a similar point on the floor - the whole point of the Geneva Convention is a mutual understanding of how we'd want our own people treated if they get captured; it's not about finding loopholes to fuck other people up. So much of the rhetoric from the US seems to suggest that they think themselves immune from every actually being affected by the conflict they've thrown themselves into. Maybe it's a being-raised-on-TV thing. Makes me think of that Roger Waters tune - Hey bartender over hereTwo more shots and two more beersSir, turn up the TV soundThe war has started on the groundJust love those laser guided bombsThey're really great for righting wrongsYou hit the target and win the game From bars 3,000 miles away3,000 miles awayWe play the gameWith the bravery of being out of range Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgnor Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Ever get really mad at your character being killed in a video game... I remeber that in Super Mario Brother's invincability was the best power... but it only lasts for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Only the logic of heightening economic demand - i.e. sucking more quarters out of kids' pockets - would have made the notion of having three lives into some we now find perfectly intelligible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggest Fan Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 No I was not being serious and I apologize if I came across as sounding like a 'troll'. I really can not say for sure what Scalia was really trying to say. Under the 'convention' do prisoners of "war" have rights such as: rights to representation??? *Not to say that the prisoners in CUBA are prisoners of 'war' but.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeLincoln Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Gentle Persuasion a long read, but worth some of the tidbits.... one of which is: John Radsan, the former C.I.A. lawyer, offered a reply of sorts. “As a society, we haven’t figured out what the rough rules are yet,†he said. “There are hardly any rules for illegal enemy combatants. It’s the law of the jungle. And right now we happen to be the strongest animal.â€What the US is currently doing and has currently done at Guantánamo for the last 5 years helps substantiate a lot of claims that they believe their actions and foreign policy are somehow justifiable.Nothing would surprise me about the US government and it's global agenda! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggest Fan Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 I could be wrong did not a judge somewhere give some type of ruling with respect to their status??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeLincoln Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 perhaps....either way, that judge somewhere, would be (like the rest of us) arguing semantics and not rotting in Cuba for 5 years or more. It may be deemed totally worng, but the "strongest animal" doesn't seem to give a rat's ass one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts