Does this seem right? I don't unless they were U.S. citizens.

I'm through with America treating our immigrants better than our citizens!

Does this seem right? I don't unless they were U.S. citizens.

I'm through with America treating our immigrants better than our citizens!
getting a trial is a HUMAN right, not a citizen right.

Does this seem right? I don't unless they were U.S. citizens.

I'm through with America treating our immigrants better than our citizens!



This seems TOTALLY right! If an American were held in another country without being charged with anything, people will be yelling their heads off. The Bush Administration was trying to get around the Geneva Conventions by claiming these people were "enemy combatants" instead of "Prisoners of War". If they were declared POWs, then the Administration HAD to adhere to the Geneva Conventions. But since they are NOT POWs, the people being held have the right under the Constitution for habeas corpus. 

And these people are NOT immigrants-they were taken into custody without their consent-thus the term "prisoners". 



Cat   

Two things:

Thing #1) Guantanamo prisoners aren't immigrants. They're political prisoners.

Thing #2) Considering the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court, guantanamo bay prisoners would probably be better off with a trial featuring a jury of unbiased peers.  However, such a jury would probably be impossible to find and a trial judged by the SC is infinitely more fair than no trial at all.

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

-Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution

and which is this, rebellion or invasion? i dont think they had the US invading ANOTHER country in mind when they wrote that clause, they probably meant the other way around. but i'm just guessing. ;D

anyway, repealing habeas corpus needs to be done overtly, not through backdoor means like the patriot act, which was never billed as a repeal of habeas.

Some of those people in Guantanamo are U.S. citizens.  There are a few Canadians and a few British.  If the U.S. isn't willing to hand over individuals of foreign nations to that nation then it would be in the best interest of international relations to give them a fair trial.  Of course with the Supreme Court it probably won't be that fair. 

Thing #1) Guantanamo prisoners aren't immigrants. They're political prisoners.


Actually, they are not.  They are enemy combatants captured who were not fighting as part of a national army or following a nation.  That makes them "Terrorists", or in the term of WWII Partaisans or spies.

People such as this are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and in reality any treatment given to them (or not given to them) is a courtesy.


Some of those people in Guantanamo are U.S. citizens.  There are a few Canadians and a few British.  If the U.S. isn't willing to hand over individuals of foreign nations to that nation then it would be in the best interest of international relations to give them a fair trial.  Of course with the Supreme Court it probably won't be that fair. 


Of course, that would be a very simple solution.  And one I have advocated for ages.

Of course, many of them have already been tried in absentia, and have been convicted and sentenced to death.  Others if they are returned to either their home nation or the nation they were captured from will face the same punishment.

And still others have been turned over to us by their home countries.  Either because they did not want to handle it themselves, they had not commited a crime in their country, or they wanted to get some goodwill from the US.

Myself, I have long advocated letting them go.  Return them to their home nation, or the country they were captured from.  Other then a select few that are unquestionably mass murderers.  Such as the masterminds of 9/11.

And those that are US Citizens, I have very little pitty for them.  The word for people that do things like that is "Treason", and we all know the punishment for that.

And if "Military Tribunals" are so evil, then what do you all think of Nuremburg?  The Tokyo Trial?  The Hague War Crimes Tribunal?  Are those all evil and wrong also?

Actually, they are not.  They are enemy combatants captured who were not fighting as part of a national army or following a nation.  That makes them "Terrorists", or in the term of WWII Partaisans or spies.

People such as this are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and in reality any treatment given to them (or not given to them) is a courtesy.
well, the obvious problem is that without a trial we're assuming this is really their status. we actually have no way of knowing. there are all sorts of horror stories -- monetary incentives offered to turn in al qaeda members leading to all sorts of people turning in rivals or just random people in order to collect the reward, people caught up in random sweeps of fighting-age males, etc. some of the folks in guantanamo are guilty, some, it seems clear, are not, but it's odd how many are released without charges. if the case against every last inmate in guantanamo is so clear-cut, why NOT try them? you seem so certain they're all terrorists, so what's the big deal?

Actually, they are not.  They are enemy combatants captured who were not fighting as part of a national army or following a nation.  That makes them "Terrorists", or in the term of WWII Partaisans or spies.

People such as this are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and in reality any treatment given to them (or not given to them) is a courtesy.

Of course, that would be a very simple solution.  And one I have advocated for ages.

Of course, many of them have already been tried in absentia, and have been convicted and sentenced to death.  Others if they are returned to either their home nation or the nation they were captured from will face the same punishment.

And still others have been turned over to us by their home countries.  Either because they did not want to handle it themselves, they had not commited a crime in their country, or they wanted to get some goodwill from the US.

Myself, I have long advocated letting them go.  Return them to their home nation, or the country they were captured from.  Other then a select few that are unquestionably mass murderers.  Such as the masterminds of 9/11.

And those that are US Citizens, I have very little pitty for them.  The word for people that do things like that is "Treason", and we all know the punishment for that.

And if "Military Tribunals" are so evil, then what do you all think of Nuremburg?  The Tokyo Trial?  The Hague War Crimes Tribunal?  Are those all evil and wrong also?


Some of those prisoners are from countries that are our allies on this War On Terror, shouldn't we trust our allies to be able to deal with their own.

Pity or not, the law would say that if they are a U.S. citizen they do have rights under U.S. law.

Some Military Tribunals were necessary.  The Nuremburg trial helped start healing the wounds of those who were victims of the Nazis.  I'll have to agree with that.

What about those who are accused of financing because of their connection to a Sheik?  Are they covered under the Geneva Convention?

well, the obvious problem is that without a trial we're assuming this is really their status. we actually have no way of knowing. there are all sorts of horror stories -- monetary incentives offered to turn in al qaeda members leading to all sorts of people turning in rivals or just random people in order to collect the reward, people caught up in random sweeps of fighting-age males, etc. some of the folks in guantanamo are guilty, some, it seems clear, are not, but it's odd how many are released without charges. if the case against every last inmate in guantanamo is so clear-cut, why NOT try them? you seem so certain they're all terrorists, so what's the big deal?



Once again, I agree with you. I don't think people understand what this ruling means-it means that these people are going to get their day in court, nothing else. If they are indeed innocent, then they should be let go. If they are guilty, then they should be punished.



Cat

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/political-pictures-camp-justice-guantanamo-irony.jpg

I concur with the majority opinion in this case.

When a government is allowed to detain people without habeas corpus, without public announcement of the charges, secreted away in camps to which the public has no access, the scope of who may be detained in this manner and the inhumane treatment tends to expand.  It is cold comfort to say they're not doing it to American citizens.  I don't believe in torture or execution.  Period.  Besides, just maybe you'll start being OK with American citizens who the government says pose a threat to national security being incarcerated in some hellhole where no one can hear them scream.  Maybe you've got a brother-in-law with a grudge who reports you to Homeland Security as a subversive and maybe the secret police kick in your door in the middle of the night and lock you in a dungeon incommunicado sans habeas corpus!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/scared.gif

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/political-pictures-camp-justice-guantanamo-irony.jpg
it's like no one around here's read orwell. ::)

it's like no one around here's read orwell. ::)

I read everything he ever wrote, except for some obscure newspaper columns and personal letters, but I read all I could get my hands on in college!  Orwell is my muse!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/notworthy.gif

I concur with the majority opinion in this case.

When a government is allowed to detain people without habeas corpus, without public announcement of the charges, secreted away in camps to which the public has no access, the scope of who may be detained in this manner and the inhumane treatment tends to expand.  It is cold comfort to say they're not doing it to American citizens.  I don't believe in torture or execution.  Period.  Besides, just maybe you'll start being OK with American citizens who the government says pose a threat to national security being incarcerated in some hellhole where no one can hear them scream.  Maybe you've got a brother-in-law with a grudge who reports you to Homeland Security as a subversive and maybe the secret police kick in your door in the middle of the night and lock you in a dungeon incommunicado sans habeas corpus!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/scared.gif


But it's to secure our nation from terrorist.  Yes, we may torture but we don't kill em.  OK, ever once in awhile we go a little too far and a towel head dies.  Not like they didn't have a death wish anyway.  If you're an American that's tough, you should have thought twice before buying spices from that Middle Eastern grocery store. You should have know the owner of the store has a second cousin once removed who went to school with the son of a terrorist.

As for the grudge against your brother in law, don't worry about it.  Through our proven methods we can get him to admit to anything.

Man against man police state that's as paranoid as all hell.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

              -Pastor Martin Niemöller



Cat

Can it be that our so-called independent Supreme judiciary has finally developed the cajones to actually try to rule in favor of what is right.  Of course we do know how the split on the decision went.  Scalia, hmmmmph,  "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."  Carefully worded, avoiding the truth that although they are detained as combatants, they have not been able to prove that many are combatants, and have not allowed them to prove that they weren't.  Hopefully this national disgrace will soon resolve itself.  I bet he keeps a picture of Taney on his wall.

Myself, I have long advocated letting them go.  Return them to their home nation, or the country they were captured from.  Other then a select few that are unquestionably mass murderers.  Such as the masterminds of 9/11.

And those that are US Citizens, I have very little pitty for them.  The word for people that do things like that is "Treason", and we all know the punishment for that.

And if "Military Tribunals" are so evil, then what do you all think of Nuremburg?  The Tokyo Trial?  The Hague War Crimes Tribunal?  Are those all evil and wrong also?


No argument on all three of those points.  If a dude has been convicted in absentia by some other government, we can repatriate him to a country where he'll meet a rather grisly end. 

The penalty for treason's well-established -- but it does require witnesses and a trial.  That Lindh guy should have gone up on treason charges, as should the guys who tried to frag their fellow troops during the early days of the Iraq invasion, and I'm sure those examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

So while we're at it, what differentiated Nuremberg from the Salem Witch Trials?  (The actual trial in Nuremberg, like most of the goings-on in Salem, took place in public, so we can't use secrecy as a differentiator... leaving... what?)


Actually, they are not.  They are enemy combatants captured who were not fighting as part of a national army or following a nation.  That makes them "Terrorists", or in the term of WWII Partaisans or spies.

Which leads me to the more serious question:  Your military history's probably better than mine -- how was this established during WW2?  I shouldn't have to remind you that many Japanese-Americans served with distinction, even while their own families were rotting in internment camps in the deserts.  Even though politics dictates that we're not gonna give 'em any cash, let alone a genuine apology, what we did to the Japanese is still widely regarded among Americans as a great injustice.  We screwed the pooch there.  As for the actual partisans or spies -- I'm all for stringing them up (and we did, rightfully), but how did we determine that? 

As for war crimes, the important outcome of Nuremberg wasn't that a bunch of dirtball Nazis wound up hanged.  It was that "I was just following orders" ceased to be an acceptable argument.  (...and as an aside, I'm looking with a nod to those other threads where principals have cops called in when kids draw pictures of guns, or where they try to prohibit US Military personnel from attending prom in their dress uniforms...  "Zero Tolerance" is the 00s equivalent to "Just Following Orders", and it's inexcusable for the same reason.)

At the moment, and as far as we know, we're only torturing people who "deserve it".  And as NYTimes rumors have it, we're only "solving" the Gitmo "problem" by outsourcing the really nasty business to ships, presumably flying non-US flags of convenience so as provide legal cover, in international waters, so the Gitmo issue will be dealt with one way or another.

Your history's probably better than mine (and neither of our clearances are ever gonna be high enough to confirm or deny that NYTimes rumor), but last time I checked, even in WW2, we held drumhead trials against spies and partisans and after the trials, we shot the bastards dead.  Torture happened -- but it was never officially condoned as a matter of governmental policy outside of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the USSR (and its satellite states) from Stalin through Brezhnev.

I've tried damn hard to support US policy on torture and detention over the past seven years, and I just can't do it.  If, on 9/12/01, in an act of madness and inchoate rage, we'd have nuked the entire Middle East, and then apologized profusely and gone all Marshall Plan on the sterilized glassy plains for the next 8 years, we'd have regained enough of our moral standing to put us ahead of where we are today.

By 1952 - eight years after the end of WW2 - the German and Japanese people may not have exactly loved us for having firebombed every one of their major cities into rubble, but at least they were glad the damn war was over, and that at least their new occupational government wasn't imprisoning people without trial, torturing them, etc. etc. etc... 

We subsequently won the Cold War not by being better at torturing dissidents and spying on our citizens than the Soviets, but simply by being better than the Soviets.  Even if it's only a moral high ground, having the high ground wins wars. 

Can it be that our so-called independent Supreme judiciary has finally developed the cajones to actually try to rule in favor of what is right.  Of course we do know how the split on the decision went.  Scalia, hmmmmph,  "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."  Carefully worded, avoiding the truth that although they are detained as combatants, they have not been able to prove that many are combatants, and have not allowed them to prove that they weren't.  Hopefully this national disgrace will soon resolve itself.  I bet he keeps a picture of Taney on his wall.

;D
He prolly has two teddy bears: Taney and Cheney!


:-\\

;D
He prolly has two teddy bears: Taney and Cheney!


:-\\



double *doh*

;Di
He prolly has two teddy bears: Taney and Cheney!


:-\\


Does this mean you believe civilians and/or combatants actually should have American Constiutional rights?
Hey how 'bout the guy released and eventually wound up as the head guy who drove the suicide car bomb into soldiers.

You should EARN rights in America therefore you get covered by the Constitution.

Does this mean you believe civilians and/or combatants actually should have American Constiutional rights?
Hey how 'bout the guy released and eventually wound up as the head guy who drove the suicide car bomb into soldiers.

You should EARN rights in America therefore you get covered by the Constitution.


A chap by the name of Thomas Jefferson would like to have a word with you.

http://www.lurid.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/idk_my_bff_jill.jpg

(If you were trolling, then on behalf of Jefferson, please smite me back in the smite club thread for swallowing it hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, and copy of Angling Times. :)

But if you weren't trolling (and I'd go so far as to say that the Constitution and the Geneva conventions authorize drumhead trials and summary executions for the guys we capture on the battlefield), I'm giving you that pictorial backslap because you've completely misunderstood what the Constitution's about.  The constitution doesn't delegate all power to the Government, to dole out to citizens it deems fit -- it does precisely the opposite.  It delegates all power to every human being on the planet.  The rights are unalienable.  You get them when you pop out of the womb and don't die within the first 30 seconds.  (And some fundies have argued it goes as far back as nine months before then, even though I respectfully disagree.)

Seriuously, just read the damn thing.  It's not a laundry list of Things You Can Do, it's a laundry list of Things The Government Can't Do.

1) Thou Shalt Not ban Dudes form Speaking, Worshiping, or Peacably Assembling.
2) Thou Shalt Not abridge the right of a Dude to bear arms. 
3) Thou Shalt Not stick thy Soldiers in a Dude's house.
4) Thou Shalt Not break down a Dude's doors, nor tap his phone, without a Warrant. 
5) Thou Shalt Not make a Dude throw himself in jail, throw Dudes in Jail without a Trial, nor take their stuff without paying them off.
6) Thou Shalt Not sneak around #5 by making a Dude wait in jail for more than a few months for his trial.
7) Thou Shalt Not sneak around #6 by charging a Dude twice for the same thing, and if it's worth more than $20 to you, the Dude can ask for a jury.
8) Thou Shalt Not torture a dude, even if you managed to get a warrant, gave him a fair trial, and actually won it.
9) Thou Shalt Not think this is a complete list of things that Thou Shalt Not Do! 
10) If It Aint In Here, and some dipwad State proposes something that's not on the list of things that Thou Shalt Not Do (Because if you can't do them, neither can the States), then Thou Shalt Not mess with the States, because it's Their problem, Not Yours.

It's not quite as eloquent as the original, but I think I've established pretty clearly that the Constitution doesn't grant rights to the people (on behalf of the government), it restricts the powers of the government (on behalf of the people). 


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Unalienable. 

Which should end it.  But if Thomas Jefferson's too much of a terrist for your tastes (he did, after all, sign his name to a document that argued for armed rebellion against the British Crown, which at the time was the lawful government of the Colonies), how about James Tiberius Kirk, Captain of the USS Fracking Enterprise? 

http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/0/05/Constitution_Omega.jpg


Bones: "The American Indian... Yangs... Yanks... Spock - Yankees!"
Spock: "Kohms... Communists. The parallel is almost too close, captain. It would mean that these people fought the war your Earth avoided, and, in this case, the Asiatics won and took over this planet."
Kirk: "But, if that's so... all these generations of Yangs fighting to regain their land..."
Bones: "You're a romantic, Jim."

Cloud William: "I plegleia neptum flagumm; to pec, liforstand–"
Kirk: "–and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

(( and unconvinced of Kirk's sincerity when it came to mouthing the Worship Words, they went to the holiest of holies ))

Yang Scholar: "No – no! Only the eyes of a chief may see the E Plebmnista!" (( We, the People, in order to form a more perfect union... ))
Kirk: "This was not written for chiefs! ... These words, and the words that follow, were not just written for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well!  They must apply to everyone, or they mean nothing! Do you understand?"


- James T. Kirk, in The Omega Glory

A chap by the name of Thomas Jefferson would like to have a word with you.

http://www.lurid.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/idk_my_bff_jill.jpg

(If you were trolling, then on behalf of Jefferson, please smite me back in the smite club thread for swallowing it hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, and copy of Angling Times. :)

But if you weren't trolling (and I'd go so far as to say that the Constitution and the Geneva conventions authorize drumhead trials and summary executions for the guys we capture on the battlefield), I'm giving you that pictorial backslap because you've completely misunderstood what the Constitution's about.  The constitution doesn't delegate all power to the Government, to dole out to citizens it deems fit -- it does precisely the opposite.  It delegates all power to every human being on the planet.  The rights are unalienable.  You get them when you pop out of the womb and don't die within the first 30 seconds.  (And some fundies have argued it goes as far back as nine months before then, even though I respectfully disagree.)

Seriuously, just read the damn thing.  It's not a laundry list of Things You Can Do, it's a laundry list of Things The Government Can't Do.

1) Thou Shalt Not ban Dudes form Speaking, Worshiping, or Peacably Assembling.
2) Thou Shalt Not abridge the right of a Dude to bear arms. 
3) Thou Shalt Not stick thy Soldiers in a Dude's house.
4) Thou Shalt Not break down a Dude's doors, nor tap his phone, without a Warrant. 
5) Thou Shalt Not make a Dude throw himself in jail, throw Dudes in Jail without a Trial, nor take their stuff without paying them off.
6) Thou Shalt Not sneak around #5 by making a Dude wait in jail for more than a few months for his trial.
7) Thou Shalt Not sneak around #6 by charging a Dude twice for the same thing, and if it's worth more than $20 to you, the Dude can ask for a jury.
8) Thou Shalt Not torture a dude, even if you managed to get a warrant, gave him a fair trial, and actually won it.
9) Thou Shalt Not think this is a complete list of things that Thou Shalt Not Do! 
10) If It Aint In Here, and some dipwad State proposes something that's not on the list of things that Thou Shalt Not Do (Because if you can't do them, neither can the States), then Thou Shalt Not mess with the States, because it's Their problem, Not Yours.

It's not quite as eloquent as the original, but I think I've established pretty clearly that the Constitution doesn't grant rights to the people (on behalf of the government), it restricts the powers of the government (on behalf of the people). 

Unalienable.   

Which should end it.  But if Thomas Jefferson's too much of a terrist for your tastes (he did, after all, sign his name to a document that argued for armed rebellion against the British Crown, which at the time was the lawful government of the Colonies), how about James Tiberius Kirk, Captain of the USS Fracking Enterprise? 

http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/0/05/Constitution_Omega.jpg

- James T. Kirk, in The Omega Glory


Anything in there that says, we will treat everyone humanely foreign or homeland, so as long as we're respective of our brothers of the world, can we not be held hostage and get a break on the price of gas from brothers who capitalized on the oil that gives us our fuel?

Guess not,.. and does unalienable also mean they have a right to do whatever they want legally or illegally and are entitled to the same treatment? Aren't there 'war' strategies to deal with the potential enemy to get info from them or whatever gives us the upper hand?
I've heard how visiting employees of consulates can park wherever they'd like or break traffic rules and we do not give them tickets that FELLOW Americans would get..sounds a bit one sided..some of the visitors racked up THOUSANDS of dollars in violations as well. Somebody isn't sticking to the laws of the land here.....

   

I've avoided this thread for a while. but I gotta put my 2 cents in.  Or maybe more.

First, the decision was not that detainees would be tried by the S.C., but that they would have access to federal courts, as anyone accused of a crime against federal law should.  We could have turned them over to the gov't of Afghanistan, or to their own gov't, but we chose to bring them to U.S. territory (yes Gitmo IS US territory) and therefore brought them under the umbrella of the Constitution.  So let the gov't present its case against them and let a jury decide. 

Second, the reference to the post WWII trials is inaccurate.  They were not military tribunals, they were trials prosecuted by military lawyers before civilian judges with civilian defense lawyers.  Nor is the Hague a military tribunal. 

It is true that foreign diplomats (not guests of embassies) have a certain level of immunity, for parking tickets F.E. but so do our diplomats abroad.  Its a quid pro quo situation that makes a lot of sense. 

I really do get tired of people harping on how we are so mistreated and how all those damn ferners take advantage of us.

Oh, and the reference to high oil prices?  I just read in the Sunday paper that gas in Tijuana sells for under $3 per gallon, while just over the boarder in San Diego it sells for something like $4.50.  Go figure.

Does this mean you believe civilians and/or combatants actually should have American Constiutional rights?
Hey how 'bout the guy released and eventually wound up as the head guy who drove the suicide car bomb into soldiers.

You should EARN rights in America therefore you get covered by the Constitution.



I was gonna reply, but Foo and Carlos have just about covered it.  This one statement demonstrates a very serious misunderstanding on your part of the Constitution.  Back to school for you!

Anything in there that says, we will treat everyone humanely foreign or homeland, so as long as we're respective of our brothers of the world, can we not be held hostage and get a break on the price of gas from brothers who capitalized on the oil that gives us our fuel?


Non-sequitur.  It's their oil.  If we want it, we should buy it.  (Or we should buy the oilfields.  Or we should buy enough of their politicians :)


Guess not,.. and does unalienable also mean they have a right to do whatever they want legally or illegally and are entitled to the same treatment?


No.  It means "they" (who's "they" again?  The words must apply to everyone, Yang and Kohm alike, or they mean nothing) get the same rights as "we".  You can do whatever you want here, legally.  When you break the law, you are subject to arrest, at which you have the right to an attorney who can argue whether or not there's a reason for you to charged with anything - loosely referred to as habeas corpus, which is a right of common law that goes all the way back to the 1200s.  The government has to either charge you with something or let you go.  If it charges you with something, you might be stuck in jail until your trial, or you might be able to bail out.  Either way, you get a trial, and by "trial", I mean "the same kind of trial everyone else in US Territory gets, citizen or not".  If, (and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is a big if), at that trial, you're convicted, then you're subject to the penalties outlined in the law.  The people who make the law are subject to that big list of Thou Shalt Nots, and although the penalty can range from "a weekend's community service" to "the death penalty", even a death sentence isn't going to be carried out by having someone disembowel you with a toothpick over three days.


Aren't there 'war' strategies to deal with the potential enemy to get info from them or whatever gives us the upper hand?
I've heard how visiting employees of consulates can park wherever they'd like or break traffic rules and we do not give them tickets that FELLOW Americans would get..sounds a bit one sided..some of the visitors racked up THOUSANDS of dollars in violations as well. Somebody isn't sticking to the laws of the land here.....


Diplomatic immunity's a loophole.  There's another loophole, though, which is "Dear Country XYZ.  We think your choice of Ambassador's a jerk.  We can't charge him with that incident involving the Congressional aide, the midget, and the live goose, but we can, and will, put him on the next plane back home, unless you fire him first."

There are war strategies to deal with real enemies to get information from them.  Bribery, subterfuge, tailing them and letting them expose their network of co-conspirators, infiltrating their communications channels, planting honeypots for them in the form of  disinformation and misinformation, or even something as simple as sex, drugs, or rock and roll.  We did all of this during the Cold War, and we did it to pretty good effect.  Sometimes the KGB pwn3d us.  Sometimes, even though they had moles infiltrating the highest levels of our intelligence services, we pwn3d them.  The largest man-made non-nuclear explosion was because the Russians stole some plans that we wanted them to steal.  Turns out the plans had a few little bugs in them that hadn't been worked out.  Oops, silly us.  *BOOM*

Let me digress for a moment.  Ever had ants in your house?  Ever squished a few ants on an ant trail?  The ants find their squashed and mangled buddies, stop dead in their tracks, and find a new way to get to the food. 

To destroy an ant colony, you don't squash every ant you see.  You find out where the trail's coming from, and you lay down a quarter-sized dollop of sugar water laced with boric acid.  Within ten minutes, that little glob of goo will be covered in ants.  You won't be able to see the floor through the seething mass of ants.  If you're very lucky and managed to place the goo close enough to the colony (and this depends on the species of ant, too), you might even see a really big ant, the Queen herself, make an appearance.  (Argentinian ants are a local invasive species.  They're fascinating, because unlike other ant species, when two colonies of Argentinian ants meet up, they don't fight -- they merge -- and you can have colonies that are the sizes of city blocks, with dozens of queens.  Individual colonies of native ant species, limited to the productive capacity of one Queen, don't really stand much of a chance.)

Whether you squash the Queen or not at this point doesn't really matter.  Whether you see the Queen or not doesn't even matter.  All those little workers will dutifully take the boric-acid-laced sugar into the hive's food storage areas, and some will take it directly to the Queen.  Within 24 hours, the workers who hauled the cargo will be dead.  Within 72 hours, so will the rest of the hive, from Queen to drone to worker to the pupae and larvae in the breeding areas.  Depending on how many Queens are in your area (in the case of Argentine ants), you may have to change the bait a few times, perhaps to honey, corn syrup, or brown sugar.  The larger colonies are smart enough and have enough spare breeding capacity to learn that some flavors of sugar water aren't healthy.  Hit it with sugar water more than two or three times, and the ants will ignore your bait.  They'll eagerly chow down on a different bait just a few inches away, though.  You may have killed ten thousand ants, but the colony's just shown you it doesn't just know you're there, it's shown you that it's learning.

If you're in a sadistic mood, squashing ants one by one can be fun.  So can frying them with a magnifying glass.  So can incinerating them with a blowtorch (the trail is vaporized by the fire, and the ants at the end of the trail get confused, and eventually one of them will randomly come across the rest of the trail, and restore it a few hours later).  But it's no way to win a war against an ant colony.

Individual ants are pretty dumb.  (Look at that ant, he finds a dead ant and doesn't run away fast enough to escape the *TZZZZT* of doom.)  But a colony is pretty smart.  (Once it realizes that nobody who followed trail XYZ has come back in the past hour or two, it stops sending ants down trail XYZ.)  And the colony doesn't care how medieval you get on any individual ant.  Squashed ants are part of the colony's cost of doing business.  Even the individual ants don't care how medieval you get with them.  They're programmed to seek food for the hive, even at the cost of their own lives, and they're programmed to be just fine with that.  (See, I told you I'd finally get back to the topic of an enemy whose followers are so fanatical in their devotion to its cause that they'll throw their own lives away in order to create more fanatics.)

So you don't kill an ant colony by squashing, frying, or incinerating individual ants, because the individual ants aren't your real enemy, the colony is.  The only way to kill an ant colony is by outthinking it.

A chap by the name of Thomas Jefferson would like to have a word with you.


Seriuously, just read the damn thing.  It's not a laundry list of Things You Can Do, it's a laundry list of Things The Government Can't Do.

1) Thou Shalt Not ban Dudes form Speaking, Worshiping, or Peacably Assembling.
2) Thou Shalt Not abridge the right of a Dude to bear arms. 
3) Thou Shalt Not stick thy Soldiers in a Dude's house.
4) Thou Shalt Not break down a Dude's doors, nor tap his phone, without a Warrant. 
5) Thou Shalt Not make a Dude throw himself in jail, throw Dudes in Jail without a Trial, nor take their stuff without paying them off.
6) Thou Shalt Not sneak around #5 by making a Dude wait in jail for more than a few months for his trial.
7) Thou Shalt Not sneak around #6 by charging a Dude twice for the same thing, and if it's worth more than $20 to you, the Dude can ask for a jury.
8) Thou Shalt Not torture a dude, even if you managed to get a warrant, gave him a fair trial, and actually won it.
9) Thou Shalt Not think this is a complete list of things that Thou Shalt Not Do! 
10) If It Aint In Here, and some dipwad State proposes something that's not on the list of things that Thou Shalt Not Do (Because if you can't do them, neither can the States), then Thou Shalt Not mess with the States, because it's Their problem, Not Yours.


Depends, hab de dudes been cibilized?
:D

Depends, hab de dudes been cibilized? :D


Dee dudes abide.

Or do I take the high road and segue to the Bill Cosby "Dentist" routine?

"FIBRE!"