Indefinite Detention of American Citizens

I don't think there is a direct link from Lincoln detaining prisoners indefinitely to our nation moving left. I agree we are turning left, but I think we are about to turn back.


I hope you are correct about the latter. As to the former, its part and parcel IMO. Note that the Communist Manifesto published in 1848 and dovetailed into Whig interpretation of mercantilism and centrally based state.
 
Werbung:
I hope you are correct about the latter.
I doubt it... You guys are hoping for the Republicans of '94 but we're more likely to get the Republican party of 2004, especially if a Prog like Newt or Romney is at the helm.
As to the former, its part and parcel IMO. Note that the Communist Manifesto published in 1848 and dovetailed into Whig interpretation of mercantilism and centrally based state.
two-che_small.gif
 
There was that business of the Japanese internment camps, but that was during wartime.

then there was that Padilla guy..

Now, it appears that Obama wants legal authority to lock Americans up without trial, declaration of war or not.

And, whether or not he ever exercises that authority, who knows what the next one will do? It seems like our choice of leaders keeps getting worse and worse.
 
Bush set up the concentration camp that locked up hundreds of people without trial for years.

But then he was a serial breacher of the convention of human rights
 
The international convention of human rights

You know, the one the US signed up to but doesn't honour

Sounds like you don't think locking people up for a long time without trial is a problem

You will when it happens to you
 
The international convention of human rights

You know, the one the US signed up to but doesn't honour

Sounds like you don't think locking people up for a long time without trial is a problem

You will when it happens to you

I can only assume you are referring to Artice 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights...seeing as how there is no such thing as the "International Convention of Human Rights."

Given that - you are indeed correct, the United States did sign it, and the Senate did ratfiy it...however you left out some very important details about that ratification. The US Senate declared "that the United States declares that the provisions of Articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing."

What this means of course, is that while the United States signed and ratified the Covenant, it has no standing under US law, unless Congress then takes action to make it so -- something they have not done.

The United States has been very explicit from the get go on how this treaty would be perceived and enforced (or rather not enforced) in the United States...so, if you want to make an argument that actually has any merit, you are going to have to look beyond such items.
 
Werbung:
Look, if the US is happy to imprison and hold people without trial it shouldn't whinge and whine when the same happens to its citizens
 
Back
Top