Soxbadger

Thank you, That case does not state what your saying it does; Now lets look at the more significant part of the holding. What was the year, 1942. When did I tell you the Geneva Convention happened? After WWII, 1942 is before the end of the conflict. Therefore this case is not of any significant precedent because it occurred before the Geneva Convention. In which these soldiers would have been protected as POW. But since the GC did not exist, the US set out rules that are very close to due process. Lawfully constituted, held for trial. The difference in Gitmo? There are no charges or trials... Once again not distinguishable and not even holding because prior to Geneva Convention, which the US is a party to. SB

Give me the cites. They will be NUMBER US NUMBER. If you can not even give me the decency of citing the case, why should I even be here? SB

Nuke, Find it. I gave you the damn case, find it for me in the case. Not from the website, do the research. You want me to read through the entire case just to prove that its not there, why do you not find it and then I will read it and show you why the misinterpreted it. I can quote minority opinions as well, but they are minority opinions. Or I can quote dicta, which has does not bind lower courts, and use it for my argument. I read Rhenquist's opinion, it stated that the 4th amendment does not apply to nolncitizens outside of the US. There is no reason why they would rule on noncitizens inside the US because that is not the case at hand. They can not just start making up rules, they can only rule on questions that are being presented to them. Im sorry, but you are going to have to do a little work to support your unfounded conclusion. SB

Nuke, Go read the Geneva Convention for yourself. Search google for these terms: Geneva convention, Illegal combatant. Geneva convention, POW. Then you can read the Wikepdia article that comes up and argue the, Why they should be illegal combatant arguments, and I will take the, why the US should term them as criminals as opposed to illegal combatants. Take as long as you want, but I think we can finally get past this, the constitution does not apply to non-citizens. SB

That is not precedent! That is a website, I could write an equally articulated website that made lots of theories based on dicta and taking judges words out of context. But that is not what that case really means. The case they use to argue noncitizens have no rights is a case concerning alieans rights outside of the US. It would be very strange to believe that an Alien had US rights in Mexico. Honestly can you really not see that you are wrong? Read the case, I gave you the actual words of the judges. Not some website with an agenda. Read for yourself. And read your website's purpose statement: http://www.fed-soc.org/ourpurpose.htm Notice no part says, we are giving you precedent. SB

Sigh Nuke, Enemy combatants such as Nazi's would now fall under the Geneva Convention. The reason the Geneva Convention was not holding during WWII was because it did not exist until after WWII. I will explain this simply. Enemy troops = Geneva convention. Criminals= US Constitution Illegal combatants= Outside of both. Atleast now when you argue with your friends you can use a correct term and maybe actually win the argument based on the fact that the illegal combatant argument is currently valid. SB

That is not the actual text of the case. That is some conclusion of some message board you stole it from. http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/sc/494us259.html Unless you want to tell me which Justice's opinion it is from, because Im not searching through 30+ pages. I control Fed a segment of your quote to make sure it did not come up, and I was right. SB

Do you think the look of frustration could be, This is the type of game you let your back ups play, yet Ozzie has Carl and Frank out there just waiting to be injured? SB

Did you even read it? The first damn sentence: ALIENS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. In fact it was property outside of the state. Once again, non-citizen inside of the United States. (Edited because you missed the precedent your own case presented.) SB

What happened is its 1-8 Ozzie told Frank its his team and that if he gets on base Timo is PR. So Frank swung for the fences got injured, and Timo still got on base. So frustrating. SB

Well atleast the Sox found a way to keep Timo fresh. SB

No actually the reason that the SC has not shut down GITMO is far more complex than your misunderstanding of the constitution. I will gladly discuss how the United States government has created a loop hole that makes these detainees exist outside of both the Geneva Convention and US jurisdiction. But, I am pretty certain it is not because noncitizens do not have constitutional rights. SB

No, I am arguing that anyone on US soil enjoys US protections. If I am correct US bases are considered US territory, and therefore subject to US jurisdiction. As for the US constitution applying to anyone anywhere, that is clearly not true. The US constitution only operates over territory where the US governs. It could not apply to Iraq, because Iraq has its own constitution which govern's its territory. So now that I went through that, can you answer my question? Why does the US constitution not apply to noncitizens on US territory? Thank you, SB

Cleveland, I have heard this argument a variety of places and so far no one is willing to step up to my challange. Find any piece of precedent or language from the constitution that states that it only applies to citizens of the United States. Your suggestion is that immigrants and non-citizens do not get constitutional protections is questionable to my understanding of the law. First of all, your suggestion would mean that any non-citizen does not get constitutional protections. Therefore legal immigrants would be subject to being deprived a right to trial, or even not allowed to worship. It would also mean that police could do anything to illegal immigrants, as well as legal immigrants as the clause of cruel and unusual punishment would not apply. Now here is my precedent to suggest otherwise: Pay particular attention to the drafting. NO PERSON. Not, no-citizen, only citizens, etc, but instead NO PERSON. That means, every person in the US, citizen and non-citizen alike. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aclu/kyrengaclu.pdf http://ga.berkeley.edu/academics/rights.html Now if you would like to change your remark to noncitizens have lesser rights in regards to adminsitrative and deportation proceedings, than I would agree with you. But in terms of civil protections, the US SC has been consistent in applying the same standards to citizens and noncitizens alike. This does not mean a noncitizen can vote, or that congress can not make laws about noncitizens. It just means that with out law made by congress, noncitizens should be viewed in the same light as citizen. Or that is atleast my understanding of the law. SB

The point is if you sign Brower, you have to trade Shingo. So while the Brower part is a free agent, it is still in essence trading just to make a trade. As so many have pointed out there is no reason to believe Brower will turn it around faster than Shingo. Sorry I thought it was clear enough that the Brower part would be FA, the Shingo part would be the trade. Sb

How are we going to find innings for Brower to turn it around if we cant find innings for Shingo to turn it around? Its trading for the sake of trading, and theres no real purpose. Also doesnt Shingo have a no trade clause? Sb

Okay I hate time zones. I finally realized why the 10 starting time seemed odd, its because it is listed as EST. My brain has been dead all day. SB

Sorry not to read the other pages, but what channel is the game on? I can not seem to find it, and since its 8:06 Im starting to need help. SB

Frank can not be traded. Not only is he potentially a much better hitter than Everett (strange using potential for a player like Frank, but injuries make nothing for sure.) He also is the best player many of the younger Sox fans have ever seen. With attendance up, the Sox starting to get national recognition. You do not trade the player who brought you to the dance. Im sorry, Everett is just a more expensive Gload, and there is really no need for him on the team. Imagine the negative press. SB

Ruth still has more prestige than Hank so its pretty understandable why Ruth's records may be more important to Barry. It would be like saying, I want to beat MJ's or Wilts scoring numbers instead of Kareem's. I dont really see much more to it, especially since Hank's record will be much harder for Barry to accomplish. SB

If Marte can only pitch in 3 games, 1ip, a week. Politte 3 game, 2.2 ip, a week. Then we have problems. Right now Vizcaino has the most ip for any reliver. SB

Some one needs to force Guillen to use Marte, Politte, and Hermanson before his favorite player of the moment when its already in the 7th inning. So hard to take. SB

Whats insane is our pen is not even over worked. Walker should not have even been allowed in the stadium in a 1 run game, let alone pitching. SB

Im basing my assumption off the fact that Tex is rated above Blalock and that they wont trade Tex. Sb

I doubt that the Nationals make any signficant move while there are a few bidders willing to offer over $300 million for a team that was bought at less than $200 million. As for all the why would the Rangers trade Blalock, its because they need pitching and most of the trades that are being suggested include B-Mac. The Rangers have a ton of hitting prospects, and Tex who can play 3b as well, so if they get an offer with a lot of pitching they may be willing to trade 1 of their hitters. I think the most likely candidates to become available are Hinske or Hillenbrand, as Toronto is starting a rookie 3b, and will have Koskie coming back from injury. When he does they will have an odd man out. SB