Torture, and detention at Guantanamo[The U.S. Declaration of Independence]

I know there has been a lot of discussion about whether the people in detention are entitled to the rights of American Citizens, or conditions set forth by the Geneva convention.

Those arguments really bother me, because to me it assumes that those who make them don't believe in our nation's own declaration of independence.

I will quote the relevant part.

It says that the gifts are endowed by a Creator and not by a nation. So the fact that they are not citizens doesn't mean they shouldn't be entitled to the rights our citizens have. Those rights are given by their creator and not by any one country.

Furthermore it says they are unalienable Rights.

Why does our President's choice for Attorney General, Sec. of Defense, apparently our own President, and many others who agree with denying these people their rights not want to uphold the words of our Declaration of Independence?

I'm sure someone else will have a different take on it than I do, and might be able to help me understand.

Liberals are accused of saying different values apply to different people in different situations, and don't just have a 'either it's right or it's wrong attitude.' Well apparently our country's founding fathers believed that certain things were either right or wrong, and given to all folks by their creator, and not by a particular nation. But it is the conservatives that want to say detention without being able to see a lawyer is wrong only some of the times, or torture is only wrong some of the times.

I disagree, and so does the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

 

Thanks Andy, I'm really confused on this. To me it seems simple. Either you believe in the Declaration of Independence and therefore believe that rights don't come from our nation, but something higher, and would be for ALL men. Those who hold that view would therefore be against the kind detention going on at places like Guantanmo and elsewhere, or you disagree with the Declaration of Independence and believe that those rights really are only meant for some.

Of course the all the mudslinging going on, people who defend the rights of those Guantanamo are often accused of not loving our country.

None of it makes sense, and I was hoping some of the posters who are more hawkish on the issue might have some thoughts.

 

I'm saying that conservatives usually make the argument that things are either right or they are wrong, and criticize liberals for trying to have too many shades of grey. Yet with some things conservatives are trying to say it is right for some people to have these rights and it's ok for others to be denied the rights.

I don't think it is so much about conservative or liberal, but about our declarartion of independence, and where people come down on it. In this case it appears to me like those that believe in the words of that document would be against the kinds of detention going on, as well other things like torture, etc.

When arguing about such things the folks on the hawkish side will often say that the people aren't American citizens and aren't entitled to those rights. I believe that does not follow along with what our declaration of independence says, and that they are going against what our nation stands for. Yet, in this case, it is those against the detention without representation and trials, are trying to follow the words our forfathers wrote when declaring the United States to be independent.

 

No, I'm not saying we do away with prisons. I'm saying that we don't hold someone in prison and not allow them to see a lawyer, or have trial by a jury. Those rights shouldn't just be for American Citizens. If you believe in the declaration of independence then they should be for everyone.

I'm trying to talk more about the dec. of independence more than conservative or liberal. But I will say that conservatives in this case want some people to have those rights mentioned above, and don't want others to have those rights.

 

The right to a lawyer, trial by a jury of peers etc. are directly related to and part of liberty. Liberty shouldn't be lost until we honor those rights.

The Declaration says that because another government was restricting the rights endowed to all men by their creator we were going to form a new nation that would honor those rights. Now it is this administration that is causing those rights to be restricted.

Terrorism is a horrible circumstance, but a government that doesn't honor inablienable rights is a far more dangerous thing. It was why our founding fathers fought and died to start a new nation. Terrorism is a reason why should hold onto those rights more fervently, not less so.

 

Yeah I was saying that this is one case where the roles seem kind of reversed between conservative and liberal. I think there are some things that I do believe there is only one right and one wrong, but on other issues I don't believe I'm able to hold everyone else to my standards.

When it comes to things like our declaration of independence, I guess I do see it as black nad white.

 

That's true. You are correct.

But like I said the main point wasn't about conservatives vs. liberals, it was about following the declaration of independence, and which side is more closely following those words.

 

Yes this another example of tossing the dec. of independence aside.

I don't know if it is in the interpretation or not. I think people are disregarding the words all together more than interpreting them differently.

It seems hard to interpret those differently.

 

I'm not denying this is true. I think it is wrong when anyone does this.

But I am curious. What do see as an example of liberals doing the same thing?