Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Slavery on American soilPage 2 of 3    (1, 2, 3)

If their conditions amount to cruel and unusual punishment (e.g., repeated waterboarding), then their detention is subject to challenge on those grounds. One alleged war crime does not justify another.


I know this is OT--but once again, you're making wild misstatements about this subject. When I've already explained the law on it quite a few times now, and cited the proof so you could read it yourself, I have to wonder why.

First: As you know very well, no U.S. court has ever held that any part of the 8th Amendment applies to alien enemy combatants detained outside the U.S. Until 2007, the Court had never held that any part of our Constitution applied to them. Then, in Boumediene, a 5-4 majority gave them a right to habeas by extending the Suspension Clause to them.


Second: As you also know very well, there is no legal basis for calling the waterboarding the U.S. used on three jihadists in 2002-03 "cruel and unusual punishment." It's not a constitutional issue at all. The legal "dispute" about that technique, as CIA interrogators applied it, has centered on whether it rose to the level of "torture" under the 1996 federal torture statute, sections 2341 and 2341A of the U.S. Code.

I've already explained--several times--why what was done doesn't even come close to meeting this statute's specific intent requirement. Only last month, the Justice Department filed a brief in 7th Circuit case, explaining why inflicting pain on detainees for some other purpose, is not "torture." Yet both President Obama and the head of that same DOJ--AG Holder--still assert (but can't provide any explanation) that the waterboarding was "torture." They are either woefully misinformed about a basic principle of criminal law, or they are lying.




Once someone comes into the custody of the U.S. government, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.


That's only true of detained jihadists in the sense they're under the "jurisdiction" of the Executive, in the form of the Defense Department or various intelligence agencies. Except for those detained at Guantanamo, aliens the U.S. holds outside U.S. territory are *not* under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. That's exactly why they weren't brought into the U.S.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 6/27/2009 2:17:19 PM

It basically states that even the Supreme Court has "no Judicial power" relative to these combattants. Bush can thumb his nose at the Supreme Court decision made on the topic


The only right under the U.S. Constitution the alien detainees at Guantanamo are entitled to is the right to habeas the Court cooked up for them in Boumediene. I'm not aware of any cases, documents, law review articles, or anything else on the 11th Amendment and detained unlawful combatants. Can you cite us to the decision you're referring to, or to anything else on this?
 2hi-iq-4u
Joined: 5/29/2009
Msg: 25
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 6/27/2009 2:19:48 PM
Can you cite us to the decision you're referring to, or to anything else on this?


Only that the basis of the amendment was to prosecute foriegn combattants without any interference from the Supreme Court. I think it was drafted for the war of 1812. The Amendment effectively vacates any civilian court decision. If the one you spoke of referred to any foriegn comabattant, it means nothing under the law.

I hope nobody missed the comment about Clinton and waterboarding. I often edit posts until time runs out.
 2hi-iq-4u
Joined: 5/29/2009
Msg: 27
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 6/27/2009 2:31:03 PM
but you have no actual evidence to back this statement up?


What evidence do I need? Do they have toilets for the hoe crew, or do they actually use the vegetables for toilet paper? Somebody has to clean the toilets and door handles or you ar bound to get Salmonella. Do you think a sign that says;" Empoyees must wash their hands" has been effective enough to prevent outbreaks?

I grow my own vegetables, and I know that even a bad application of manure can cause a crop to be infected.
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 6/27/2009 2:31:29 PM
"I believe they didn't believe they had rights"

Slaves did not have rights .... neither did indentured servants, Serfs, women or children. That is why we had to free the women after we freed the slaves.

Some states still considered women chattel during the ERA amendment less than 50 years ago. Not enough states for it to pass. I know Texas finally changed, I think all the other states have.
 2hi-iq-4u
Joined: 5/29/2009
Msg: 30
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 6/27/2009 6:37:59 PM
I would think it is missapplied fertilizer not unwashed hands that causes Salmonella.


Both can cause it. You have to follow food safety guidelines when handling food. The porta potties are prime suspects of spread from one worker to the next during the day.

The most likely source is birds, which have recently visited a chicken farm to steal food, leaving something in the field. If they make messes of the harvesting machinery, that could also be suspect. You don't want pigeons in the barn where the machinery of the crop is stored. Uncomposted manure is another likely source, but most manure is composted correctly.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 6/27/2009 8:23:56 PM

Slaves did not have rights .... neither did indentured servants, Serfs, women or children. That is why we had to free the women after we freed the slaves . . . . Some states still considered women chattel during the ERA amendment less than 50 years ago.


JD was referring to John Casor's lack of rights under British law in the mid-1600's. I'm not sure what period you're referring to in your remark about serfs, women, and children.

Your comment about "why we had to free the women after we freed the slaves" is ridiculous. It implies a similarity that never existed. American women were citizens from the time the U.S. was founded, while it was only in 1868 that the 14th Amendment made black Americans U.S. citizens.

In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), the Court rejected Virginia Minor's assertion of a right to vote under the 14th Amendment. It noted that "sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship . . . . In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both." The Court also found it was a settled issue that "the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage." It also observed that it could "only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a State to withhold."

Until the 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971, even twenty-year-old American citizens, regardless of their sex or race, had no right to vote in a national election. Would that have made it reasonable for anyone, before 1971, to refer to them in the same sentence as slaves, and imply they were in the same position black slaves had been in before emancipation? Or would it be reasonable to refer to all seventeen-year-old Americans in those terms now?

You don't provide any evidence for your claim that some states considered women chattel less than 50 years ago. I guess you're claiming these states had laws authorizing someone or other to treat a woman, in some sense, as their personal property. You also don't say which property rights these laws granted. There isn't just one right in property, but a "bundle" of rights--e.g. the rights to have the property, to dispose of it, to use it, to pass it down to heirs by will, etc.

But even assuming some such laws existed, so what? They'd obviously have been unconstitutional on several grounds. One obvious one is that they constituted involuntary servitude, which the first section of the 13th Amendment prohibits. Also, courts would very likely hold that any such law conferred upon women the "badges and incidents of slavery," which the Supreme Court has held that federal civil rights laws prohibit under the second section of the same Amendment.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 6/27/2009 9:31:32 PM
The Amendment effectively vacates any civilian court decision. If the one you spoke of referred to any foriegn comabattant, it means nothing under the law.


Marbury v. Madison, a landmark 1803 decision, established that the Supreme Court of the U.S. has sole authority to say what the U.S. Constitution means. That principle is as well-established as anything in our law. It follows from it that no part of the Constitution can limit that authority. The 11th Amendment, like the other twenty-five, is part of the Constitution. So your assertion that it "effectively vacates any civilian court decision" is not correct.

In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Court effectively read the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment (then only five years old) right out of the Constitution. Today, 136 years later, it remains a dead letter. Only once, in Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935), has the Court ever used this clause to invalidate a state law. And within five years, it overruled Colgate.

Through many decades, the Court's decisions in 10th Amendment cases also made it mostly a dead letter, although several decisions during the past twenty years or so have revived it somewhat. And the Court has the power, if it should see fit, to limit the 11th Amendment--even severely--just as it has severely limited these other two parts of the Constitution.

Your other assertion, that the case I spoke of--Boumediene--"means nothing under the law," is simply false. Means nothing under *what* law? Boumediene, like any decision of the Supreme Court that it has not overruled, *IS* the law of the U.S.
 2hi-iq-4u
Joined: 5/29/2009
Msg: 33
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 6/27/2009 9:38:18 PM
Your other assertion, that the case I spoke of--Boumediene--"means nothing under the law," is simply false.


You and the Supreme Court can assert anything you or they want to. Even their authority on the basis of their own decisions is subject to the power of the Executive Branch and the Electorate. The underlying principle is democracy and rule of law. The Eleventh Amendment can be interpreted by an utter fool and means exactly what it says.

I suppose the Supreme Court could rule the other way, and make themselves look like imbeciles and fools. Then the Executive Branch could likely remove them for incompetence by trial in front of Congress. I will have to check the legality on that. It is a system of law, with checks and balances. Rule of Law depends on the written word. Occaasionally they get it right, and alternate "interpretations" are moot.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 6/27/2009 9:51:26 PM
^^^^^Thank you, but I'd rather cite facts to support what I say. I'll let you make the assertions about what you imagine the law ought to be. I'd still like to know, specifically, what legal authority connects the 11th Amendment with detained terrorists. You haven't provided any facts, so I assume you're once again just saying what you think the law ought to be. I doubt you have any specific legal authority to back up your assertions--just as you didn't before.
 2hi-iq-4u
Joined: 5/29/2009
Msg: 35
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 6/27/2009 9:58:55 PM
so I assume you're once again just saying what you think the law ought to be. I doubt you have any specific legal authority to back up your assertions--just as you didn't before. .


I am actually rephrasing what is written law, and you are again becoming emotional and abusive. You are attacking my content on irrelevent cites, and attacking me personally.

You began by saying that the 11th had never been challenged, and I simply state that it is unchallengable by competent counsel.

Do you want to read it again?

It is the only cite I need.

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

Didn't the decision you cited defer to Congress? That is the only other out besides the Executive Branch. Rule of Law, and effectively; Due Process, though not guaranteed to each foriegner:Done.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 6/28/2009 1:55:47 AM
I am actually rephrasing what is written law, and you are again becoming emotional and abusive. You are attacking my content on irrelevent cites, and attacking me personally.


One of us has been habitually emotional and abusive, and it's not me. I keep asking you for evidence to back up what you assert, and when you can't, it's reasonable for anyone to doubt it. And no, I'm familiar with the 11th Amendment and don't need to read it again, thank you. You claim to know the law about this subject. You don't. So to cover your inability to deliver the goods, you play the victim and claim I'm attacking you. Give us a break.

You, on the other hand, have felt free to insult me personally several times. I've seen that amateurish reaction enough times to see through it. It's a dead giveaway that you don't have the facts, but hope no will notice that, if you take an spiteful and insulting enough tone with me. Look to yourself--it was you who chose to say things you can't back up.

I have no idea what "attacking my content on irrelevent cites" means. Almost nothing you've said, here or earlier, is an accurate statement of the law. The content of what you've written about this matter is almost entirely the imaginings of your mind, uninformed by even the most basic knowledge of the law. Next we know, you'll be loudly proclaiming that the 3d Amendment actually prohibits any use of the U.S. military, and that that's the rule of law, due process, etc., whether those fools and idiots on the Court know it or not.

Nowhere did I say the 11th Amendment had never been challenged, and I never would. Of course it's "unchallengeable"--by anyone. So is every other part of the Constitution. For any part of the Constitution to be "unconstitutional" is a logical absurdity. But doesn't follow that, as you claimed, the 11th Amendment prevents detained combatants from asserting any rights against the U.S., or whatever specific action you said it prevented them from taking.

What you've said about the 11th Amendment's supposed effect on legal claims by detained combatants is your unsupported assertion. You read the 11th Amendment a certain way. That's nice. But it's also as useless as teats on a boar. The Court declares the law--not you. So go right on believing you're right and the fools and idiots on the Supreme Court are wrong, it you want. Your delusions about the law will never change the way it's applied in the least--so enjoy them.

And now, I can't think of a single other thing you could say that would interest me at all.

 2hi-iq-4u
Joined: 5/29/2009
Msg: 38
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 6/28/2009 11:02:16 AM
Tomboy,


Sounds we need to huntin'


It migh be a good idea to monitor airspace. I am almost certain that the outbreak in peanuts and peanut butter was caused by pigeons, and I was 3000 miles away from the scene. I admit that I could be wrong, but I understand the habits of such birds, and the human ignorance factor. The failure of humans to keep it clean is primary, but the pigeons will often slip in under the radar in very clean conditions,ie. we won't see an aerial assault if we are not looking for one. The nature of salmonella is that it typically appears in the presence of birds, E.coli; from humans and beasts.



Matchlight,


can't think of a single other thing you could say that would interest me at all.
That suits me fine. I have already ignored the rest of your post. I was actually willing to concede a point of relevence after reading more on the amendment, but your insults cause me to avoid even discussing the weather with you. You obviously can't tell the difference between questioning and assertions. I never asserted that you were a moron. I merely asked if you were one. You have asserted your insults directly. Don't worry. You haven't insulted me. I consider the source and will not BE insulted.
I can go back and quote the text directly where you made such assertions.
 HORSEFLY1234
Joined: 8/17/2010
Msg: 39
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 4/9/2011 9:03:11 AM
First, ya gotta define "slavery..."
 agoodman32
Joined: 6/26/2011
Msg: 40
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 7/1/2011 5:35:51 PM


1723.
And the vast majority of Americans are utterly ignorant of the truth about slavery, slaves, and the origin of slavery.
"Convicts", convicted thieves and such, were the first slaves to set foot on American soil, mostly white Irish, and were transported to America under the 1723 Waltham Act. They numbered aprox. 100,000.
Hundreds of thousands of white slaves were slaves in this country from the early l7th century onward.

Many people I talk to are shocked as hell to learn that up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before blacks ever were. Their slavery was even hereditary, white children born to white slaves were enslaved too.
Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and wives sold and separated from their husbands long before blacks were.

There were white slaves in America, but they were, by law, treated differently than "colored" (that is, Native American or African) slaves. And, this is different in scope, range, and effect from the institution of chattel slavery as enacted on the African people. While individual white people may have been enslaved, the color of their skin did not mark them as "slaves" as it did the black African people.

So yes, it happened. Is it as bad as what happened to the African people who were brought here as slaves-- No.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 41
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 7/3/2011 9:39:30 AM
"Blacks were not enslaved because they were black but because they were available. Slavery has existed in the world for thousands of years. Whites enslaved other whites in Europe for centuries before the first black was brought to the Western hemisphere. Asians enslaved Europeans. Asians enslaved other Asians. Africans enslaved other Africans, and indeed even today in North Africa, blacks continue to enslave blacks."—Thomas Sowell

The USA was the first country to initiate laws to end slavery and the second to succeed (Britain was first). The only remaining question is "why does this issue continue to tear us apart? As with most things I'd suggest one follow the money. I don't begrudge a few poverty pimps with no discernable skills making a few bucks but the cost to the people and the people's minds it has crippled is a most horrific price for these few dollars. Should we ever outgrow this societal self-flagellation historians will be bewildered.
 agoodman32
Joined: 6/26/2011
Msg: 42
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 7/4/2011 2:53:42 PM
Because JUST because Thomas Sowell is 'black' and agrees with your line of thinking, doesn't make it more valid. I'm amazed at how people like you will quote someone like Bill Cosby, Tom Sowell, Ward Connerly, John McWhorter, etc. when its convenient to be dismissive of the other side, but ignore Michael Eric Dyson, Harry Edwards, and others who just HAPPEN to be non-Conservative. Poverty pimps lie on both sides of the aisle...since you want to use that corrosive term to describe someone that tries to be a voice for the disenfranchised. I actually find that last sentence ironic because it was Northern Africans...you know, Tunisians, Egyptians, etc...the same ones that conservatives claim aren't black because civilization began there who did the majority of enslaving in Africa. Yet, they are de facto black to make your point here. Interesting.

To address your question...it tears us apart because America historically claims to be one thing while doing another altogether. When people say, "well, America isn't the only country to have slavery"...well true. But Cambodia never claimed to be the bastion of modern democracy and equality. America did. Indonesia didn't go around saying "we hold these truths to be self-evident...all men are created equal". America did. Modern politics pits race against race under the hollow guise of blaming one for another's misfortune. That's what the GOP does. Because they can't actually benefit anyone that isn't in the Fortune 500, its leaders keep THEIR base occupied with idiotic issues like gay marriage, Affirmative Action (which btw, helps more white women than any minority COMBINED...but I guess women should know their place), etc. while not actually addressing the problems of the majority. Yet, blacks are labeled racist because they voted en masse for Obama. Heh...as if you know, a legitimate black candidate for the first time in this country's 232 year history had NOTHING to do with it. SMH.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 43
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 7/4/2011 3:48:52 PM
Sowell is perhaps the finest chronicler of American success stories. I would suggest you read "Ethnic America" to learn why American blacks are the only group that has continually and chronically been unable to improve it's financial position (it is all about positioning relative to other groups because in an absolute sense blacks do well compared to blacks throughout the world).

One has to tie oneself in a complete pretzel to believe, I mean really believe what you wrote. In this case I am not going to insult you by believing that you believe what you wrote.
 dudranch1
Joined: 9/29/2005
Msg: 44
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 2/5/2012 12:02:52 PM
Actually, those that work for minimum wage are lucky. We have a segment of our population that does not get paid for thier work and if they don't show up for work the Sherrif is sent out to drag them in to work. In fact, the sherrif will arrest thier family too.
Now think about it what are students in our school system but slaves. Have you ever wondered why kids do not want to go to school. It is a system that can't compete in todays world.
If we put the same type of system into a business setting can you imagine how much work we would get from employees that are forced to go to work, can't be fired and aren't able to earn anything that THEY value.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 2/5/2012 2:32:38 PM

can't be fired and aren't able to earn anything that THEY value.


Oh, I see. So we should ask little 8-year-old Johnny and Jenny what, if anything, THEY value that they might learn in school. And we should never try to make them learn anything else, because requiring them to study, even a few hours a day, might make them feel all icky--to say nothing of inflicting permanent psychological trauma on them. And for what? After all, doesn't any child just naturally know what will best prepare it to "compete in today's world?"?
 dad2stay
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 46
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 2/6/2012 7:13:48 AM
The interesting part is that most slave traders at that time were rival tribes in Africa as a matter of fact slavery was being practiced in that part of the world for ages before Americans came into the picture
 BigEddd
Joined: 9/9/2011
Msg: 47
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 2/8/2012 11:03:48 PM
Don't forget the Irish slaves that were brought over by the British during the 1600's...and no I'm not talking about indentured servants.
 miltplum
Joined: 2/11/2012
Msg: 49
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 2/26/2012 3:58:49 PM
You failed to mention that nearly all of the people coming into this country were indentured servants, not just blacks. In fact, indentured servants often faced harsher lives. Irish were used for projects deemed too dangerous for slaves, because slaves were worth more than Irishmen.
Also....in terms of numbers, the USA actually got a very small percentage of the African slaves, as the greater number were sent to Brazil, the West Indies, etc.
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Slavery on American Soil - Unfortunately still exists
Posted: 3/9/2012 5:40:36 PM
Sexual slavery is common in most of the developed world, many of the women are from Eastern Europe and Asia.
 CraZyOldMan
Joined: 12/15/2011
Msg: 51
Slavery on American soil
Posted: 3/14/2012 8:06:41 PM
I'm sure slavery started even before it was officially recorded..probably in someone's household
Show ALL Forums  > California  >