Unalienable Rights

[Old_Trapper70]

When the Founding Fathers wrote these words, did they mean ALL "men", or just those who happen to live in America?

"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"

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/guantanamo-bay-obama-prison-closure-plan/index.html

 

[dogtowner]

They knew that their feelings could only be applied to citizens or resident aliens of their country.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

They knew that their feelings could only be applied to citizens or resident aliens of their country.

Point being what? That we ignore the rights of others when they are in our "possession"? If that is so, then the right wing should quit whining every time a citizen is taken by a foreign country such as Iran, or Mexico,

 

[dogtowner]

Point being what? That we ignore the rights of others when they are in our "possession"? If that is so, then the right wing should quit whining every time a citizen is taken by a foreign country such as Iran, or Mexico,

Meaning we don't make their laws. And when they are our guests they get treated properly. The expectation is that they recipricate. And that there are consequences should they not.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Meaning we don't make their laws. And when they are our guests they get treated properly. The expectation is that they recipricate. And that there are consequences should they not.

I didn't know that the prisoners in GITMO were our "guests". However, we have kept them imprisoned for 12-14 years with no trial, no charges filed, no evidence to support their imprisonment, etc.

So, as I have said many times, don't whine, and cry, when they "reciprocate".

 

[Alexia]

The Declaration of Independence was a statement to find just cause for them to break with Britain, and thus used religious texts to justify what they wanted and planned to do.

Sadly, it somehow didn't apply to the slaves at the time, which is why it wasn't in the Constitution. If those words did apply, then slavery should have been abolished when the document was signed and sealed, however, we know that was not the case.

 

[dogtowner]

I didn't know that the prisoners in GITMO were our "guests". However, we have kept them imprisoned for 12-14 years with no trial, no charges filed, no evidence to support their imprisonment, etc.

So, as I have said many times, don't whine, and cry, when they "reciprocate".

They are not our guests which is why it's nor legal to bring them here.
You are mistaken regarding evidence.

 

[dogtowner]

, we know that was not the case.

Virtually anywhere in the world.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

They are not our guests which is why it's nor legal to bring them here.
You are mistaken regarding evidence.

35 of the remaining one have been cleared to be released. There are only a few that have even had a resemblance of a trial. If there was any evidence they would have been tried, or they should have been tried. The fact that they have not shows a lack of evidence. Do some research instead of regurgitating right wing nonsense.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

The Declaration of Independence was a statement to find just cause for them to break with Britain, and thus used religious texts to justify what they wanted and planned to do.

Sadly, it somehow didn't apply to the slaves at the time, which is why it wasn't in the Constitution. If those words did apply, then slavery should have been abolished when the document was signed and sealed, however, we know that was not the case.

You are right that the Founders ignored the slavery aspect when deciding who had rights just as they ignored allowing women to vote. However, it was not that they supported slavery as many did not. It was a compromise to keep the slave States in the Union. What they did do was establish a system by which slavery could be outlawed. It is sad that it took a war to do so, and even then it took another 100 years to give them full rights.

 

[dogtowner]

35 of the remaining one have been cleared to be released. There are only a few that have even had a resemblance of a trial. If there was any evidence they would have been tried, or they should have been tried. The fact that they have not shows a lack of evidence. Do some research instead of regurgitating right wing nonsense.

They all faced a tribunal. All. As would have been done with POWs. They were not due a trial.

 

[dogtowner]

You are right that the Founders ignored the slavery aspect when deciding who had rights just as they ignored allowing women to vote. However, it was not that they supported slavery as many did not. It was a compromise to keep the slave States in the Union. What they did do was establish a system by which slavery could be outlawed. It is sad that it took a war to do so, and even then it took another 100 years to give them full rights.

Slavery was not ignored you even mention how. No war needed and no real need to outlaw. The rest of the civilized world ended slavery virtually bloodlessly. Odd that Lincoln felt the need for a conflict that killed over 600 k and destroyed 40% of gdp. All for something that had no popular support.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Slavery was not ignored you even mention how. No war needed and no real need to outlaw. The rest of the civilized world ended slavery virtually bloodlessly. Odd that Lincoln felt the need for a conflict that killed over 600 k and destroyed 40% of gdp. All for something that had no popular support.

Perhaps you are right in that slavery had already been made illegal in the Northern States. Lincoln believed that his oath of office gave him the responsibility to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States", ad to prevent secession. Under the Constitution the States have no right to secession. And there are those who say Lincoln provoked the war by sending 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. Again though, I am not sure just how much support any war has had since our founding. Vietnam certainly did not have much, as the invasion of Iraq has had little save for prior o the invasion. Even WW2 was greatly opposed, and again many say that FDR provoked the Japanese into invading Pearl Harbor.

Have you ever noticed how war only postpones hostilities, never ending them?

 

[dogtowner]

Perhaps you are right in that slavery had already been made illegal in the Northern States. Lincoln believed that his oath of office gave him the responsibility to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States", ad to prevent secession. Under the Constitution the States have no right to secession. And there are those who say Lincoln provoked the war by sending 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. Again though, I am not sure just how much support any war has had since our founding. Vietnam certainly did not have much, as the invasion of Iraq has had little save for prior o the invasion. Even WW2 was greatly opposed, and again many say that FDR provoked the Japanese into invading Pearl Harbor.

Have you ever noticed how war only postpones hostilities, never ending them?

How does the constitution prohibit secession ?