David Bernstein asks rhetorically,
This seems like a good time to remind readers that, according to Newsweek Donald Rumsfeld argued for stripping Americans suspected of aiding Al Qaeda of their rights and holding them indefinitely as "enemy combatants." If the man can't be trusted with the rights of Americans, would you trust him with the rights of Iraqis?Even if the Newsweek story is true, it has no bearing on my trust in Secretary Rumsfeld's handling of civil liberties in Iraq. Why? Because Iraq is currently a protectorate of the United States, not a part of it. Iraqis aren't protected by the Constitution, and don't have the same rights we do. For one thing, they can own machine guns, and I sure can't. For another, they can't vote (yet).
And is it at all odd for Mr. Bernstein to then, in a subsequent post, call on the FBI to use torture on suspects in "ticking bomb" scenarios?
Does the right to be treated humanely come, ultimately, from a piece of paper, or from God? Rumsfeld argues that there is no God-given right to be treated humanely, so if there are "outs" on paper, for example the detained are terrorists, as labeled by the government without right of review by the courts, as opposed to POWS, then there are no rights, period. But God will judge us regardless of what a piece of paper does or doesn't say.
JT: Well, pieces of paper have a lot to do with defining "humanely", because they describe the particulars of a given circumstance. I think you may be underestimating the discretion God entrusts to human governments.
JT
Can you give me an "in context" quote from Rumsfield where he states specifically that "people have no God given right to be treated humanely"?
Since Bush is adamant on this particular issue, I would say you are either flat out wrong, or sadly mistaken. I believe that Rumsfield has stated that "terrorist" do not have protection under the Geneva Convention, in which he is absolutely correct. The Geneva Convention set about to protect "enemy combatants of the State", not to protect people who are stateless, and do not conform to the "rules of warfare" as set out by that same document.
If an "American" renounced his citizenship to fight within another countries armed forces, does that person still have the protection of the Constitution. I would argue that he does not. That is not to say he would be denied humane treatment, just that's its guarentee would not come from the Constitution.
It is legal for Americans (not sure about Kalifornia state regs) to own machineguns. They're very expense and it requires monumental paperwork, but you can buy them. I have several friends who own them.
TL: Some fully automatic weapons have been grandfathered in, but for the most part Americans can't own automatic weapons without a federal firearms license.