0 votes

Supreme Court Rules Guantanamo Detainees are not "Persons"

http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-ne...

The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By agreeing, the court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" – did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.

"Another set of claims are dismissed because Guantanamo detainees are not ‘persons’ within the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – an argument that was too close to Dred Scott v. Sanford for one of the judges on the court of appeals to swallow," he added.

It is because of rulings like this, that I have consistently wanted YOU, my brothers and sisters in Liberty, to be aware of the subtle definitions and the status which may allow you to implicate yourself.

Person does NOT mean human being! So when you see a law that says "any Person who..." you should know what is meant by "person", if it doesnt include "human" or "human being" and instead includes "natural person" know that it is a trick, and it is referring to something OTHER than a human, ususally it is referring to an entity that has been created by a license, or a contract.

you become a "person" when you contract with the government. This is the heart of the "Strawman" debate, that a "human" becomes a "person" and gives up his/her sovereignty, and becomes "subject" to their jurisdiction, simply by contracting.

proof there is a strawman:
http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf

Why you are a "national" and NOT a "citizen of the United Sates"
http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

what a freaking joke.

This admin should make any "person" sick.

Maybe soon they will soon

Maybe soon they will soon rule that people declared "terrorists" by that screwball Janet Napalitano to be non-persons too. Tyrants establish precedents, and then expand their newly acquired "powers" based on those precedents.

Anyone who is politically incorrect: returning Iraqi veterans, gun owners, critics of the Federal Reserve, and Ron Paul supporters are targets for our would-be rulers. To allow people like this to impugn our patriotism, while they undermine the Bill of Rights would be truly criminal.

I second

your great comment.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

Cant´t help but wonder what happens when American´s get the same

status in other countries...

Subject to torture, no fair trial, no access to a lawyer...

Amanda knox comes to mind, even though she got all that...

Much whining then, but no whining about these suspects..

Um...

Why other countries? After all, we can now have this same status right at home in the US... :(

~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~

At least you won´t be kidnapped by a foreign power..

That is a positive...

Um..

Being kidnapped by your own government is better?

LOL

~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~

The Supremes are wrong, from

The Supremes are wrong, from the very beginning.

USC title 1, chapter 1, section 1

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals

Then, in USC title 1, chapter 8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual", shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

read that closer Jive... the

read that closer Jive...

    the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual", shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

as a matter of fact, why didnt "the words 'Person' and 'whoever' simply include the words "human" or "human being"? It's obvious that the code uses the words "human" and "human being"

    USC title 1, chapter 1, section 1

    the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals

then, why didnt they leave out the word "infant"?

    the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual", shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

The answer is:
Because this is ALL legalese, used to protect the legislative body from committing an unconstitutional act.
This leads me to believe that this section is in USC Title 1 to allow infants, still waiting for birth certificates and Social Security Numbers, to be considered "persons" in a legal sense for the purpose of some benefit, or to regulate abortion practice.

There is an EASY way to avoid this confusion; Have "person" include human beings...there are NO coincidences in LAW or POLITICS!

I think the word "person",

I think the word "person", according to Websters, refers to "the mask one wears during a play".I also think you will not find the word listed in a pre 1930 Websters as it is a 'French' word.....?

SteveMT's picture

Why are they still wanting to send a bunch of...

"Non-persons" here for trials and more interment?

"Strange" is an understatement.

why YOU may not be a "person"

why YOU may not be a "person" at all.