Prisoner exchange

I’m torn. It’s good freeing Americans imprisoned if they are being wrongfully detained in a foreign country. But I hate the precedent. It is telling Russia (and other bad actors) that it is SMART of them to just seize US citizens if they need something from us.

I think in general you shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists. Israel’s past ransom payments (in the form of prisoners) has taught the Palestinian people that taking hostages works for them in future deals.

Quote: SOOPOO

I’m torn. It’s good freeing Americans imprisoned if they are being wrongfully detained in a foreign country. But I hate the precedent. It is telling Russia (and other bad actors) that it is SMART of them to just seize US citizens if they need something from us.

I think in general you shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists. Israel’s past ransom payments (in the form of prisoners) has taught the Palestinian people that taking hostages works for them in future deals.

I wouldn't mind seeing the U.S. prevent citizens from going to Russia.

Quote: DRich

I wouldn't mind seeing the U.S. prevent citizens from going to Russia.

It is already on the strongest advisory that there is (equivalent of North Korea.) America really cannot do more, because it does not believe in criminal charges for people who visit certain countries (which it should, but that is a separate issue....)

Quote: Gandler

It is already on the strongest advisory that there is (equivalent of North Korea.) America really cannot do more, because it does not believe in criminal charges for people who visit certain countries (which it should, but that is a separate issue....)

I'm not sure the Constitution would allow for criminal charges for travel to certain designated foreign countries. Historically, courts have ruled that Aermicans have a Constitutional right to travel to foreign nations. And have a right to return to US soil. We can criminalize certain conduct while there-terrorism, aid and comfort to enemies, for example. But just travel there and back again? That dog don't hunt.

Quote: GenoDRPh

I'm not sure the Constitution would allow for criminal charges for travel to certain designated foreign countries. Historically, courts have ruled that Aermicans have a Constitutional right to travel to foreign nations. And have a right to return to US soil. We can criminalize certain conduct while there-terrorism, aid and comfort to enemies, for example. But just travel there and back again? That dog don't hunt.

An even more extreme example was the epidemic of "ISIS wives" (women who were so in love with ISIS them went to ISIS run territory in Iraq to be married to fighters) and if they should be allowed to re-enter. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is the answer is generally yes, if they did not commit or aid in a specific act.

My personal view is they should be banned from coming back. If somebody thinks that offering themselves to be in an ISIS harem for some warlord is a logical thing to do they are probably not a positive member of society. Sure, visiting friends in Russia is not quite that extreme, but I would have a similar view on that. Let them stay in Russia or the levant.

Our constitution is very antiquated (despite being newer than that in many nations,) in the sense that changing it is hard and it stay pretty similar. There are many things in the constitution that are dumb, this fits in that bundle. We did manage an amendment to ban alcohol across the country after WWI (even if it quickly got reversed,) so sometimes drastic changes do quickly happen, but it is rare, maybe once every 100 years.... I love the constitution in the historical perspective, but I am not somebody who thinks it should be the bible (thinking that people in the 1700s had any concept of the modern world or how modern travel works is absurd.)

Quote: GenoDRPh

I'm not sure the Constitution would allow for criminal charges for travel to certain designated foreign countries. Historically, courts have ruled that Aermicans have a Constitutional right to travel to foreign nations. And have a right to return to US soil. We can criminalize certain conduct while there-terrorism, aid and comfort to enemies, for example. But just travel there and back again? That dog don't hunt.

How about we just cancel their passport if they go to a country that the government says not to go to.

Quote: Gandler

An even more extreme example was the epidemic of "ISIS wives" (women who were so in love with ISIS them went to ISIS run territory in Iraq to be married to fighters) and if they should be allowed to re-enter. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is the answer is generally yes, if they did not commit or aid in a specific act.

My personal view is they should be banned from coming back. If somebody thinks that offering themselves to be in an ISIS harem for some warlord is a logical thing to do they are probably not a positive member of society. Sure, visiting friends in Russia is not quite that extreme, but I would have a similar view on that. Let them stay in Russia or the levant.

Our constitution is very antiquated (despite being newer than that in many nations,) in the sense that changing it is hard and it stay pretty similar. There are many things in the constitution that are dumb, this fits in that bundle. We did manage an amendment to ban alcohol across the country after WWI (even if it quickly got reversed,) so sometimes drastic changes do quickly happen, but it is rare, maybe once every 100 years.... I love the constitution in the historical perspective, but I am not somebody who thinks it should be the bible (thinking that people in the 1700s had any concept of the modern world or how modern travel works is absurd.)

People have a Constitutional right to offer themselves to be in an ISIS harem for some warlord. And those same people have a Constitutional right to return to US soil.

There have been 27 Amendments to the US Constitution in 236 years since ratification. If we take away the first 10, which were added at the same time, we have 17 amendments added over 236 years, which means an average of 1 amendment every 13 years or so. Certainly much more frequently than 1 every 100 years.

If your point is the Constitution should be updated to reflect modern times. I hear you. Maybe we can adjust the 1st Amendment to reflect modern communicastions modalities, the 2nd to reflect the availability of automatic weapons and incendiary devices, the 4th to reflect when a cop can demand ID or how a search due to a traffic stop can proceed. The list can go on.

The Founding Fathers realized the potential for the Constitution becoming outdated, which is why they included avenues for amending. It's also why the Constitution states the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

But, right now, the Constitution and its amendments is the one we got. And the judges who interpret the amendments and the Constitution. So, vote for candidates who will interpret the Constitution in ways that you agree with. That's the reason why downballot elections are important. And possibly a most important reason what your presidential vote is important.

Quote: DRich

How about we just cancel their passport if they go to a country that the government says not to go to.

To what effect? Passport or not, they still have a Constitutional right to return to US soil. They are still US citizens. The State Department has lost lawsuits over this.

Quote: GenoDRPh

People have a Constitutional right to offer themselves to be in an ISIS harem for some warlord. And those same people have a Constitutional right to return to US soil.

I would argue marrying a terrorist is supporting terrorism. Many countries ban people accused of such (even if not committed) from returning. For example an issue with GITMO is a lot of people were due to be released, but there were not countries that would accept them (because their home country decided to ban them.) So it is pretty common for nations to ban people from returning, like many things, America just has some weird sense of "freedoms....."

Quote: GenoDRPh

There have been 27 Amendments to the US Constitution in 236 years since ratification. If we take away the first 10, which were added at the same time, we have 17 amendments added over 236 years, which means an average of 1 amendment every 13 years or so. Certainly much more frequently than 1 every 100 years.

I may have worded this poorly, but when I said drastic changes, I mean quick changes, within a few months- a year of the issue arising.... Yes many casual changes over the years (some of which take over 200 years since the original proposal.)

Quote: GenoDRPh

If your point is the Constitution should be updated to reflect modern times. I hear you. Maybe we can adjust the 1st Amendment to reflect modern communicastions modalities, the 2nd to reflect the availability of automatic weapons and incendiary devices, the 4th to reflect when a cop can demand ID or how a search due to a traffic stop can proceed. The list can go on.

The Founding Fathers realized the potential for the Constitution becoming outdated, which is why they included avenues for amending. It's also why the Constitution states the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Yes, but very slow methods for changing it (by design.) I respect the constitution, but I don't think it should be treated as a bible, published in its time, never to be changed.... That speed of change may have been appropriate for the late 1700s, but not today.

Quote: GenoDRPh

But, right now, the Constitution and its amendments is the one we got. And the judges who interpret the amendments and the Constitution. So, vote for candidates who will interpret the Constitution in ways that you agree with. That's the reason why downballot elections are important. And possibly a most important reason what your presidential vote is important.

I agree, that is why the Senate and the President are so critical in the coming election. We need to make sure that the proper judges get updated, because the current ones do not have the correct view.

Quote: Gandler

I would argue marrying a terrorist is supporting terrorism. Many countries ban people accused of such (even if not committed) from returning. For example an issue with GITMO is a lot of people were due to be released, but there were not countries that would accept them (because their home country decided to ban them.) So it is pretty common for nations to ban people from returning, like many things, America just has some weird sense of "freedoms....."

You could argue that. The State Department has argued that. And they lost. The US's weird senses of "freedoms" do us just well, thank you. Its the same freedoms that allow you and me to post pretty much whatever we want on this board.

Quote:

I may have worded this poorly, but when I said drastic changes, I mean quick changes, within a few months- a year of the issue arising.... Yes many casual changes over the years (some of which take over 200 years since the original proposal.)

When we want to, we can get amendments ratified in months. Take the 13th, the 14th and the 15th Amendments, for example.

Quote: GenoDRPh

You could argue that. The State Department has argued that. And they lost. The US's weird senses of "freedoms" do us just well, thank you. Its the same freedoms that allow you and me to post pretty much whatever we want on this board.

I don't agree, many other countries, even most of Europe is much better at regulating people who move to sketch places and try to return. The state dept was right, people who publicly renounce their citizenship while moving to an enemy country should be banned and citizenship revoked. Personally, I would go even further, but that is a good start.

Quote: GenoDRPh

When we want to, we can get amendments ratified in months. Take the 13th, the 14th and the 15th Amendments, for example.

Yes, it was exaggerative, but 100 is not that far off. It is a slow process.