Thread: A question on the constitution

Originally Posted by Orville

Except that those guys never should have BEEN in Gitmo in the first place. They should have been brought to trial in a US Court. .

Well that is questionable...

Are they POW's ???
Are they Criminals ???
Are they "Enemy Combatants" ??


See they blurred the line, we didn't, so the entire legal system whether Military or Civilian has been obscured...

Terrorists now are being classified more as Criminals especially those that are home grown.. It is a complicated question that personally I believe should be settled much like we did after WW2 with a Multi-National Tribunal

Only countries that have suffered a Terrorist attack should sit on the panel and the legal status of any prisoners should be once and for all be decided...

Basically an International set of rules for Terrorists/Mercenaries that work outside of a Country's Uniform we managed to work out the Geneva Conventions of War this should be a seperate part of it


ps: I am not positive but the way I understand the International Laws now they can actually be executed as Spies/Subversives as Non-Uniformed Combatants, will have to research that for accuracy.. But I don't think they actually have any rights if they are not uniformed POW's..

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Well that is questionable...

Are they POW's ???
Are they Criminals ???
Are they "Enemy Combatants" ??

You tell me . . . but make a decision and proceed rather than just suspend your own Constitution by holding them without charge or representation


See they blurred the line, we didn't, so the entire legal system whether Military or Civilian has been obscured...

They didn't blur anything. US gov just ignores their own laws.

Terrorists now are being classified more as Criminals especially those that are home grown.. It is a complicated question that personally I believe should be settled much like we did after WW2 with a Multi-National Tribunal

It's only complicated if you are deliberately trying to AVOID making a decision as to the disposition of these people.

Only countries that have suffered a Terrorist attack should sit on the panel and the legal status of any prisoners should be once and for all be decided...

Basically an International set of rules for Terrorists/Mercenaries that work outside of a Country's Uniform we managed to work out the Geneva Conventions of War this should be a seperate part of it


ps: I am not positive but the way I understand the International Laws now they can actually be executed as Spies/Subversives as Non-Uniformed Combatants, will have to research that for accuracy.. But I don't think they actually have any rights if they are not uniformed POW's..

EVERYBODY has Rights . . . as to trying them as Spies/Subversives, I would be fine with that, but MAKE A DECISION !!! That is the extent of my objection. Your Government needs to follow it's Laws, rather than enact some BS Presidential edict allowing them to do whatever the hell they want to.

Originally Posted by Orville

EVERYBODY has Rights . . . as to trying them as Spies/Subversives, I would be fine with that, but MAKE A DECISION !!! That is the extent of my objection. Your Government needs to follow it's Laws, rather than enact some BS Presidential edict allowing them to do whatever the hell they want to.

When you behead innocents for sport & burn humans alive, you forfeit all rights you have. So not everybody has rights my friend.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

When you behead innocents for sport & burn humans alive, you forfeit all rights you have. So not everybody has rights my friend.

Yeah, but in historical timescale that's a comparatively recent worldview. One of the most celebrated cases in the history of free thought is of a guy named Giordano Bruno - he was burned alive in 1600 and as recently as 2000 the position of the Roman Church was that while it was 'sad episode' the inquisitors 'had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life.'

We didn't get here by killing off all the bloodthirsty 'do gooders' among our ancestors, we changed by overtime starting to value the lives of our fellow humans over the differences we have with them.

Originally Posted by gugi

Yeah, but in historical timescale that's a comparatively recent worldview. One of the most celebrated cases in the history of free thought is of a guy named Giordano Bruno - he was burned alive in 1600 and as recently as 2000 the position of the Roman Church was that while it was 'sad episode' the inquisitors 'had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life.'

We didn't get here by killing off all the bloodthirsty 'do gooders' among our ancestors, we changed by overtime starting to value the lives of our fellow humans over the differences we have with them.

We both are so far apart from the point in my post Gugi. Don't cloud or read into my very simple, yet precise statement that you quoted by injecting history. History made by individuals who were as incompetent as many we have in charge today.

Evil has not a single element (and you are familiar with elements, I do believe) in common with sin. History is documented with examples of both. I would not have called your example of Giordano Bruno as evil. "Bloodthirsty" is a tossed about term,,,, usually tossed out by the losing side of a battle or the spectators from afar.

Your statement : "We didn't get here by killing off all the bloodthirsty 'do gooders' among our ancestors, we changed by overtime starting to value the lives of our fellow humans over the differences we have with them." is a great topic for discussion, but again off point from my original statement you quoted. We got here by killing more of them, than they were able to do to us. How many examples in this past 120 years do I need to give you.

Again, we are talking about two different things Gugi.

The beheadings , burning of human beings we have recently seen & all the ones we have not, staking of children,,, has not a thing to do with politics, ideology, frustration of economic conditions, it is the result of men who have entered that dark room, that we all have possessed from birth. That room that most of us never see & most don't know it exists. Evil resides there,, sin which can be forgiven, dares not enter either.

I have seen evil in person, you can't give it a lawyer, call it a priest,, you can't change it, because it is in us all & beyond our understanding/science.
When seen in it's physical form, man it has to be put down.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

I have seen evil in person, you can't give it a lawyer, call it a priest,, you can't change it, because it is in us all & beyond our understanding/science.
When seen in it's physical form, man it has to be put down.

This can not be Described or Explained you either know it or you don't it is that simple... until somebody faces it they will never understand it...

Well put

When I hear people say things like Sanctions and Talks when people are being burned alive and worse, I realize there is no reasoning with them we are way to far apart.. We will never understand each other..

Yes, thank God most don't have to see it

Originally Posted by gssixgun

When I hear people say things like Sanctions and Talks when people are being burned alive and worse, I realize there is no reasoning with them we are way to far apart.. We will never understand each other..

Just for clarification, do you mean no reasoning with the sanction talkers or the burning/beheading thugs? If you mean the later, yes there really is no talking to do with them. That is very clear at least to me.

Bob

Originally Posted by Orville

EVERYBODY has Rights . . . as to trying them as Spies/Subversives, I would be fine with that, but MAKE A DECISION !!! That is the extent of my objection. Your Government needs to follow it's Laws, rather than enact some BS Presidential edict allowing them to do whatever the hell they want to.

No not really, not only our laws apply here...

I was doing some reading about the Geneva Conventions, and honestly you have two distinctions Combatant and Civilian there is some wording in there about Non-Uniformed Combatant but the real telling line is that "If you fight at night and become a civilian in the day " you basically fall into a Limbo status when captured and can be Executed / Held without a Trial..

They are pretty harsh about endangering Civilians by confusing the opposing army and putting non-combatants in danger that is a big no no...
Basically by fighting as a terrorist and hiding among the Civilian population you give up your rights to any protections under the laws because you are endangering Non- Combatants.. So regardless of what anyone "Thinks" is right, by International Law it seems as though if you are captured on the Battlefield without a uniform you are without rights...

To be sure it seems that the entire section is a little grey, but that whole deal about endangering Civilians is pretty clear...

I can also understand why most people would not want to stand and fight against the US Military (and Allies) toe to toe, that is basically suicide.. so wearing a uniform is tantamount to wearing a big target... That however does not change the laws


The only argument here is that they do not abide by the Geneva Convention, but on that note we knew that when they attacked on 9/11 ... so the way I am reading it the only "Rights" they have are the ones we choose to give them...

ps; Keep in mind that we released all the Iraqi army regulars that we captured as soon as Hostilities ended

pss: reading a bit more about the only thing they are protected from is Torture like what was discovered at Abu Ghraib

Originally Posted by gssixgun

The only argument here is that they do not abide by the Geneva Convention, but on that note we knew that when they attacked on 9/11 ... so they way I am reading it the only "Rights" they have are the ones we choose to give them...

The gray area comes not from the terrorists but by the way US conducts its wars. It fought the Afganistan and Iraq armies and defeated them, at that point there is no longer the excuse of 'these terrorists are confusing us and endangering civilians'. At this point US is an occupier of a foreign country and as such is responsible for the population's safety. If it chooses to not afford lawful process it is on US, but at this point terror attacks and insurgency are not a war they are criminal acts from the population against the ruling government.

Just like 9/11 is not some sovereign country invading US. It's a lot more like Tim McVeigh bombing Oklahoma City than Perl Harbor.

I think this whole 'war on terror' language is just pulling the wool over people to confuse things.