P
PadawanBater
Guest
[youtube]g3fm_IQ5Hco[/youtube]
haha pwned!
haha pwned!
The guy in the video is spewing BS. His very first point is dead wrong. Terrorists are not the same in the eyes of the law as a "person" accused of a crime. His quoting of the Constitution is a blatant fabrication.[youtube]g3fm_IQ5Hco[/youtube]
haha pwned!
Right on the money + RepIs this thread about Constitutional law or about the ethical question of whether or not enemy combatants ought to have constitutional rights?
I do believe the rules for treatment of enemy combatants is different than those for civilian criminals. I don't even see the comparison. There is also the question of whether or not a terrorist should be treated the same as a uniformed soldier. There are Geneva Convention questions as well as Constitutional ones.
War, is in no way the same as civilian life and the same rules can not apply. Would anyone suggest that in raiding a enemy holdout our troops must have a search warrant signed by a judge? The whole notion of trying combatants in civilian court is absurd for many reasons. Not the least of these being that there is a process called "discovery" in which all evidence must be provided to the defendant and councel. This would in many cases include classified information. In the end, this is a very long and involved conversation.
But, the argument of "we are the same as they are if we do X" is always a bad one. This is called moral equivalence and it is fallacious. For instance - "if we execute a murderer we are no better than he is." Execution isn't murder. Murder, is the unlawful killing of an innocent person - execution is lawful killing of a criminal in the interest of justice. These are very different.
I do not believe we should torture except maybe in the most obvious ticking time bomb situation. But, I would have no problem dropping their ass in a barrel of pork lard before putting them in front of a firing squad.
As far as Gitmo is concerned - that was more like a college hell week than torture.
If hating "us" , means they deserve to be put to death, does hating them meanWhen it comes to an act of terrorism, only a US citizen should be afforded the rights of the constitution. All others should be treated as enemy combatants and subject to militarty tribunals. One could hope that the majority of these terrorists would be put to death. It is what they deserve. They hate us and want to kill us.
Under the Geneva convention these men meet all of the requirements for protection under the label of mercenaries, soldiers for hire. Because that is what they are. They come from all over the world to fight invaders of the holy land. Some do for a price; some for metaphysical repayment. Either way they expect some sort of payment in the end either by Allah or by the organizers. We use mercenaries we call them security contractors. They call them holy warriors I see no difference between them.When it comes to an act of terrorism, only a US citizen should be afforded the rights of the constitution. All others should be treated as enemy combatants and subject to militarty tribunals. One could hope that the majority of these terrorists would be put to death. It is what they deserve. They hate us and want to kill us.
Is this thread about Constitutional law or about the ethical question of whether or not enemy combatants ought to have constitutional rights?
Of course a lot of the standard rules of law don't apply during war. This is about enemy combatants who we capture.War, is in no way the same as civilian life and the same rules can not apply. Would anyone suggest that in raiding a enemy holdout our troops must have a search warrant signed by a judge? The whole notion of trying combatants in civilian court is absurd for many reasons. Not the least of these being that there is a process called "discovery" in which all evidence must be provided to the defendant and councel. This would in many cases include classified information. In the end, this is a very long and involved conversation.
Innocent people are executed. Execution is murder by the definition of the word. The society has deemed a person guilty of a crime punishable - as determined by someone else not involved with a specific case - by death. Many countries have banned the death penalty because of this.But, the argument of "we are the same as they are if we do X" is always a bad one. This is called moral equivalence and it is fallacious. For instance - "if we execute a murderer we are no better than he is." Execution isn't murder. Murder, is the unlawful killing of an innocent person - execution is lawful killing of a criminal in the interest of justice. These are very different.
I do not believe we should torture except maybe in the most obvious ticking time bomb situation. But, I would have no problem dropping their ass in a barrel of pork lard before putting them in front of a firing squad.
Do you think you would have any problem spending a month in Gitmo?As far as Gitmo is concerned - that was more like a college hell week than torture.
Victors JusticeWhen it comes to an act of terrorism, only a US citizen should be afforded the rights of the constitution. All others should be treated as enemy combatants and subject to militarty tribunals. One could hope that the majority of these terrorists would be put to death. It is what they deserve. They hate us and want to kill us.
Right are endowed by the Creator, but the Constitution guarantees those rights.Rights arn't granted by the constitution they are God given.
So unless Americans are some sort of master race
God loves more then his other children
our rights must naturally belong to everyone.
I can't answer all of these questions after you have muti-quoted them because the post is trashed - you know this.I was basically wondering who thought we should treat the enemy combatants with any respect at all and who didn't. Does the "enemy" deserve to keep his dignity during capture? If he doesn't, how does this viewpoint affect our militaries current operations when someone is captured? How does this affect what the "enemy" is thinking when deciding to take prisoners or simply make another Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl video to spread across the internet and gain more support for his cause? Do our actions in treatment of prisoners of war affect our enemies actions? Should we consider it?
Of course a lot of the standard rules of law don't apply during war. This is about enemy combatants who we capture.
Innocent people are executed. Execution is murder by the definition of the word. The society has deemed a person guilty of a crime punishable - as determined by someone else not involved with a specific case - by death. Many countries have banned the death penalty because of this.
[BLUE]-Abolished for all offenses (94)
[GREEN]-Abolished for all offenses except under certain circumstances (10)
[ORANGE]-Retains, though not used for at least 10 years (35)
[RED]-Retains death penalty (58 )
139 have not used the death penalty for at least 10 years or have abolished it almost completely.
58 have retained it.
Now compare the map and the data.
People claiming moral superiority here in these regards find themselves in the company of China, Iran, North Korea and Saudi Arabia when it comes to executing citizens.
I think that says quite a bit...
Who decides that? - the severity of the situation at the time? - that's important.
Do you think you would have any problem spending a month in Gitmo?
Victors Justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor's_justice
"War does not determine who is right, only who is left" - Bertrand Russell