P
PadawanBater
Guest
[youtube]g3fm_IQ5Hco[/youtube]
haha pwned!
haha pwned!
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Is 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.
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.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
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.
Yes, no person shall be compelled to incriminate himself. This is in regard to civilian criminal justice - it has nothing at all to do with the rules of ware fare. That same guy makes many propaganda videos. Bald faced lies.
Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
Right on the money + Rep
So everyone agrees that owning firearms is a right, does everyone agree that an illegal alien should be able to come across the border and go right to the nearest gun store and start arming himself? How about afterwards he goes around saying how terrible the USA is and how our leaders are horrible Hitlers. Starts a newspaper telling everyone how terrible the USA and our leaders are, inspiring hate all the while protected because of rights? Everyone all aboard the "Human Rights" bandwagon still?
A person is a legal fiction granted to us by the government, corporations and businesses can be people too.
A person is a legal fiction granted to us by the government, corporations and businesses can be people too.
upnorth2505
New Member
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.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If hating "us" , means they deserve to be put to death, does hating them mean
"we" deserve to be put to death?
What would stop this cycle?
vasioplunk
Member
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.
Honestly and being fair these individuals really should be treated like soldiers. Those who commit acts of genocide or violations of the Geneva Convention need to be tried by international courts. The worse of the worse need to be executed on the battle field. I mean its really simple, but the U.S government has a different proposal. They want to blur the line between; soldier, mercenary, partisan and criminal. So they can try to work around the constitution to expand these policies to U.S Citizens or individuals within state jurisdiction.
We have a constitution that not only protects U.S citizens but those who are under the jurisdiction of the states. So, even if Osama bin laden himself was busted in Utah well he would have the protections of the U.S constitution.
You may not like it, but you gotta respect the constitution.Note: I do not support these guys, they dont believe in my way of life. But I know men are men and should be treated as such. It is disgusting to treat prisoners of war this way. You say we are at war, but you dont recognize the enemy as soldiers. Enemy combatents. Sounds like soldiers, mercenaries, or partisans. Who else can you define in that
Terrorists Well a 5 year old can be a terrorist by definition. By the way, Just so everyone knows. The Taliban are armed partisan resistance. The Al-Qaida guys are mercenaries in my view. And someone is directing them and putting out the cash from somewhere, but I guess where...Sorry I type up long posts..
P
PadawanBater
Guest
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%27s_justice
"War does not determine who is right, only who is left" - Bertrand Russell
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Right are endowed by the Creator, but the Constitution guarantees those rights.
Anyone in America illegally is an invader. But they are entitled to due process.
And terrorists/enemy combatants captured on foreign soil? Fuggedaboutit. They are subject to military tribunals.
Even if they are captured on American soil. Military tribunal.
Just like those eight German saboteurs captured in the U.S. during WW II. Them sumbitches were tried and six of them executed by a military tribunal within days of their capture.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-2.htm
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
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
I am not in favor of the death penalty precisely because I fear innocent people will be put to death and it will be abused. Morally, I think it is wrong to allow a murderer to live. It is an injustice toward the victim. Go back and see if you can understand the point that this example was supposed to get across - you clearly didn't get it.
As far as the ticking time bomb and who decides - the question is invalid. "Who decides" is almost never a valid question. Especially in this case because either there is a ticking time bomb or there is not - there is no deciding. But any time the question is asked the answer is the reasonable man standard used in all jurisprudence.
Do captured terrorists, who are not protected by the Geneva Convention BTW, deserve humane treatment - of course; all people do. Should they be allowed prayer rugs and copies of the Koran in prison - no.
I do however think that their treatment is open for debate and I do not know the answer. There is a lot to be considered.
And I think Gitmo, aside from a few idiots pulling stupid hazing pranks on prisoners is generally way too plush for them. I think your average county jail in the US is far worse from what I have seen - and I have watched full exposes on Gitmo.