• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

constitutional rights for terrorists? ..no way!

I dunno, how about the right to know why they are being held?
Or the right to plead their case?
ted
These arent rights afforded by the GC to POWs or any other sort of combatant.
 
The Geneva Conventions recognize combatants and civilians.

They also recognize mercenaries, but I doubt the detainees are getting paid more than the regulars.

They suggest that soldiers wear uniforms and carry weapons openly to distinguish between the two.

What I am trying to argue is; If they are not regular combatants, they can't be POWs and if they are not POWs they should be treated as something else.
What, I don't know, nor does the Geneva accords know, but they should be treated better until a designation and proper treatment is decided.

Any chance of you seeing my point?

I'm a liberal democrat who loves his country. I am normally very proud of her, and will more likely rush to her defense when she is bad mouthed, but it shames me when any people are treated poorly by my government.

You're right, I can't prove that sneaky inhuman treatment is going on at Gitmo. All I have to go on is news stories.
But no good stories come out of there.

Lots of unpleasant stories come out of Iraq, but for every unpleasant story that comes along, I see 5 good, heartwarming stories. Stories that make me proud and help me know that Abu Ghraib was an aberration.

No such stories come out of Gitmo. Find me some to ease my soul.
ted
 
Paladin said:
The Geneva Conventions recognize combatants and civilians.
They suggest that soldiers wear uniforms and carry weapons openly to distinguish between the two.
Its not a suggestion, its a requirement.

What I am trying to argue is; If they are not regular combatants, they can't be POWs and if they are not POWs they should be treated as something else.
What, I don't know, nor does the Geneva accords know, but they should be treated better until a designation and proper treatment is decided.
They should be treated as POWs.
POWs dont get charged and they dont get trials.
There's no reason that "unlawful enemy combatatnts" should.

You're right, I can't prove that sneaky inhuman treatment is going on at Gitmo. All I have to go on is news stories.
But no good stories come out of there.
And so, it must all be sneaky inhumane treatment.

Lots of unpleasant stories come out of Iraq, but for every unpleasant story that comes along, I see 5 good, heartwarming stories. Stories that make me proud and help me know that Abu Ghraib was an aberration.
You have to be kiding me - its almost impossible to find a "good news" story out of Iraq.
 
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter
Since they are illegal enemy conbatatnts, they do not enjoy all the rights afforded to capturees under the genevea Conventions -- however, they HAVE been given most of those rights, as allowed by military necessity.
I'm glad you admit they do have some rights.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
(Protocol 1) Adopted on 8 June 1977 by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armned Conflicts entry into force 7 December 1979, in accordance with Article 95


Article 45.-Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities
1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.

3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, an such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
 
Billo_Really said:
No matter how many times I read this, I can't find any sense in it. Not sure what your point is here, Jimmyboy. Care to respond to post #7?
Stu? Dee? How about you guys? Care to respond to this?





Dear Bill, .....First of all IF I'm seen with terrorists, ..& carrying a gun & engaging American forces, & have been seen by the American military, & have helped & shown sympathy & have given aid to the terror enemy, then, I'm part of the problem!

THe bulk of the prisoners are the ones who have been caught while engaging the American military, ..& those who surrendered.

secondly, ...I TRUST OUR AMERICAN MILITARY to be able to ferret out who the real terrorists are, & those that give them aid,.. unlike the ones who pretend to support our troops.

You are presuming that many accused terrorists, ..& those that have given them aid have been railroaded on false charges by our military.

These terrorists are not common criminals, ..but ruthless murderers, & they have no concept of civilized behavior, or the rule of law, ..& see law that benefits THEM as coming from weaklings.

Already there has BEEN some terror suspects that were set free only to be caught again engaging in terror activity, ..or even engaging American troops in firefights!

Terrorists are not normal law abiding citizens in the first place, ..& their lust for maniacal suicide bombings that they do not care who they kill whatsoever only proves their bastardized ideology which is commensurate to the lowest form of beastly savages.

Our military is fully capable of handling them in the best judicial "type" way possible, & military tribunal IS fair under circumstances such as they are.
 
Paladin said:
Geneva Convention accords were created in part because of the American Civil War.




Yes.......but, Confederate soldiers were not acting in a savage way with regard to whenever they came across union civilians, ..& most of them treated non-combatins with respect, & decency.

THere were NO deliberate beheadings, ..& both sides fought gallantly, ..& torture was little known to have occurred, ..& they sure a hell were not planting bombs (dynamite) near stores killing non-combatins & children, ..or sending children out to blow the shyte out of themselves in a suicide mission.
 
Originally posted by Stu Gahtze:
Dear Bill, .....First of all IF I'm seen with terrorists, ..& carrying a gun & engaging American forces, & have been seen by the American military, & have helped & shown sympathy & have given aid to the terror enemy, then, I'm part of the problem!

THe bulk of the prisoners are the ones who have been caught while engaging the American military, ..& those who surrendered.

secondly, ...I TRUST OUR AMERICAN MILITARY to be able to ferret out who the real terrorists are, & those that give them aid,.. unlike the ones who pretend to support our troops.

You are presuming that many accused terrorists, ..& those that have given them aid have been railroaded on false charges by our military.

These terrorists are not common criminals, ..but ruthless murderers, & they have no concept of civilized behavior, or the rule of law, ..& see law that benefits THEM as coming from weaklings.

Already there has BEEN some terror suspects that were set free only to be caught again engaging in terror activity, ..or even engaging American troops in firefights!

Terrorists are not normal law abiding citizens in the first place, ..& their lust for maniacal suicide bombings that they do not care who they kill whatsoever only proves their bastardized ideology which is commensurate to the lowest form of beastly savages.

Our military is fully capable of handling them in the best judicial "type" way possible, & military tribunal IS fair under circumstances such as they are.
Stu, we have our differences. But I would just like to take this opportunity to thank you for maintaining civility in your response to me. And as a suggestion, I would like to encourage this kind of tome in the future. You can still get your own message out, but the reaction might not be so detrimental as a result. This is my own personal opinion on the matter and is not to be construed with any connection to the website moderators. For I am far from that.
 
Stu Ghatze said:
Dem. Dick Durbin had suggested at one point that they should have access to the same constitionary rights that us americans have.

IMO, ..this would be a very grave mistake as those terrorists do NOT respect any kind of law whatsoever, ..or even any rules of engagement.

...

But...constitutionary rights??, ...it would be absolute insanity, & suicidal in the long run!

Should rapists get consitutional rights? Why? Should murderers get consittutional rights? Why? How about serial killers? Robbers? Money launderers? Dope dealers? Corrupt politicians?

Why should any of them get consitutional rights?
 
M14 Shooter said:
Since they are illegal enemy conbatatnts, they do not enjoy all the rights afforded to capturees under the genevea Conventions -- however, they HAVE been given most of those rights, as allowed by military necessity.

What rights do they have that have not been respected?

So American citizens like Hamdi aren't criminals, because then they'd get a trial. And they are now POWs, because then they'd have to be set free because the war is over.

So let's make up a new name, "enemy combatant" and call them that, and then say because they are "enemy combatants" and not "criminals" we can lock them away forever without proof.

Labels are great, huh? Doublespeak is fun, you can get away with anythg. I'm sure you support the "assault weapons" ban because since they are "assault weapons" and not "arms" we don't have to worry about violating the second amendment. Right?
 
Stu Ghatze said:
Dem. Dick Durbin had suggested at one point that they should have access to the same constitionary rights that us americans have.
Is there a link to the text of what was actually said w/ some context to go w/ it?
 
jamesrage said:
Don't tell me you are one of those peices of **** who try to make comparison of our forefathers to terrorist vermin.
jamesrage said:
I find all the ***** I forgot my my balls terrorist supporting rhetoric very amusing.

[MOD MODE]
This is not debate. This does not advance your case. This is inappropriate in this forum.
If you wish to discuss things like ***** and balls while exploring your personal feelings for your fellow posters do it in the Basement.
[/MOD MODE]
 
Six pages w/o even a link to what sparked the OP. Certainly says something. I'm not sure what, but something
 
The only people that should be covered under the U.S. Constitution are America Citizens..........
 
The U.S. Constitution was based on the Enlightment ideas, which is the idea that all humans NOT JUST AMERICANS have certain rights. Its not as though we're asking for you to ask the terrorists to go off scott free but rather we feel that, since we feel that all people are innocent until proven guilty, that before one screams terrorist, they should at least be given a fair trial.
 
FinnMacCool said:
The U.S. Constitution was based on the Enlightment ideas, which is the idea that all humans NOT JUST AMERICANS have certain rights. Its not as though we're asking for you to ask the terrorists to go off scott free but rather we feel that, since we feel that all people are innocent until proven guilty, that before one screams terrorist, they should at least be given a fair trial.

You bleeding heart liberals crack me up......Every time we release one of these scum we catch them again on the battlefield trying to kill Americans.......What part of that do you not understand?
 
Navy Pride said:
The only people that should be covered under the U.S. Constitution are America Citizens..........

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, though Americans are more equal than some other people on this earth.
 
Navy Pride said:
You bleeding heart liberals crack me up......Every time we release one of these scum we catch them again on the battlefield trying to kill Americans.......What part of that do you not understand?

Do you support cold blooded murderers getting trials? Why? Are they not scum? How about rapists, should they get trials? Are they wonderful people? How about corrupt politicians? Fine folks who deserve trials?
 
You bleeding heart liberals crack me up......Every time we release one of these scum we catch them again on the battlefield trying to kill Americans.......What part of that do you not understand?

Once again you miss the point completely while in the proccess using a rush limbaugh catch phrase. How would you treat a possible murderer rapist theif or whatever? If the world was run by Navy Pride, we would be lining up people on the wall who were so much as suspected of these crimes and shooting them. Then it would just turn into a witchhunt. Which part of that do you not understand? Why then should potential terrorists, who may or may not be terrorists at all, be treated differently? If you conservatives want to fhink of terrorists as criminals then you better start treating them as such.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, though Americans are more equal than some other people on this earth.

created equally
they are not raised equally
they are not educated equally
some are even raised to be scum
 
DeeJayH said:
created equally
they are not raised equally
they are not educated equally
some are even raised to be scum

And order to end this savage cycle of stupidity, we will treat them like scum! Hooray America!
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, though Americans are more equal than some other people on this earth.

No matter how you try and spin it the Constitution is talking about citizens of the USA......
 
Iriemon said:
Do you support cold blooded murderers getting trials? Why? Are they not scum? How about rapists, should they get trials? Are they wonderful people? How about corrupt politicians? Fine folks who deserve trials?


Yes if they are American Citizens.....In this case these scum should be treated as enemy combatents
 
jamesrage said:
Terrorist are not Americans.American constitutional rights only for United State citizens.

What about Tim McVeigh or Jose Padilla ;both American citizens?
 
Navy Pride said:
Yes if they are American Citizens.....In this case these scum should be treated as enemy combatents

Scummy American murderers and rapists should get trials; scummy murderers and rapists who are not Americans should not get trials; and scummy Americans who are called "enemy combatants" should not get trials. I think I got it.
 
hipsterdufus said:
What about Tim McVeigh or Jose Padilla ;both American citizens?

Last time I looked McVeigh had a trial :confused: and Padilla will have one too...........
 
Back
Top Bottom