- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Here's your misreading j. I'm having a conversation as to why Obama isn't treated completely like Bush. I didn't bring up Bush, as you indicate (a misreading on your part), but merely answer the question to explain the differences. Nothing is being shifted. Nor is any excuse being made as I have noted that I believe Obama is wrong, should not still be continuing with rendition.
So you see, your response is not directed at the actual conversation, but what I can best term a misreading.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
It's nice to hear you admit that you believe there are people who have no rights, though.
Ah, so you haven't read the GC.
If they aren't POW's then the GC doesn't apply. However then they should be subject to the civilian legal system and under that they do have some rights afforded to them under the constitution.
Not at all. They are illegal combatants, and the GC allows summary execution for them. Although there is no reason they cannot be questioned first...
Not at all. They are illegal combatants, and the GC allows summary execution for them. Although there is no reason they cannot be questioned first...
I oppose torture, murder (AKA extrajudicial killings), renditions and imprisonment without legitimate due process per the Constitution or Geneva conventions whether its a Democrat or Republican doing it. I felt forced to vote for Obama anyways, because there was no reason to think that Romney would end these practices, and good reason to believe he would expand them.
I oppose torture, murder (AKA extrajudicial killings), renditions and imprisonment without legitimate due process per the Constitution or Geneva conventions whether its a Democrat or Republican doing it. I felt forced to vote for Obama anyways, because there was no reason to think that Romney would end these practices, and good reason to believe he would expand them.
However, Obama has continued them....So you based your vote on what you thought Romney may or may not have done, but you have a person that you voted for that has continued what you don't like and you voted for him anyway....Sorry, that is kind of messed up.
I agree very much on this.Perhaps the more important part is how that decision was made, who was being killed, and why. I was not at all pleased with the decision to assassinate an American citizen without judicial oversight.
I dislike slippery slope reasoning. I dislike being tossed about by emotion driven arguments, that somehow a particular tool doing the task makes a moral difference.However, I do have some qualms about increased used of drones in warfare. I think it dehumanizes the process. Let's say some day we can replace ground combat troops with robots too. Now we have a scenario where we can fight with zero casualties for us. So what's the big deal about going to war? Let's invade everybody! All the while forgetting that there is a serious and terrible human cost to warfare. As awful as it sounds to say, casualties on our side serve a very necessary purpose of reminding us that war is an absolutely horrific process that we should be avoiding at all cost.
Do you understand that these people do no qualify for treatment as prisoners of war? That they have no rights? Have you read the Geneva Conventions?
No, that doesn't quite cover it. We're not really at war with any nation. Hence, such a reading would not apply.
So which category of humans is it that has no rights?
Under which legal document do you find this rather bizarre doctrine?
Not at all. They are illegal combatants, and the GC allows summary execution for them. Although there is no reason they cannot be questioned first...
Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns - The Washington Post
The Administration has resisted putting any more terrorists in Gitmo, so the alternatives become killing them outright, as in drone attacks, or rendition. Congress has resisted the administration's plan to detain these people in civilian jails and prisons and try them in civilian courts. There is no Senator who welcomes such prisoners in his or her state's courts and prisons.
The other aspect of this particular case is the fact that the three men in question have never had anything to do with the US and were not planning to come to the US or attack the US. They are being prosecuted under a doctrine of universal jurisdiction -- the idea that the US can prosecute criminals that commit crimes anywhere in the world even if they have nothing to do with the US.
Article One of the Constitution allows for prosecution of criminals anywhere in the world who commit crimes recognized as "offenses against the law of nations." What these men are alleged to have done does not fall into that rubric. They were merely participating in a foreign civil war.
So... you conservative lot are now against renditions but under Bush you were for them?
And for the record... I passionately believe it is a crime what the US is doing and have been doing. Obama and his administration should be ashamed .. but then again they are just using the tools that the Bush administration put in place.
Note the phrase "directly participate in hostilities." This suggests that if someone is attacking you, you can shoot back. It does not suggest that someone who is not actively engaged in hostilities can be murdered or imprisoned without POW status or a trial for their crimes. The USA's Military Commissions Act of 2006 may contradict my understanding of international law and human decency, but that doesn't make it right. Morals, if not the law, require a fair criminal trial to determine whether someone was "directly participate in hostilities" when it is not an obvious situation such a gunfight.
I don't really care what happens to these Sharia lunatic terrorists - string them up right now and get it over with.
As far as "their rights" they have none as far as I'm concerned.
The truth is I don't think people realize how much these Islamic extremists actually hate us (and all non-Muslims in general). It's only a matter of time before Egypt, Libya and Iran team up to attack Israel or the US. They wouldn't care if their lands were destroyed in the process because dying to them in the name of Islam is an honor, so they could care less if they get erased by a counterstrike.
IMO, it is certainly a means of defense to keep these lunatics from growing and conspiring.
As for the terrorists in GETMO - like I said - string them up.
Agreed. After thousands of years of domestication, there is still only one way to deal with a mad dog. Although if you can get him to tell you where the rest of the pack is, so much the better.
I've always thought we should a) microchip them and have them lead us to their "camps" or b) just string them up.
The microchipping route seems to be the most logical.
Get back to me after you have read the GC.
Talk about pre 911 thinking. You actually believe that these terrorist groups do not plot against and try to kill US citizens?
Please note post #65 by Hard Truth.
Keep in mind sir, please, that we are committing military aggression in Asia. That is WE ARE NOT engaged in a legitimate declared war. We ARE engaged in international criminal actions.
Please note post #65 by Hard Truth.
Keep in mind sir, please, that we are committing military aggression in Asia. That is WE ARE NOT engaged in a legitimate declared war. We ARE engaged in international criminal actions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?