POLL: Extending Constitutional Protections

[CADsortaGUY]

CsG

 

[yllus]

Honestly, with the decentralized nature of modern terrorist organizations and the number of countries - even those technically classified as friendly - that turn a blind eye to their presence (or are truly blind to them), it's probably better to spot, bomb/kill and silently move on.

Torture...fanatics are hardcases. You're not going to score points by being nice or reasonable with one. It's ultimately a case-by-case decision, but do I mind an interrogator breaking a few fingers to get more information on where another terrorist cell lies? I can't say that I do.

I don't think the Geneva Conventions have actually been adhered to since WW1. What's the point in changing them at all.

 

[DealMonkey]

#1 and #2 are NO, because constitutional protections are for citizens of the U.S. only, not foreigners.

#3 is YES, because labeling someone an 'Enemy Combatant' is just a convenient way of getting around the Geneva conventions. Members of the military who have not laid down arms, who are directing an attack or defending a position can fall into this category. Even a civilian who picks up a weapon and starts fighting can be lumped into this category, yet actual terrorists are difficult to define as enemy combatants because of the clandestine nature of their attacks and their often confusing role in those attacks.

 

[DealMonkey]

BTW, now that I think about it, your third question is pretty confusing as the term "enemy combatant" has two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants receive POW status and protections of the Geneva convention while unlawful combatants do not.

Which did you mean?

 

[Tom]

If we got our Constitution from Jesus, did he tell us we can pick and choose who we apply it to ?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
BTW, now that I think about it, your third question is pretty confusing as the term "enemy combatant" has two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants receive POW status and protections of the Geneva convention while unlawful combatants do not.

Which did you mean?

Well, if lawful combatants already have protections then the question would me moot - no? Ofcourse it's unlawful combatant.

CsG

 

[alchemize]

1) Constitutional protections are written for US citizens. They do not and should not extend to any non-US citizen.

2) Same as #1

3) The geneva conventions are grossly outdated. The treaties should be modified to clearly distinguish what the "rights" are of
a) recognized military forces
b) "irregular forces" i.e. special forces that still represent the military of a government
c) combatants that do not represent any government and therefore are obliged to no treaty
d) civilians that harbor or support (c) and d) civilians

 

[HalosPuma]

Should America extend Constitutional Protections to foreign terrorists?
No, kill them all. Take no prisoners and offer no trials.

Should America extend Constitutional Protections to foreign enemy Combatants?
No, kill them all. Take no prisoners and offer no trials.

Should the Geneva Conventions be changed to include Enemy Combatants?
Not Applicable. Terrorists and Enemy Combatants are not militia officially representing foreign nation(s). They are individuals. Kill them all. Take no prisoners and offer no trials.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
1) Constitutional protections are written for US citizens. They do not and should not extend to any non-US citizen.

2) Same as #1

3) The geneva conventions are grossly outdated. The treaties should be modified to clearly distinguish what the "rights" are of
a) recognized military forces
b) "irregular forces" i.e. special forces that still represent the military of a government
c) combatants that do not represent any government and therefore are obliged to no treaty
d) civilians that harbor or support (c) and d) civilians

So how, theoretically, would the forces of the Taliban fit into your definition(s) of #3? I'm curious because the U.S. dubbed them enemy combatants, yet they clearly represented the current gov't of Afghanistan.

 

[Centinel]

The Geneva Conventions were in place to protect those soldiers involved with interstate warfare.....each state had to sign on with the agreement.

However, individuals who come in from other countries have no protection, and quite frankly should be shot on site.

The problem (in my mind) deals with Iraqis from Iraq who are involved in attacking US soldiers. Now if they target civilians, all bets are off, Iraqi or otherwise.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I see lots of votes but few "because ... " Come on. Tell us why you think yes or no.

Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive.

CsG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I see lots of votes but few "because ... " Come on. Tell us why you think yes or no.

Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive.

CsG

Because...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I see lots of votes but few "because ... " Come on. Tell us why you think yes or no.

Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive.

CsG

Because...

Let me guess - yes, yes, and yes from you. Now why?

CsG

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
1) Constitutional protections are written for US citizens. They do not and should not extend to any non-US citizen.

2) Same as #1

3) The geneva conventions are grossly outdated. The treaties should be modified to clearly distinguish what the "rights" are of
a) recognized military forces
b) "irregular forces" i.e. special forces that still represent the military of a government
c) combatants that do not represent any government and therefore are obliged to no treaty
d) civilians that harbor or support (c) and d) civilians

So how, theoretically, would the forces of the Taliban fit into your definition(s) of #3? I'm curious because the U.S. dubbed them enemy combatants, yet they clearly represented the current gov't of Afghanistan.

I'm not quite sure. That's why we need to clarify the geneva conventions!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I see lots of votes but few "because ... " Come on. Tell us why you think yes or no.

Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive.

CsG

Because...

Let me guess - yes, yes, and yes from you. Now why?

CsG

I think you misunderstand.

The first part of your post that I quoted is calling for others to state "because..." yet in that same post you fail to do the same.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I see lots of votes but few "because ... " Come on. Tell us why you think yes or no.

Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive.

CsG

Because...

Let me guess - yes, yes, and yes from you. Now why?

CsG

I think you misunderstand.

The first part of your post that I quoted is calling for others to state "because..." yet in that same post you fail to do the same.

"because ..."
"Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive."

Happy now? Are you going to answer gaard or are you going to skip out again?

CsG

 

[biostud]

If your law systems is the best in the world, the guilty will be sentenced and the innocent will go free.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I see lots of votes but few "because ... " Come on. Tell us why you think yes or no.

Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive.

CsG

Because...

Let me guess - yes, yes, and yes from you. Now why?

CsG

I think you misunderstand.

The first part of your post that I quoted is calling for others to state "because..." yet in that same post you fail to do the same.

"because ..."
"Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive."

Happy now? Are you going to answer gaard or are you going to skip out again?

CsG

Where's your reason why? If you're saying you agree with Halos's reasons, where did he state his reasons?

How can you call for others to state their reasons if you refuse to do so?

 

[Zebo]

No, No, and the geneva conventions are enough to protect our image and troops.

We still need to fiqure out in a just way how to deal with hundreds of people held for three years or longer, without charge and without redress...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I see lots of votes but few "because ... " Come on. Tell us why you think yes or no.

Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive.

CsG

Because...

Let me guess - yes, yes, and yes from you. Now why?

CsG

I think you misunderstand.

The first part of your post that I quoted is calling for others to state "because..." yet in that same post you fail to do the same.

"because ..."
"Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive."

Happy now? Are you going to answer gaard or are you going to skip out again?

CsG

Where's your reason why? If you're saying you agree with Halos's reasons, where did he state his reasons?

How can you call for others to state their reasons if you refuse to do so?

Did you read Halos' post? He answered - which is more than I can say for you. I'll even agree with DM on #1&#2. That most completely reflects my stance.

Where is your stance gaard? Are you going to skip out again?

CsG

 

[Zebo]

3) The geneva conventions are grossly outdated. The treaties should be modified to clearly distinguish what the "rights" are of

I agree with that. Enemy combatants are allowed and treatment spelled out in Geneva during time of war, so it's only outdated in that this "war" will never end in the conventional sense so it's possible for them to be held forever in limbo which obviously is not the intent. This secret trials is no good either since government lies and does things politically expediant instead of just.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I see lots of votes but few "because ... " Come on. Tell us why you think yes or no.

Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive.

CsG

Because...

Let me guess - yes, yes, and yes from you. Now why?

CsG

I think you misunderstand.

The first part of your post that I quoted is calling for others to state "because..." yet in that same post you fail to do the same.

"because ..."
"Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive."

Happy now? Are you going to answer gaard or are you going to skip out again?

CsG

Where's your reason why? If you're saying you agree with Halos's reasons, where did he state his reasons?

How can you call for others to state their reasons if you refuse to do so?

Did you read Halos' post? He answered - which is more than I can say for you. I'll even agree with DM on #1&#2. That most completely reflects my stance.

Where is your stance gaard? Are you going to skip out again?

CsG

Yeah, I read it. He gave no "because" for 1 & 2. Did you mean he nailed it on his answer to Q #3?

My answers are "no", "no", and "I don't know". If by asking the 3rd question you're asking if it's acceptable to torture or abuse or treat inhumanely any terrorists caught, my answer to that question would be no.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I see lots of votes but few "because ... " Come on. Tell us why you think yes or no.

Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive.

CsG

Because...

Let me guess - yes, yes, and yes from you. Now why?

CsG

I think you misunderstand.

The first part of your post that I quoted is calling for others to state "because..." yet in that same post you fail to do the same.

"because ..."
"Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive."

Happy now? Are you going to answer gaard or are you going to skip out again?

CsG

Where's your reason why? If you're saying you agree with Halos's reasons, where did he state his reasons?

How can you call for others to state their reasons if you refuse to do so?

Did you read Halos' post? He answered - which is more than I can say for you. I'll even agree with DM on #1&#2. That most completely reflects my stance.

Where is your stance gaard? Are you going to skip out again?

CsG

Yeah, I read it. He gave no "because" for 1 & 2. Did you mean he nailed it on his answer to Q #3?

My answers are "no", "no", and "I don't know". If by asking the 3rd question you're asking if it's acceptable to torture or abuse or treat inhumanely any terrorists caught, my answer to that question would be no.

:roll: it was cute(not really) the first time but your little game is quite tiresome. Halos answered the questions and gave "because". He thought they should be killed.

Now as to your fake answers - the poll number change at the time of your post doesn't agree with what you claim your answers are - but lets hear why you think no, no, and I don't know.

#3 is not about torture. Torture is not in the question at all.
"Should the Geneva Conventions be changed to include Enemy Combatants?" - That is the question. See? not torture

CsG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I see lots of votes but few "because ... " Come on. Tell us why you think yes or no.

Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive.

CsG

Because...

Let me guess - yes, yes, and yes from you. Now why?

CsG

I think you misunderstand.

The first part of your post that I quoted is calling for others to state "because..." yet in that same post you fail to do the same.

"because ..."
"Halos nailed it IMO except for killing them all. I'd atleast give them a military tribunal if they were captured alive."

Happy now? Are you going to answer gaard or are you going to skip out again?

CsG

Where's your reason why? If you're saying you agree with Halos's reasons, where did he state his reasons?

How can you call for others to state their reasons if you refuse to do so?

Did you read Halos' post? He answered - which is more than I can say for you. I'll even agree with DM on #1&#2. That most completely reflects my stance.

Where is your stance gaard? Are you going to skip out again?

CsG

Yeah, I read it. He gave no "because" for 1 & 2. Did you mean he nailed it on his answer to Q #3?

My answers are "no", "no", and "I don't know". If by asking the 3rd question you're asking if it's acceptable to torture or abuse or treat inhumanely any terrorists caught, my answer to that question would be no.

:roll: it was cute(not really) the first time but your little game is quite tiresome. Halos answered the questions and gave "because". He thought they should be killed.

Now as to your fake answers - the poll number change at the time of your post doesn't agree with what you claim your answers are - but lets hear why you think no, no, and I don't know.

#3 is not about torture. Torture is not in the question at all.
"Should the Geneva Conventions be changed to include Enemy Combatants?" - That is the question. See? not torture

CsG

I haven't taken the time to answer the poll. Just say the word and I will...at that time you can check your little numbers to make sure I'm telling the truth.

Yes, Halos said "kill them all". Did he ever say why? Show me where. Quote it. Take a sec and quote his reason for "killing them all". Show us all here you're not just, once again, skirting. You know you're just being intellectually dishonest.

My reasons for "no" for 1 & 2 are just as DM (and by extension, you) stated. My reason for the "I don't know" for Q #3 is because I'm not knowledgable on all of the GC 'rules'.

 

[Rainsford]

No to #1 and #2 because the constitution is only for US citizens.

Yes to #3 because I think basic decency requirers us to give some rights to suspected enemies. "Kill them all" sounds great in a Bruce Willis movie, but here in the real world it's often much less clear who's guilty and who's innocent. If we go around killing or perpetually imprisoning anyone we suspect of being a terrorist with no trial or evidence or anything like that, we are going to find out list of enemies growing...fast. And the attitude of "fvck 'em, they're not Americans" is EXACTLY what our problem will be.

For people like HalosPuma and CsG, your logic requires us to be able to tell exactly who's the bad guy and who's the good guy. Often that is very difficult, which is why even suspected criminals have rights, to protect suspects who HAVEN'T done anything wrong. I guess it's all about the means justifying the ends. For me, if we get rid of every terrorist out there, it's not a victory if we imprison, torture and kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people in the process just because they are brown Muslims and "look like terrorists". I can't imagine many people would disagree.