POLL: Extending Constitutional Protections

[Baldeagle76]

Yullus, good comments. I appreciate the open dialogue. You are correct, even though Japanese were some of the first "suicide bombers", i.e. kamakazies, they did not target civilians. Let me clarify, I have no use for a culture that trains it's young people to strap bombs to it's body and asks them to kill women and children who have nothing to do with the governments decisions other than being borne in that country, which I don't think they had much choice in anyway. I have no use for a culture that will punish a women for being raped, not let her go to school, and general mistreat the very people who are responsible for keeping the human race going, mothers.

Remember our policy is not so that American soldiers will be treated humanely. The most humane treatment American soldiers can expect is at S.E.R.E school and from the stories my friends have told me about S.E.R.E. school that is not so humane either. Our policy is so that hopefully they will surrender. You say it will not work. I say that is too black and white. While fanatics they are human too and likely to be afraid of dying when the bullets start flying. I myself have never been tested in the two way rifle range.

You say that the information you gain from indeffinetly detaining an "enemy combantant" might help save lives. These are very flexible people. Look at Zarchawi, he set up a HQ in Fallujah. How much time do you think it took for him to do it? I'll bet not very long. How long did it take him to leave once Bush Jr sent in the Marines after the election? Not very long either. My point is they are so flexible I doubt 99% of the people we are holding really know anything at all. If what we know about terrorist cell structure is accurate most of these foot soldiers are far away from anyone that really knows anything of use. I don't know what the actual US Military definition of POW is. I am deficient and will have to educate myself now.

If we say we are at war with terrorists, and I firmly believe our pre-emptive strike policy is very sound, then they are prisoners of war, and lets put them on trial. If someone commits a crime and you know about but you don't report or you don't try to stop it, then you are an accomplice. Put these people away legally. I don't think that should be that hard. But this last paragraph is an opinion.

BTW Bowfinger thanks for welcoming me. I appreciate that. It is much more friendly then someone taking a cheap shot at you in a forum that is supposed to be a community.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Baldeagle76
BTW Bowfinger thanks for welcoming me. I appreciate that. It is much more friendly then someone taking a cheap shot at you in a forum that is supposed to be a community.

Yeah, I mean who just strolls into a forum and posts this as their 3rd post?

Okay let me start this off with a footnote : I did not read every post. After page 3, I could pretty well guess what the next 3 pages were going to say. CsG says he wants everybody to post their comments and then as soon as they do, if they disagree with him they are immediately trashed for being an idiot. Wow man you are insightful and right. Wish we had more like you in charge /sarcasm off.

Wow, now there is a nice honest "hello".:roll:

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Baldeagle76
BTW Bowfinger thanks for welcoming me. I appreciate that. It is much more friendly then someone taking a cheap shot at you in a forum that is supposed to be a community.

Yeah, I mean who just strolls into a forum and posts this as their 3rd post?

Okay let me start this off with a footnote : I did not read every post. After page 3, I could pretty well guess what the next 3 pages were going to say. CsG says he wants everybody to post their comments and then as soon as they do, if they disagree with him they are immediately trashed for being an idiot. Wow man you are insightful and right. Wish we had more like you in charge /sarcasm off.

Wow, now there is a nice honest "hello".:roll:

CsG

Yes it was. He seems quite perceptive. I am looking forward to his participation.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Baldeagle76
BTW Bowfinger thanks for welcoming me. I appreciate that. It is much more friendly then someone taking a cheap shot at you in a forum that is supposed to be a community.

Yeah, I mean who just strolls into a forum and posts this as their 3rd post?

Okay let me start this off with a footnote : I did not read every post. After page 3, I could pretty well guess what the next 3 pages were going to say. CsG says he wants everybody to post their comments and then as soon as they do, if they disagree with him they are immediately trashed for being an idiot. Wow man you are insightful and right. Wish we had more like you in charge /sarcasm off.

Wow, now there is a nice honest "hello".:roll:

CsG

Yes it was. He seems quite perceptive. I am looking forward to his participation.

I'm sure you'll enjoy having a new member in you circl...I mean "meeting of the minds" But anyway, I'll enjoy his participation if he can present intellectually honest arguments about issues (as I've already stated) instead of dishonest attacks like I quoted.

Oh, and I think you missed the sarcasm in the "honest" portion in my other post. (just trying to help out)

CsG

 

[Baldeagle76]

"Yeah, I mean who just strolls into a forum and posts this as their 3rd post?"

Someone who thinks this is an important subject and worthy of debate. Someone who is glad to be part of this community. Someone who likes to hear opposing ideas to consider their validity.

Just because this is my third post doesn't mean I haven't been reading this forum for a couple weeks, it means I just registered.

You're right I should not have been sarcastic to you. I apologize. Some of your posts SEEM attacking rather than debating ideas. I would rather hear your reasons than your attacks. That is what I meant to say.

TERRORIST : Any person or group of people attempting to exerct political, social or economic influence over a government or group of goverments through the use of force and terror.

any answer on the geneeva conventions question?

 

[Baldeagle76]

Okay finished reading all of this thread now that I finished the Jets vs Chargers game on DVR. Gaard just an FYI, you might not get an answer from CsG specifically because he can not give you one. Since he advocates (correct me if I wrong) holding prisoners without trial (essentially this is what is happening by denying any rights) anyone that agrees with him is part of that "we". I don't think it's fair to ask him to list everyone who posted or might post in the future as agreeing with him, but it seems like he is dogding your question. It should be fun since the war on terror will be much like the Cold war I wonder how long we can hold these people. At least it is creating jobs huh ?

CsG you claim you will answer all questions posed to you. here they are repeated again from my original post 1)Has the United States of America ever ratified/passed/accepted the geneeva conventions?
2)Which side would you err on if it was your life?

Is my whole post untruthful because I said you trash people rather than debate and you say that is not truthful?

Are you intrested in debate in this forum at all or do you just want the poll results?

Much like Bush did with Kerry during the debate he took two words out of context "GLOBAL TEST" and sent his administration to every talkshow to say that over and over again hinting that Mr Kerry wanted a global test before going to war. If you watched the debate that was grosely taken out of context. I am not saying it was right or wrong it was just avoding the subjuect. I think that is what you are doing ...

"But anyway, I'll enjoy his participation if he can present intellectually honest arguments about issues (as I've already stated) instead of dishonest attacks like I quoted. " - CsG

You didn't quote any of my other four paragraphs.

"if you hate something don't you do it too." - Eddie Vedder.

 

[FinalFantasy]

Originally posted by: 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.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Baldeagle76
BTW Bowfinger thanks for welcoming me. I appreciate that. It is much more friendly then someone taking a cheap shot at you in a forum that is supposed to be a community.

Yeah, I mean who just strolls into a forum and posts this as their 3rd post?

Okay let me start this off with a footnote : I did not read every post. After page 3, I could pretty well guess what the next 3 pages were going to say. CsG says he wants everybody to post their comments and then as soon as they do, if they disagree with him they are immediately trashed for being an idiot. Wow man you are insightful and right. Wish we had more like you in charge /sarcasm off.

Wow, now there is a nice honest "hello".:roll:

CsG

Yes it was. He seems quite perceptive. I am looking forward to his participation.

I'm sure you'll enjoy having a new member in you circl...I mean "meeting of the minds" But anyway, I'll enjoy his participation if he can present intellectually honest arguments about issues (as I've already stated) instead of dishonest attacks like I quoted.

Oh, and I think you missed the sarcasm in the "honest" portion in my other post. (just trying to help out)

CsG

Isn't it a little ironic for you to be talking about 'honesty'?

Your true colors shone thru brilliantly in this one thread, CAD.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger


There are fundamental rights we must grant everyone, if only because we are a civilized, moral society. The Bush apologists want to deny those rights, patting themselves on the back for rationalizing a legal loophole to avoid acting morally. I find this repugnant.

Bow, considering the volume of your opinion, there must be something that cements in your mind that The Bush apologists are denying those fundamental rights that we must grant everyone.

As a matter of simple logic, for you to come to that conclusion and be able to defend your thought process, you would need to know what the current procedure is for the people that are detained without constitutional protection. The rules, the regulations, the whole nuts and bolts of the process that they go through currently.

Its time to ante up Bow.....

No, actually, I don't need to know all the nuts and bolts. All I need to know are the numerous reported examples of abuses coming from Iraq and Guantanamo. All I need to know are the reports of people being detained without access to counsel and without being informed of the charges against them. All I need to know is that countless experts and independent organizations (e.g. the Red Cross) have objected to our treatment of prisoners. All I need to know is that the Supreme Court has twice (IIRC) rebuked the Bush Administration for its acts.

That's all I need to know to believe the Bush administration has abdicated its responsibility to treat our prisoners in a civilized and moral way. That does NOT require that all prisoners to be accorded full U.S. Constitutional protections. It does require we recognize some fundamental human rights, however.

I was under the impression that Hearsay was not an adequate foundation for a belief system, at least that is what I gather from you when I consider your position on the Iraq War.

Goose, Gander and all of that, Bow. Why should your beliefs weigh more than anyone else's?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
There are fundamental rights we must grant everyone, if only because we are a civilized, moral society. The Bush apologists want to deny those rights, patting themselves on the back for rationalizing a legal loophole to avoid acting morally. I find this repugnant.

Bow, considering the volume of your opinion, there must be something that cements in your mind that The Bush apologists are denying those fundamental rights that we must grant everyone.

As a matter of simple logic, for you to come to that conclusion and be able to defend your thought process, you would need to know what the current procedure is for the people that are detained without constitutional protection. The rules, the regulations, the whole nuts and bolts of the process that they go through currently.

Its time to ante up Bow.....

No, actually, I don't need to know all the nuts and bolts. All I need to know are the numerous reported examples of abuses coming from Iraq and Guantanamo. All I need to know are the reports of people being detained without access to counsel and without being informed of the charges against them. All I need to know is that countless experts and independent organizations (e.g. the Red Cross) have objected to our treatment of prisoners. All I need to know is that the Supreme Court has twice (IIRC) rebuked the Bush Administration for its acts.

That's all I need to know to believe the Bush administration has abdicated its responsibility to treat our prisoners in a civilized and moral way. That does NOT require that all prisoners to be accorded full U.S. Constitutional protections. It does require we recognize some fundamental human rights, however.

I was under the impression that Hearsay was not an adequate foundation for a belief system, at least that is what I gather from you when I consider your position on the Iraq War.

Goose, Gander and all of that, Bow. Why should your beliefs weigh more than anyone else's?

One: you're changing the subject. Two: your argument is a non sequitur. Three: I believe Supreme Court decisions constitute more than hearsay.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Baldeagle76
Okay finished reading all of this thread now that I finished the Jets vs Chargers game on DVR. Gaard just an FYI, you might not get an answer from CsG specifically because he can not give you one. Since he advocates (correct me if I wrong) holding prisoners without trial (essentially this is what is happening by denying any rights) anyone that agrees with him is part of that "we". I don't think it's fair to ask him to list everyone who posted or might post in the future as agreeing with him, but it seems like he is dogding your question. It should be fun since the war on terror will be much like the Cold war I wonder how long we can hold these people. At least it is creating jobs huh ?

First off I've answered gaard. If you missed it - I suggest you go back and read. This dishonest portrayal stacked on top of your other one isn't going to help you. And second I've already stated(if you'd have read the thread) that I don't advocate them not getting a trial. What they are though is illegal enemy combatants which do not get the same protections as POWs.

CsG you claim you will answer all questions posed to you. here they are repeated again from my original post 1)Has the United States of America ever ratified/passed/accepted the geneeva conventions?

Yes. Oh you want to say we didn't because of the two protocols(1977) that we signed but not ratified?

2)Which side would you err on if it was your life?

Whatever do you mean? Would I like being held? No, but this again is because I have protections granted to me by the US Constitution. If I were to decide to recind my citizenship and go off and become an illegal enemy combatant then would I not deserve the fate I chose?

Is my whole post untruthful because I said you trash people rather than debate and you say that is not truthful?

I addressed the first part of your post for a reason - because it was untrue.

Are you intrested in debate in this forum at all or do you just want the poll results?

both. You see, before the rabid Bush haters took over this forum there was a decent amount of debate, but now it's more like a contest to see who can post the most Bush-hate.

Much like Bush did with Kerry during the debate he took two words out of context "GLOBAL TEST" and sent his administration to every talkshow to say that over and over again hinting that Mr Kerry wanted a global test before going to war. If you watched the debate that was grosely taken out of context. I am not saying it was right or wrong it was just avoding the subjuect. I think that is what you are doing ...

"But anyway, I'll enjoy his participation if he can present intellectually honest arguments about issues (as I've already stated) instead of dishonest attacks like I quoted. " - CsG

You didn't quote any of my other four paragraphs.

"if you hate something don't you do it too." - Eddie Vedder.

Yes, I didn't address them because your post started off so poorly it had to be addressed. If you are going to play the Bowfinger/gaard/etc games like you did to start off your post - don't prepare yourself to engage in a debate about the topic because you just changed it to attacking.

Oh, and are you going to answer the poll questions? Just curious because you seem to have taken the same route of those who I "trashed".

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Isn't it a little ironic for you to be talking about 'honesty'?

Your true colors shone thru brilliantly in this one thread, CAD.

No more ironic then you refusing to answer a question(again) and trying to get me to answer one at the same time. Don't you ALWAYS answer gaard? I thought that was what you said one time...

Anyway gaard, pointing out the dishonesty in his post is my true colors. Do you like dishonesty gaard? I don't. (do you always answer? )

CsG

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger


Goose, Gander and all of that, Bow. Why should your beliefs weigh more than anyone else's?

One: you're changing the subject. Two: your argument is a non sequitur. Three: I believe Supreme Court decisions constitute more than hearsay.
[/quote]



Bow "That is exactly the situation we have now with the suspects in Guantanamo and Iraq. They are denied fundamental rights on the presumption of their guilt. That is contrary to the founding principles of this country. It is an example of how we are becoming what we've fought so hard against.

Bow "The Bush apologists want to deny those rights, patting themselves on the back for rationalizing a legal loophole to avoid acting morally. I find this repugnant.


Ozoned "As a matter of simple logic, for you to come to that conclusion and be able to defend your thought process, you would need to know what the current procedure is for the people that are detained without constitutional protection. The rules, the regulations, the whole nuts and bolts of the process that they go through currently."


Bow "No, actually, I don't need to know all the nuts and bolts. All I need to know are the numerous reported examples of abuses coming from Iraq and Guantanamo. All I need to know are the reports of people being detained without access to counsel and without being informed of the charges against them. All I need to know is that countless experts and independent organizations (e.g. the Red Cross) have objected to our treatment of prisoners. All I need to know is that the Supreme Court has twice (IIRC) rebuked the Bush Administration for its acts. "




The Congress shall have Power:............................



To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water



Which SCOTUS decision are you referring to, Bow? The one that the Bush administration was rebuked for..


Better Bow?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Which SCOTUS decision are you referring to, Bow? The one that the Bush administration was rebuked for..

I'm not sure why you are so since these rulings were widely reported. I'll humor you, however, by offering one of the countless links from a quick Google search:

From the Washington Post: Supreme Rebuke

Tuesday, June 29, 2004; Page A22

SINCE THE OUTSET of the war on terrorism, the Bush administration, across a wide range of issues, has had a simple message for the federal judiciary: Trust us and don't interfere. Yesterday, in a pair of much-awaited rulings, the court delivered its response. First, the justices declared that U.S. citizens designated as enemy fighters are entitled to a "fair opportunity" to challenge their detentions and "unquestionably [have] the right to access to counsel" in doing so. Then the justices held that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges to the detentions of noncitizens held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Trust, even during wartime, has limits.


The most important decision of the day came in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, the Louisiana-born Saudi man who has been held in a military brig for the past two years after being captured in Afghanistan. The decision is more historic still for transcending the court's frequent ideological divide. Eight justices rejected the government's contention that Mr. Hamdi could be locked up indefinitely, incommunicado, on the strength of a two-page, hearsay affidavit and without any opportunity to respond to the government's allegations.

The justices did not agree on the proper resolution of the case: A four-member plurality led by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor held -- as we have argued -- that an American who fights with the enemy may be detained as an enemy fighter but must have a meaningful opportunity to contest the designation. Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that Congress's authorization of the use of force did not include the authority to detain Americans. Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens argued that Mr. Hamdi was entitled either to be tried or freed. Only Justice Clarence Thomas would have affirmed the government's position.

Consequently, the case not only guarantees that Mr. Hamdi will get to tell the courts his side of the story but also sends a powerful message that Americans cannot just disappear at the hands of their government. Even during wartime, the government must be held to account -- albeit not necessarily in a full-fledged criminal trial -- before an American can be locked up. That's important not just for Mr. Hamdi but for liberty generally. And it means that the other American held as an enemy combatant, Jose Padilla, will at last get a hearing as well. The court dismissed Mr. Padilla's case, finding that it had been filed in the wrong court. But the decision in Hamdi means that in any renewed litigation, more than the government's say-so will be needed to keep Mr. Padilla behind bars.

The court's skepticism about the government's position extended even to that case where precedent was most strongly on the administration's side. The government had a powerful argument that Guantanamo lies outside the court's jurisdiction, an argument with which we agreed. Yet the administration's willful failure for so long to construct at Guantanamo a review process in which the public could have confidence makes the court's decision to intervene something of a self-inflicted wound for the administration.

It isn't clear what, in practice, the decision will mean. If the result is to spur the administration to improve review and inject a measure of outside oversight, it could prove constructive. But there are dangers as well. Holding that jurisdiction exists to consider these cases is not the same as saying they have legal merit, so the decision is far from a promise of meaningful review of Guantanamo detentions, and it could prove quite disruptive. The decision's logic seems to imply that any detainee held anywhere by U.S. forces -- even someone such as Saddam Hussein or Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- could have access to U.S. courts. However irresponsible the executive branch has been, the judiciary is ill-positioned to manage every overseas detention.

What should be clear, however, is that the judiciary will not sit still for assertions of unbridled executive power. As the war on terrorism progresses, the administration will need -- at long last -- to submit to the oversight and transparency it has so assiduously resisted.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Note the comment re. Hamdi being detained "indefinitely, incommunicado" based on a "hearsay affidavit". This is a good example of what I consider to be a violation of fundamental rights, and one of the reasons I keep pointing out the Bushies' presumption of guilt. Many of Bush's prisoners in both Guantanamo and Iraq were NOT "caught in the act", yet the Bushies presume they are all unquestionably guilty of heinous crimes against us. It's that old Wild West mentality: get the gallows ready while we give 'em a "fair" trial.


I also found interesting links to a pair of lower court rulings. Seems the Supremes aren't the only ones who have seen the evidence and determined Bush & Co. are not acting properly.

From CBS News: Courts Rebuke Bush On Detainees

NEW YORK, Dec. 18, 2003

(CBS/AP) The Bush administration suffered two big legal setbacks Thursday as a pair of federal appeals courts ruled against the way the government is handling terror suspects. In both cases, the courts decided the administration was denying the suspects their rights.

First, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart, came an order from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to release accused "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla from a military prison, or charge him in a civilian court.

Padilla, an American citizen and former gang member before he allegedly joined al Qaeda and plotted to set off a radiological bomb in the U.S., was arrested last year trying to re-enter the country.

Designated an "enemy combatant" by Mr. Bush, Padilla has never been charged and has met only briefly with a lawyer.

The ruling said "presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the president is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress," it added.

The White House called the Padilla order "troubling and flawed" and vowed to fight it.

"Let's remember what we're talking about. We're talking about an individual who was involved in seeking to do harm to the American people," said White House spokesman Scott McCellan.

Then, less than three hours later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' in San Francisco weighed in on the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, ordering that the 660 prisoners there should have access to lawyers and the American court system.

And that was on top of a recent decision by the Supreme Court to hear arguments on similar questions. Put it all together, say analysts, and it's a huge legal defeat.

"The courts are beginning to really step up to the plate and question the legitimacy of these very broad assertions of power on behalf of the government," said David Cole of Georgetown Law School.

It's been an especially embarrassing week, too, for Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was personally rebuked by a Detroit federal judge for violating a gag order in a terror trial there.

Judge Gerald Rosen "sanctioned" Ashcroft for his statements, calling them "serious transgressions." Ashcroft apologized.

Almost lost in the mix was a Syracuse University study which found the Justice Department has "tried 184 people on terrorism charges since 9-11," but has managed to get a "median prison term of just 14 days", and in "some cases, no jail time at all."

Civil libertarians are calling the Padilla ruling especially "historic" but admit it's not conclusive and no one expects him to walk free soon.

The ruling could have ramifications for the so-called "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui.

A federal court has ruled the administration must allow Moussaoui to interview al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody, whom he says might clear him of capital charges. The government refuses, citing national security concerns.

If higher courts uphold Moussaoui's right to question al Qaeda detainees, it is possible the government will name him an enemy combatant and remove him from the civilian courts.

The ruling on the Guantanamo detainees comes on a petition from a relative of a Libyan the U.S. military captured in Afghanistan. The court said the Bush administration's indefinite detention of the men runs contrary to American ideals.

"Even in times of national emergency - indeed, particularly in such times - it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.

"We cannot simply accept the government's position," Reinhardt continued, "that the Executive Branch possesses the unchecked authority to imprison indefinitely any persons, foreign citizens included, on territory under the sole jurisdiction and control of the United States, without permitting such prisoners recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement.''

The Supreme Court last month agreed to decide whether the Guantanamo detainees, picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, should have access to the courts. The justices agreed to hear that case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the prisoners had no rights to the American legal system.

 

[TheGeek]

Originally posted by: 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.

w00t :thumbsup: i concur

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGeek

Originally posted by: 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.

w00t :thumbsup: i concur

Uhh.. wouldn't a soldier for a country we were at war with be considered an Enemy Combatant?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Isn't it a little ironic for you to be talking about 'honesty'?

Your true colors shone thru brilliantly in this one thread, CAD.

No more ironic then you refusing to answer a question(again) and trying to get me to answer one at the same time. Don't you ALWAYS answer gaard? I thought that was what you said one time...

Anyway gaard, pointing out the dishonesty in his post is my true colors. Do you like dishonesty gaard? I don't. (do you always answer? )

CsG

What question in this thread have I refused to answer, CAD?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
What question in this thread have I refused to answer, CAD?

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Now answer my question that I posed twice.
"Are you trying to imply(claim) that we do advocate torture?"/"Or are you one of those who think us on the right want to torture prisoners?"

CsG

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
For the hundredth time - "we"="you guys" From Rainsford's context -who do you think he means? It's quite simple reading comprehension gaard. "you guys" is either A: You republicans/Conservatives or B: Bush supporters or even C: you people who support the category of illegal enemy combatant. Any of those three scenarios - my statement stands.

Again, you still have the other choices if you so wish or the offer of "me" is still on the table but like above - my statement still stands.

Care to answer or are you going to continue to play your little games?

I guess you chose to continue your little game, eh?

Some things never change...do they Ozoned.

CsG

 

[Gaard]

[*] There's a difference between 'cannot' and 'will not'.

[*] My post with the 01/08/2005 07:35 PM time stamp is as good an answer as I can give without you telling me whom YOU were referring to when you said 'we'. You may not like the answer, but it is an answer. I know you've stated that you've told me whom YOU were referring to but I don't see it...so just take 10 seconds and tell me whom YOU were referring to. If you tell me that you were referring to whomever Rainsford meant, whom do YOU think he was referring to? Don't you have any idea whom you, yourself, were referring to?

Edit: How can 'we' = an either?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Uhh.. wouldn't a soldier for a country we were at war with be considered an Enemy Combatant?

That's right.

My understanding is that the term "enemy combatant" in its most broad definition would encompass enemy soldiers of the opposition's regular military. There are of course, enemy non-combatants who are those acting under the authority or instruction of the enemy's military, however not engaged in actual combat. This would include clerks, supply and transport personnel, etc. And then there's the four basic criteria for "lawful enemy combatant" status:

These are as follows: (1) to have a responsible command structure; (2) to wear a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; (3) to carry arms openly; and (4) to operate in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Not that I would want to, but it would seem possible to argue a case for both the Taliban as well as al Qaeda within the context of Afghanistan to be dubbed lawful enemy combatants. About the only criteria they may not comply with is #2. Otherwise, at least within the context of Afghanistan, the Taliban were the government and the military. You could even argue that al Qaeda was given a degree of authority there by the Taliban and therefore were acting as its military wing or possibly its militia.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Which SCOTUS decision are you referring to, Bow? The one that the Bush administration was rebuked for..

I'm not sure why you are so since these rulings were widely reported. I'll humor you, however, by offering one of the countless links from a quick Google search:

From the Washington Post: Supreme Rebuke

Tuesday, June 29, 2004; Page A22

SINCE THE OUTSET of the war on terrorism, the Bush administration, across a wide range of issues, has had a simple message for the federal judiciary: Trust us and don't interfere. Yesterday, in a pair of much-awaited rulings, the court delivered its response. First, the justices declared that U.S. citizens designated as enemy fighters are entitled to a "fair opportunity" to challenge their detentions and "unquestionably [have] the right to access to counsel" in doing so. Then the justices held that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges to the detentions of noncitizens held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Trust, even during wartime, has limits.


The most important decision of the day came in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, the Louisiana-born Saudi man who has been held in a military brig for the past two years after being captured in Afghanistan. The decision is more historic still for transcending the court's frequent ideological divide. Eight justices rejected the government's contention that Mr. Hamdi could be locked up indefinitely, incommunicado, on the strength of a two-page, hearsay affidavit and without any opportunity to respond to the government's allegations.

The justices did not agree on the proper resolution of the case: A four-member plurality led by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor held -- as we have argued -- that an American who fights with the enemy may be detained as an enemy fighter but must have a meaningful opportunity to contest the designation. Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that Congress's authorization of the use of force did not include the authority to detain Americans. Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens argued that Mr. Hamdi was entitled either to be tried or freed. Only Justice Clarence Thomas would have affirmed the government's position.

Consequently, the case not only guarantees that Mr. Hamdi will get to tell the courts his side of the story but also sends a powerful message that Americans cannot just disappear at the hands of their government. Even during wartime, the government must be held to account -- albeit not necessarily in a full-fledged criminal trial -- before an American can be locked up. That's important not just for Mr. Hamdi but for liberty generally. And it means that the other American held as an enemy combatant, Jose Padilla, will at last get a hearing as well. The court dismissed Mr. Padilla's case, finding that it had been filed in the wrong court. But the decision in Hamdi means that in any renewed litigation, more than the government's say-so will be needed to keep Mr. Padilla behind bars.

The court's skepticism about the government's position extended even to that case where precedent was most strongly on the administration's side. The government had a powerful argument that Guantanamo lies outside the court's jurisdiction, an argument with which we agreed. Yet the administration's willful failure for so long to construct at Guantanamo a review process in which the public could have confidence makes the court's decision to intervene something of a self-inflicted wound for the administration.

It isn't clear what, in practice, the decision will mean. If the result is to spur the administration to improve review and inject a measure of outside oversight, it could prove constructive. But there are dangers as well. Holding that jurisdiction exists to consider these cases is not the same as saying they have legal merit, so the decision is far from a promise of meaningful review of Guantanamo detentions, and it could prove quite disruptive. The decision's logic seems to imply that any detainee held anywhere by U.S. forces -- even someone such as Saddam Hussein or Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- could have access to U.S. courts. However irresponsible the executive branch has been, the judiciary is ill-positioned to manage every overseas detention.

What should be clear, however, is that the judiciary will not sit still for assertions of unbridled executive power. As the war on terrorism progresses, the administration will need -- at long last -- to submit to the oversight and transparency it has so assiduously resisted.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Note the comment re. Hamdi being detained "indefinitely, incommunicado" based on a "hearsay affidavit". This is a good example of what I consider to be a violation of fundamental rights, and one of the reasons I keep pointing out the Bushies' presumption of guilt. Many of Bush's prisoners in both Guantanamo and Iraq were NOT "caught in the act", yet the Bushies presume they are all unquestionably guilty of heinous crimes against us. It's that old Wild West mentality: get the gallows ready while we give 'em a "fair" trial.


I also found interesting links to a pair of lower court rulings. Seems the Supremes aren't the only ones who have seen the evidence and determined Bush & Co. are not acting properly.

From CBS News: Courts Rebuke Bush On Detainees

NEW YORK, Dec. 18, 2003

(CBS/AP) The Bush administration suffered two big legal setbacks Thursday as a pair of federal appeals courts ruled against the way the government is handling terror suspects. In both cases, the courts decided the administration was denying the suspects their rights.

First, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart, came an order from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to release accused "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla from a military prison, or charge him in a civilian court.

Padilla, an American citizen and former gang member before he allegedly joined al Qaeda and plotted to set off a radiological bomb in the U.S., was arrested last year trying to re-enter the country.

Designated an "enemy combatant" by Mr. Bush, Padilla has never been charged and has met only briefly with a lawyer.

The ruling said "presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the president is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress," it added.

The White House called the Padilla order "troubling and flawed" and vowed to fight it.

"Let's remember what we're talking about. We're talking about an individual who was involved in seeking to do harm to the American people," said White House spokesman Scott McCellan.

Then, less than three hours later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' in San Francisco weighed in on the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, ordering that the 660 prisoners there should have access to lawyers and the American court system.

And that was on top of a recent decision by the Supreme Court to hear arguments on similar questions. Put it all together, say analysts, and it's a huge legal defeat.

"The courts are beginning to really step up to the plate and question the legitimacy of these very broad assertions of power on behalf of the government," said David Cole of Georgetown Law School.

It's been an especially embarrassing week, too, for Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was personally rebuked by a Detroit federal judge for violating a gag order in a terror trial there.

Judge Gerald Rosen "sanctioned" Ashcroft for his statements, calling them "serious transgressions." Ashcroft apologized.

Almost lost in the mix was a Syracuse University study which found the Justice Department has "tried 184 people on terrorism charges since 9-11," but has managed to get a "median prison term of just 14 days", and in "some cases, no jail time at all."

Civil libertarians are calling the Padilla ruling especially "historic" but admit it's not conclusive and no one expects him to walk free soon.

The ruling could have ramifications for the so-called "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui.

A federal court has ruled the administration must allow Moussaoui to interview al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody, whom he says might clear him of capital charges. The government refuses, citing national security concerns.

If higher courts uphold Moussaoui's right to question al Qaeda detainees, it is possible the government will name him an enemy combatant and remove him from the civilian courts.

The ruling on the Guantanamo detainees comes on a petition from a relative of a Libyan the U.S. military captured in Afghanistan. The court said the Bush administration's indefinite detention of the men runs contrary to American ideals.

"Even in times of national emergency - indeed, particularly in such times - it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.

"We cannot simply accept the government's position," Reinhardt continued, "that the Executive Branch possesses the unchecked authority to imprison indefinitely any persons, foreign citizens included, on territory under the sole jurisdiction and control of the United States, without permitting such prisoners recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement.''

The Supreme Court last month agreed to decide whether the Guantanamo detainees, picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, should have access to the courts. The justices agreed to hear that case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the prisoners had no rights to the American legal system.

Hmmm. Ozoned has been posting in other threads, but he suddenly doesn't seem interested in my answers to his persistent questions. I guess he "ran away", if I may borrow his words.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Hmmm. Ozoned has been posting in other threads, but he suddenly doesn't seem interested in my answers to his persistent questions. I guess he "ran away", if I may borrow his words.

Thanks for answering my question, Bow. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

I will try to be more gentle next time.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Hmmm. Ozoned has been posting in other threads, but he suddenly doesn't seem interested in my answers to his persistent questions. I guess he "ran away", if I may borrow his words.

Thanks for answering my question, Bow. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

I will try to be more gentle next time.

:roll:

Just pointing out that you did exactly what you (falsely) accused me of doing. I'll also note you are dodging the info I provided.

That's OK. I'm used to Bushies running away when confronted with unpleasant facts. Better luck next thread. For that matter, better luck next administration. This one hasn't been very good at giving its supporters much to work with beyond faith and sheer denial. Welcome to the Cognitive Dissonance Club.




Edit: typo

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Whelp, nothing has changed I see.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Hmmm. Ozoned has been posting in other threads, but he suddenly doesn't seem interested in my answers to his persistent questions. I guess he "ran away", if I may borrow his words.

Thanks for answering my question, Bow. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

I will try to be more gentle next time.

:roll:

Just pointing out that you did exactly what you (falsely) accused me of doing. I'll also note you are dodging the info I provided.

That's OK. I'm used to Bushies running away when confronted with unpleasant facts. Better luck next thread. For that matter, better luck next administration. This one hasn't been very good at giving its supporters much to work with beyond faith and sheer denial. Welocme to the Cogntive Dissonance Club.

I am intrigued that you based your posted conclusions on SCOTUS Decisions. In that light:

A simple scenerio.

A Saudi ambassador smuggles in a Nuclear device and detonates it in NYC. 3,000,000 are killed.


What would you do Bow?

Do you honor his Diplomatic Immunity or do you strip him of the rights afforded to him under the constitution?