Obama to close Gitmo 1st week (Democrats, conservative, represent, military)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for the information but is there a difference if their crimes are against the military or citizens?
Crimes against the military? I have a hard time wrapping my head around that concept. The Taliban, like it or not, was the ruling power in Afghanistan, if they recruited foreign nationals to fight for them, why don't both the Taliban and their forces, wherever they hail from, have an inherent right to fight a foreign invader regardless of the justification that such an invader might have?
Certainly, modern warfare doesn't fit into the neat strictures of the Geneva Convention but from a moral stand-point, don't they have the same right to fight, and lose, as any other soldier (see German or Japanese soldiers) and to be treated as such when they are captured on the field of battle. Personally, I don't view armed combatants willing to face other armed combatants as terrorist by any definition.
As a nation, we fully supported the same sort of forces throughout history in general and in Afghanistan in particular. We trained, funded, and supplied the mujahdeen in their fight against the Soviets, are we now taking the position that these same sort of fighters are terrorist and not lawful combatants?
As for those who purposefully target civilians, they are without a doubt criminals, and should be treated as such. If they can be captured, they should face the full force of law, if they cannot be apprehended, they should be killed because they pose a legitimate imminent threat against society.
I am not vengeful, I'm sad because it seems that Americans care more for terrorists that would kill or have killed their fellow Americans then they do for the people of this country. I find it sad that we as Americans who lived through 9/11 are not standing with each other on this issue. These men are not Americans and hate us to the point they would slit my child's throat for no other reason then because of that hate. So no I don't think they should be given the same rights as Americans.
I don't care for terrorists. Where do I state this? I do care about this country and what it was built on, and how that is slowly eroding.
I think the difference between you and I is that I have faith in the system that has existed for over 200 years. How do we know they are terrorists if we don't try and convict? This seems like the most logical way to conclude who the good guys are and who the bad guys are if we capture them, am I wrong here? Do you have a better way of determining which people are terrorists in a fair manner?
What do you think would happen if we sentenced a terrorist to death, but he wasn't actually a terrorist and didn't have a fair trial?
Crimes against the military? I have a hard time wrapping my head around that concept. The Taliban, like it or not, was the ruling power in Afghanistan, if they recruited foreign nationals to fight for them, why don't both the Taliban and their forces, wherever they hail from, have an inherent right to fight a foreign invader regardless of the justification that such an invader might have?
Certainly, modern warfare doesn't fit into the neat strictures of the Geneva Convention but from a moral stand-point, don't they have the same right to fight, and lose, as any other soldier (see German or Japanese soldiers) and to be treated as such when they are captured on the field of battle. Personally, I don't view armed combatants willing to face other armed combatants as terrorist by any definition.
As a nation, we fully supported the same sort of forces throughout history in general and in Afghanistan in particular. We trained, funded, and supplied the mujahdeen in their fight against the Soviets, are we now taking the position that these same sort of fighters are terrorist and not lawful combatants?
As for those who purposefully target civilians, they are without a doubt criminals, and should be treated as such. If they can be captured, they should face the full force of law, if they cannot be apprehended, they should be killed because they pose a legitimate imminent threat against society.
I can't be more clearer than that.
I think they should face military court if they are caught by our military.
If they are caught here then that is different. I won't pretend to have the answer but I don't think bring them here is the answer.
I think they should face military court if they are caught by our military.
If they are caught here then that is different. I won't pretend to have the answer but I don't think bring them here is the answer.
I think it all depends on the circumstances of what you mean by being "caught."
If they are caught during a military operation acting as combatants, then what would be the basis of criminal charges? Unlawfully fighting a foreign invader? How does that work?
If on the other hand, US military forces are used to raid a known terrorist base, then there is an legitimate argument that they could be tried under a military tribunal. The problem so far with the military tribunals is that they have not been conducted even under the legal strictures of military justice.
And one last point. Be careful what you wish for. Despite the questionable structure of those military tribunals, a number of defendants have been found not guilty or guilty of far less charges.
I don't care for terrorists. Where do I state this? I do care about this country and what it was built on, and how that is slowly eroding.
I didn't mean for my statement to point at "you" it was just a generalization.
Quote:
I think the difference between you and I is that I have faith in the system that has existed for over 200 years. How do we know they are terrorists if we don't try and convict? This seems like the most logical way to conclude who the good guys are and who the bad guys are if we capture them, am I wrong here? Do you have a better way of determining which people are terrorists in a fair manner?
I agree we should shessh or get off the pot with convecting or acquitting them but I think that should be done there and as part of the military court.
They should face a military court if they are caught by our military. They should not be sent here.
Quote:
What do you think would happen if we sentenced a terrorist to death, but he wasn't actually a terrorist and didn't have a fair trial?
I agree they should have their day in court just there and in a military court not here.
I think it all depends on the circumstances of what you mean by being "caught."
If they are caught during a military operation acting as combatants, then what would be the basis of criminal charges? Unlawfully fighting a foreign invader? How does that work?
See there is the difference between us and why we see this issue from different sides. You think we are "foreign invaders" I do not. I think if we are in the middle of a war and someone that is NOT in the military of the country we are in tries to kill our troops they should be captured and put on trial in our military court. Civilians are not military and should not be targeting our military. I agree it is a very difficult situation because war has changed so much from when it was military against military and that is in large part to these nutballs who proclaim they are the military at will. When we went into Iraq we fought the military then people just up and decided to become the military it does not work that way.
Quote:
If on the other hand, US military forces are used to raid a known terrorist base, then there is an legitimate argument that they could be tried under a military tribunal. The problem so far with the military tribunals is that they have not been conducted even under the legal strictures of military justice.
Can you please tell me how you know they have not been conducted under legal military justice? No sarcasm here I really would like to know how you know.
Quote:
And one last point. Be careful what you wish for. Despite the questionable structure of those military tribunals, a number of defendants have been found not guilty or guilty of far less charges.
Well if they have been found not guilty them let them go but if they can expedite the trials then that is a plus because we all know while the justice system is good it is filled with motions and loophole and appeals and nonsense that can keep a trial going for years.
Really, when they wrote it they meant all men. SO then why were there slaves? If it meant all men. I would believe things change over time and having enemy combatants would be one of the exceptions to this rule.
If we start with all men theoretically, but don't have all men in practice, then wouldn't adding more people logically be moving closer to the correct interpretation? You're saying that because people had a flawed interpretation before, it's okay to have a flawed interpretation now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDot
Oh you are right! Now I recall all the speedy trials of the German POWs that we had interned in the U.S. throughout the 1940s. LOL!!!!
Another lib who has made a complete boob of him/herself.
The U.S. Constitution applies only to natural born or naturalized Americans citizens.
If you are not American you do not get constitutional protection. That is the bottom line!
Quote:
Another internet lawyer...
Sorry but the Supreme Court disagrees.
"In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion."
Maybe that's what all that screaming was in the background when that Indian telemarketer called me to see if I wanted to switch to AT&T the other night....Telemarketing AND torture in the same office...hmmm,how resourceful those foreigners must be
Shoot, I need to spread more rep around... and this one richly deserves a point!
See there is the difference between us and why we see this issue from different sides. You think we are "foreign invaders"
You seem to equate being foreign and being an invader as some sort of value judgment. I prefer to think of them as being technically accurate descriptions. When we invaded he beaches at Normandy, or Sicily we were both invaders and foreign, The same would have been the case if we had invaded Japan.
Quote:
I do not. I think if we are in the middle of a war and someone that is NOT in the military of the country
That isn't completely true, the Taliban was the ruling group in Afghanistan and they are indeed native. How they organize their fighting forces is a matter of debate. The fact that they invited foreigners to fight on their side could certainly be construed as being their prerogative. And, as I also mentioned before, the US is hardly on the high moral ground when it comes to helping to assemble jihadist forces from across the globe to fight "foreign invaders."
[quite]we are in tries to kill our troops they should be captured and put on trial in our military court.[/quote]
Again, what's the charge? Murder? I keep reading on these pages that foreigners have no right to Constitutional protects, are we now suppose to turn that argument on its head and argue that American soldiers in a foreign country are protected by US statutes? That's some strange logic.
Quote:
Civilians are not military and should not be targeting our military.
You must have been a Tory in a previous life.
Quote:
I agree it is a very difficult situation because war has changed so much from when it was military against military and that is in large part to these nutballs who proclaim they are the military at will. When we went into Iraq we fought the military then people just up and decided to become the military it does not work that way.
And this would be different if the US were invaded and the military rendered harmless? Gee, I thought that was the reason for all that 2nd Amendment gun hoarding. Or is that just in case our government gets out of control?
Quote:
Can you please tell me how you know they have not been conducted under legal military justice?
I've just been following the stories from numerous sources over the years, especially those concerning the military prosecutors who have resigned as a result of what they considered to be miscarriages of justice. Perhaps later I will hunt some of them up.
Quote:
No sarcasm here I really would like to know how you know.
I would never assume that you were, despite my own over reliance on being sarcastic myself.
Quote:
Well if they have been found not guilty them let them go but if they can expedite the trials then that is a plus because we all know while the justice system is good it is filled with motions and loophole and appeals and nonsense that can keep a trial going for years.
Motions, loopholes and appeals are apart of any system of justice, it at the worst it keeps prisoners constructive occupied.
A little off shoot of this question, but maybe someone educated in law can answer it. Why can't Gitmo be kept open as long as we are fighting a "war on terror"? These people are terrorists, fighting on religious convictions, not fighting for a nationalized "army" as in the traditional sense of the Geneva convention.
After WWII, wasn't an international court set up? I thought the Nazis accused of war crimes weren't tried in a German civil court, but rather an international military court. So why would we grant Gitmo prisoners a chance to be tried civilly in US courts?
Since hostilities have not ended in this ongoing war on terror, why can't POWs be kept until the hostilities have ended?
Thanks in advance for any educated answers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
