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.
The US Constitution does, however, protect everyone on earth who is in US custody or under US jurisdiction. It is the government of the USA that is required by the Constitution to exercise due process, wherever, whomever.
Fifth Amendment: No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
That Amendment is there to prevent the US government from violating due process rights ANYWHERE.
No, we don't have to protect them when they are on the high seas. Yes, we do have to protect their constitutional rights once we take them into our custody or under our jurisdiction.
The Commander of the Warship claims "self defense", then obliterates the problem.
At what point did the pirates come under "US jurisdiction" and subject to US Constitutional protections?
"The Ashland deployed rigid-hull inflatable boats to assist the six suspected pirates in the water near their skiff. They were brought on board the Ashland and received medical care."
When they are on board the Ashland, or under the control of the crew of the Ashland, they are entitled to full protection of the US constitution.
"The Ashland deployed rigid-hull inflatable boats to assist the six suspected pirates in the water near their skiff. They were brought on board the Ashland and received medical care."
When they are on board the Ashland, or under the control of the crew of the Ashland, they are entitled to full protection of the US constitution.
So you agree that prior to that, they could have been blown out of the water with no problem?
Once in custody, they deserve at best the protections of the Geneva Convention, although as unlawful combatants, it's been successfully argued that they are due no POW protections.
Like I said, fish food before any attempt at capture is made. Any who escape 330 miles off the coast should be allowed to flee.
So you agree that prior to that, they could have been blown out of the water with no problem?
Once in custody, they deserve at best the protections of the Geneva Convention, although as unlawful combatants, it's been successfully argued that they are due no POW protections.
Like I said, fish food before any attempt at capture is made. Any who escape 330 miles off the coast should be allowed to flee.
Anybody can blow anybody out of the water, but I expect civilized people to be a little more discreet than that. I seriously doubt that the pirates had the capability of sinking the ship or doing any significant harm. Harassing a military installation in peacetime is not necessarily "unlawful combatant" and is certainly not war.
Let me correct you. They would expect AT WORST the protections of the Geneva Convention, which is the minimum standard. The pirates are human beings, and for all I know, they believe they are defending their country, which you would do if you were Somali. Please feel welcome to treat human beings any way you like, but don't expect my respect if I disagree with your blood-lust.
Anybody can blow anybody out of the water, but I expect civilized people to be a little more discreet than that. I seriously doubt that the pirates had the capability of sinking the ship or doing any significant harm. Harassing a military installation in peacetime is not necessarily "unlawful combatant" and is certainly not war.
Let me correct you. They would expect AT WORST the protections of the Geneva Convention, which is the minimum standard. The pirates are human beings, and for all I know, they believe they are defending their country, which you would do if you were Somali. Please feel welcome to treat human beings any way you like, but don't expect my respect if I disagree with your blood-lust.
Discrete? What would you like, a silencer on the guns used to shoot them? Opening fire upon a warship is an act of war, not to mention stupid beyond belief when looking at the imbalance here. And unless they are part of an identifiable, uniformed national army which has declared hostilities (a state of war), they are by definition 'unlawful combatants'. Armed pirates rank even lower.
Given this status, they are not entitled to any protections under the Geneva Convention.
Opening fire upon a warship is an act of war . . . they are by definition 'unlawful combatants'.
.
And playing poker in your basement is a crime. To me, that doesn't justify a swat team with orders to shoot to kill.
And, as is so often the case, you are as wrong as you can possibly be. An "Unlawful combatant" is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law. Firing at a fully armed warship is NOT a violation of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, the two statements of yours quoted above are perfectly contradictory, and cannot possibly both be true. An "unlawful combatant" cannot commit an "act of war", he has no authority, because he is a civilian.
The only time you criticize America is when we show civilized restraint. And you talk about humanitarian law.
And playing poker in your basement is a crime. To me, that doesn't justify a swat team with orders to shoot to kill.
Oh for crying out loud. Is there ANY way you can make this even more absurd and just straight-up stupid?
Firing on a United States Warship and playing poker in your basement are comparable now?
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.
