US 'erodes' global human rights

[The Kernel]

There is really no reason not to admit them into the civilian criminal justice system

Yes there is!
They are NOT civilians.

I find it interesting that you get hung up on technicalities only when it suits you.

In any case, this is still murky legal grounds and will be established in the SCOTUS soon enough.

[SirNitram]

There is really no reason not to admit them into the civilian criminal justice system

Yes there is!
They are NOT civilians.

I find it interesting that you get hung up on technicalities only when it suits you.

In any case, this is still murky legal grounds and will be established in the SCOTUS soon enough.

SCOTUS already ruled they have rights to a trial. You will notice that the Administration is ignoring the checks and balances involved.

[Big Phil]

Here is Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present< Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power "</P" as case may be.>

And here is Article 146

The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949. Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... neva1.html


The whole bloody thing is there if you'd like to read it. A quick search through it says that everyone, including spies, captured in a war zone is guaranteed due process (i.e., a trial with evidence) and that torture is prohibited in all cases.

[Stravo]

SCOTUS already ruled they have rights to a trial. You will notice that the Administration is ignoring the checks and balances involved.

Silly man, everyone knows the checks and balances were last seen on a truck heading to Syria.

[CJvR]

Which is what? What behavior and organization requirements are stated in the Geneva Convention?

Good site:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

[The Kernel]

Yes there is!
They are NOT civilians.

I find it interesting that you get hung up on technicalities only when it suits you.

In any case, this is still murky legal grounds and will be established in the SCOTUS soon enough.

SCOTUS already ruled they have rights to a trial. You will notice that the Administration is ignoring the checks and balances involved.

Yes, the question is whether they are entitled to a civilian trial, which we still don't know yet.

[Big Phil]

The following is from Wikipedia; not the best source, granted, but it does agree with (in a concise manner) everything else I could find about illegal or unlawful combatants:

Unlawful combatant (also illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant) describes a person who engages in combat without meeting the requirements for a lawful belligerent according to the laws of war as specified in the Third Geneva Convention. Countries that identify such unlawful combatants may not necessarily accord them the rights of prisoners of war described in the Third Geneva Convention, though they retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention in that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".

The term has been around for at least 100 years and has been used in legal literature, military manuals and case law. It was introduced into US domestic law in 1942 by a United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 17&invol=1). In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

[CJvR]

I find it interesting that you get hung up on technicalities only when it suits you.

I don't think the classification of someone as combatant or civilian is a technicality.

[CJvR]

The GenCon on who is a PoW...
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawof ... 3.htm#art3

ARTICLE 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Essentialy you have to operate without any traceable chain of command and disregard the rules of war in order to get yourself classified as an illegal combatant. Now if you conduct a regular resistnace campaign these restrictions are easy to follow. Also IIRC mercenaries are not protected by the GenCon regardless of their behavior.

[Big Phil]

Essentialy you have to operate without any traceable chain of command and disregard the rules of war in order to get yourself classified as an illegal combatant. Now if you conduct a regular resistnace campaign these restrictions are easy to follow. Also IIRC mercenaries are not protected by the GenCon regardless of their behavior.

However, the Fourth Geneva Convention states that torture, detention of spies and illegal combatants without a trial, etc., are prohibited. Prisoners of War have more rights than illegal combatants, but what is happening in Guantanamo Bay is not allowed under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

[The Kernel]

I find it interesting that you get hung up on technicalities only when it suits you.

I don't think the classification of someone as combatant or civilian is a technicality.

Much more of one than totally ignoring due process in favor of an "ends justify the means" mentality.

[CJvR]

However, the Fourth Geneva Convention states that torture, detention of spies and illegal combatants without a trial, etc., are prohibited.

IIRC the fourth convention concerns the protection of civilians, you have any specific § in mind? Also spies are a special case in the convention.

Prisoners of War have more rights than illegal combatants, but what is happening in Guantanamo Bay is not allowed under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Well there have been some accusations anything specificaly that you object to? Keeping captives and interrogating them is not a violation of the GenCon even if they had been regular PoWs.

[Big Phil]

However, the Fourth Geneva Convention states that torture, detention of spies and illegal combatants without a trial, etc., are prohibited.

IIRC the fourth convention concerns the protection of civilians, you have any specific § in mind? Also spies are a special case in the convention.

Prisoners of War have more rights than illegal combatants, but what is happening in Guantanamo Bay is not allowed under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Well there have been some accusations anything specificaly that you object to? Keeping captives and interrogating them is not a violation of the GenCon even if they had been regular PoWs.

Can you find anywhere in the 4th Convention where it contradicts what I quoted above concerning the treatment of prisoners, civilians, and illegal combatants?

[Chmee]

Combatant, POW, civilian ... these labels are only relevant to specific treaty clauses if you're trying to argue about what the minimum standard of humanity you have to apply in dealing with suspects in custody should be.

Is that who we are now? Lawyers trying to make the case for the widest possible lattitude to treat peoplel in custody inhumanely? That's the issue to me. I'm with Ike on this one:

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), Inaugural Address

[Admiral_K]

How much evidence is deemed "inadmissable" in court because of one technicality or another? How many Johnie Cochran type lawyers are out there working their ass off to create reasonable doubt where none should exist?

You got a problem with this? Work to reform the rule of evidence in a court of law. The US legal system works the way it does for a reason, you do not just arbitrarily throw it out due to inconvenience.

I'm of the oppinion that U.S. law applies only to those inside the United States. Foreigners held overseas have no such protections.

As I said, we're not randomly grabbing people off the street. These are people for the most part seized on the battlefield fighting with terrorist groups. It doesn't take a genius or a court of law to determine whose side they were one. Giving them a full American style trial would unneccisarily burden tax payers as well as hinder anti terrorist activities

So guilty until proven innocent eh? Why? Because they aren't American?

No because they've taken up arms against the U.S. How are you going to put them on trial for "crimes" committed outside of the United States? Does Afghanistan law apply? Iraqi Law?

News Flash: Are you aware that Habeas Corpus can and has been suspended before?

The U.S. Constitution states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in causes of rebellion or invasion of the public safety may require it."

I believe terrorism would fall under the "rebellion, or invasion of the public safety" clause.

Then take it to the US Supreme Court and see if they agree with you. Oh wait, the Bush Administration already did didn't they? And the SCOTUS rejected it didn't they?

I disagree with the supreme courts interpretation. Hopefully, future courts will realize their mistake and correct it.

Above and beyond that, Non Americans aren't protected by the constitution in the first place!

Actually, yes they are you fucking moron.

That only applies to those held on U.S. soil. I was referring to enemy combatants we are holding outside of the U.S. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

And yes I know that The Supreme Court as overstepped its bounds of late and declared Guantano to be "U.S. soil". I wonder what Cuba thinks of that. Regardless, the Federal government can easily get around this by moving the detainees to a prison in Iraq or Afghanistan, or any other "friendly" nation where the Constitution would not apply.

Read the statement again. I said that innocent people are imprisoned everyday - even in after they've been given "due process". I made no distinction as to them being terrorists or not. My gut feeling is that as a percentage, you've got a higher percentage of "guilty" people being held as terrorists in Guantanamo than you do of innocent people wrongly convicted and held in American prisons.

Really? And what does your gut feeling tell you about what my chances are of winning the lotto today? And what about the chances of my stock portfolio increasing in value? Please tell me, these are things I need to know.

Your chances of winning the lottery are 1 in 2.9 Million. Chances of your stock portfolio increasing in value depends on what stocks you've chosen. You'll have to get back to me on that one.

And yes I'm in favor of not "radomly torchuring" people we detain to find out "whatever they might know". But if you have someone whom you reasonably feel has information about terrorist attacks, or terrorist groups, then you should be able to use whatever means neccessary.

And how do you suggest making the distinction between who is guilty and innocent without due process?

I would suggest we trust the people out there fighting the war on terror to make the right choice. Just as we trust our military to bomb the right building, or our soldiers to hit the right target. I'm not saying there should be no oversight, but afording everyone we capture all of the rights under the constitution is going to work for our enemys and against us.

I'm not saying its pretty, but right now terrorists are willingly cutting off heads and blowing up civilians over in Iraq to achieve their aims. If we're too squimish to fight fire with fire, then we're in trouble.

[The Kernel]

I'm of the oppinion that U.S. law applies only to those inside the United States. Foreigners held overseas have no such protections.

Too bad the Supreme Court and the Constiution disagree with you then eh?

No because they've taken up arms against the U.S. How are you going to put them on trial for "crimes" committed outside of the United States? Does Afghanistan law apply? Iraqi Law?

Circular logic fallacy. They don't deserve the presumption of innocence because they have commited crimes that you haven't proven.

I disagree with the supreme courts interpretation. Hopefully, future courts will realize their mistake and correct it.

Disagree all you like. Your opinion is worth precicely jack shit.

That only applies to those held on U.S. soil. I was referring to enemy combatants we are holding outside of the U.S. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

Gitmo and other US military bases abroad ARE considered US soil. These laws also apply to those in US custody abroad.

And yes I know that The Supreme Court as overstepped its bounds of late and declared Guantano to be "U.S. soil". I wonder what Cuba thinks of that. Regardless, the Federal government can easily get around this by moving the detainees to a prison in Iraq or Afghanistan, or any other "friendly" nation where the Constitution would not apply.

Doesn't matter, they still are in US custody which means they have to follow our laws.

I would suggest we trust the people out there fighting the war on terror to make the right choice. Just as we trust our military to bomb the right building, or our soldiers to hit the right target. I'm not saying there should be no oversight, but afording everyone we capture all of the rights under the constitution is going to work for our enemys and against us.

Those are the costs of living in a free and just society. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.

I'm not saying its pretty, but right now terrorists are willingly cutting off heads and blowing up civilians over in Iraq to achieve their aims. If we're too squimish to fight fire with fire, then we're in trouble.

Then you try them according to the laws we've lived by for hundreds of years. You don't throw all that away just because they are inconvenient towards short-sighted ends.

[CJvR]

Can you find anywhere in the 4th Convention where it contradicts what I quoted above concerning the treatment of prisoners, civilians, and illegal combatants?

Well if you want to use the fourth then you have to explain away...

Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949

The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from 21 April to 12 August 1949, for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilians in Time of War, have agreed as follows:

Illegal combatants are not civilians so they are not formally "protected" by that convention. However Bush publicly stated that they would be given treatment equivalent to the GenCon.

ARTICLE 105
The prisoner of war shall be entitled to assistance by one of his prisoner comrades, to defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own choice, to the calling of witnesses and, if he deems necessary, to the services of a competent interpreter. He shall be advised of these rights by the Detaining Power in due time before the trial.

Failing a choice by the prisoner of war, the Protecting Power shall find him an advocate or counsel, and shall have at least one week at its disposal for the purpose. The Detaining Power shall deliver to the said Power, on request, a list of persons qualified to present the defence. Failing a choice of an advocate or counsel by the prisoner of war or the Protecting Power, the Detaining Power shall appoint a competent advocate or counsel to conduct the defence.

The advocate or counsel conducting the defence on behalf of the prisoner of war shall have at his disposal a period of two weeks at least before the opening of the trial, as well as the necessary facilities to prepare the defence of the accused. He may, in particular, freely visit the accused and interview him in private. He may also confer with any witnesses for the defence, including prisoners of war. He shall have the benefit of these facilities until the term of appeal or petition has expired.

Particulars of the charge or charges on which the prisoner of war is to be arraigned, as well as the documents which are generally communicated to the accused by virtue of the laws in force in the armed forces of th

e Detaining Power, shall be communicated to the accused prisoner of war in a language which he understands, and in good time before the opening of the trial. The same communication in the same circumstances shall be made to the advocate or counsel conducting the defence on behalf of the prisoner of war.

The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the trial of the case, unless, exceptionally, this is held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the Detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.

That is the minimum requirement for a trial according to the GenCon.

The GenCon don't have a problem with military courts.

ARTICLE 84
A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.

IIRC the US use military courts to prosecute offenders in it's own ranks so using the same system to try prisoners should not ba a problem. Also given that they are illegal combatants the range of charges available is not limited to outright warcrimes.

[Admiral_K]

I'm of the oppinion that U.S. law applies only to those inside the United States. Foreigners held overseas have no such protections.

Too bad the Supreme Court and the Constiution disagree with you then eh?

Its not nearly as cut and dry as you portray. The idea of an extrateratorial constituation is hotly debated. Precedents from the supreme court are mixed as each generation seems to view things a bit differently. The Supreme court may disagree with me now, but for most of our history the Constituation ONLY applied to U.S. citizens. And there is nothing in the Counstituation that states it extends outside of the boundries of the United States (Making your statement that the Constituation disagrees with me false).

This is the sort of problem you have when Supreme Court justices seek to create or alter law rather than actually interpret what is in the constitution. Future courts may reverse there decision. Does that automatically make me right and make you wrong?

No because they've taken up arms against the U.S. How are you going to put them on trial for "crimes" committed outside of the United States? Does Afghanistan law apply? Iraqi Law?

Circular logic fallacy. They don't deserve the presumption of innocence because they have commited crimes that you haven't proven.

Its not circular logic. You asked if they should be denied "due process" because they were non citizens. I said No, they should be denied due process because they've taken up arms against the United States in areas that are outside of our borders. AS the actions were taken outside of the United States, U.S. law does not apply. And by "due process" I mean giving them an American style court process with grand jury indictmnts etc.

I disagree with the supreme courts interpretation. Hopefully, future courts will realize their mistake and correct it.

Disagree all you like. Your opinion is worth precicely jack shit.

And when some of these judges are replaced by more convservative ones, and they decided to reverse this decision does that then make my oppinion valid?

The entire premise of this post is about our oppinions as to how terrorist combatants should be treated. And my oppinion is just as valid as anyone elses.

That only applies to those held on U.S. soil. I was referring to enemy combatants we are holding outside of the U.S. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

Gitmo and other US military bases abroad ARE considered US soil. These laws also apply to those in US custody abroad.

The Navy's own website calls it communist soil. We are tenants, not owners.

And yes I know that The Supreme Court as overstepped its bounds of late and declared Guantano to be "U.S. soil". I wonder what Cuba thinks of that. Regardless, the Federal government can easily get around this by moving the detainees to a prison in Iraq or Afghanistan, or any other "friendly" nation where the Constitution would not apply.

Doesn't matter, they still are in US custody which means they have to follow our laws.

Wrong the provision applying to non citizens only applies if they are on U.S. soil, not just U.S. Custody. The detainess at Guantanamo had originally been denied constiutational protection for just such reason: That Guantanamo was not U.S. territory. This was later overtuned as the Supreme Court apparently decided that it was U.S. territory because we "excercized supreme authority over the area" (A view not shared by all of the justices mind you).

I would suggest we trust the people out there fighting the war on terror to make the right choice. Just as we trust our military to bomb the right building, or our soldiers to hit the right target. I'm not saying there should be no oversight, but afording everyone we capture all of the rights under the constitution is going to work for our enemys and against us.

Those are the costs of living in a free and just society. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.

There is no reason to give constitutional protections to foreign adversaries whose goal is to destroy the nation which was founded by that constitution.

I'm not saying its pretty, but right now terrorists are willingly cutting off heads and blowing up civilians over in Iraq to achieve their aims. If we're too squimish to fight fire with fire, then we're in trouble.

Then you try them according to the laws we've lived by for hundreds of years. You don't throw all that away just because they are inconvenient towards short-sighted ends.

The founders of the constituation surely did not intend for its protections to be extended to forces seeking its destruction. Infact there are provisions within it such as the right to suspend habeas corpus to prevent it from shielding enemies of the U.S.

[Chmee]

Um, speaking of the Founders:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

They thought that was a truth ... actually, a self-evident truth. And what transgressions of the Monarch brought them to declare independence? Among them were ...

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power....

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

Good thing we're on guard against that sort of thing today, isn't it?

[Admiral_K]

YOU can ASSURE me that MOST of the people being kept in Cuba were not caught terrorizing, or supporting terrorists. Well I guess that settles it then.

And No, you don't need a fucking trial to find out whether they are terrorists.

Too bad the SCOTUS and the Constitution disagree with you eh?

Supreme Court != the Constitution. And because the current incarnation happens to vote one way, doesn't mean that the next will do the same.

It is irrelvent anyway since I don't need either the supreme court of the constituation in order to find out if someone is a terrorist. I only need to know if they assist terrorist groups and or participate in terrorist activities.

Because terrorists operate in a vast array of countries. You aren't going to be able to "subpeona" witnesses for one thing.

If you are relying on witnesses that are foreign in the first place then you have a problem. Most likely the testimony of US military personal that catch them in the act would be sufficient and the only acceptable evidence anyways aside from physical evidence.

You seem to forget that the defense can subpaoena witnesses as well.

Further, if you are forced to treat them as criminal suspects, then you also have to give them "reasonable bail", and while some judges would deny that, there are many who would not.

Horseshit, on severe offenses it can quite easily be mandated that a large bail or remand is the necessary course of action.

I already addressed that. The fact remains that some liberal judge WILL grant bail at some point.

Factor in the lost time be giving these enemy combatants "due process" instead of interrogating them, grately inhibits the fight against their pals still out in the world seeking to attack us.

Too bad then. You don't change the rules of law because it is inconvenient not to.

The debate here is to the length at which the "Law" has jurisdiction.

Whats so funny? Do you think that OJ was innocent? Or maybe you still think Jayson Williams didn't shoot his limo driver.

The one that should be laughing her is me at your Naivety

What you think is irrelevent. What matters is that guilt needs to be PROVEN in a court of law. Don't like it? Why don't you go live in Zimbabwe and then you'll be plenty happy.
[/quote]

Only for crimes being charged in the United States. Already established that the Constituation only covers U.S. soil.

Prove what? Most of them were found in afghanistan fighting with terrorist groups. Thats how we got them in the first place. Given the number of terrorist training camps that existed in that country, that was to be expected.

How do you know this? You have physical proof? I haven't seen any outside of the press releases from the Bush Administration.

The point is these people aren't being held by racial motivation. They are being held because they are seen as a danger to the safety of the American people at home and abroad.

Really? So Timothy McVeigh was sent to Gitmo too? How about those fucks that shoot abortion doctors? Or perhaps the militia men out in the boondocks? Are they all being sent to Gitmo and deprived of their civil rights as well? Oh wait, how silly of me, those people are all white Christians.

Crimes commited in the U.S. fall under Constituational jurisdiction.

Actually that kill to loss ratio probably isn't far off. And the US government stands to defend the people of the United States. If you feel that they are randomly torchuring innocent people for "kicks" then you are the one who should be felt sorry for.

There is PROOF they are randomly torturing people for kicks. See Abu Gharib if you don't believe me. I think that incident might have been in Newsweek or something, maybe you could check it out.

Thats not PROOF that the U.S. is randomly torchuring people you moron. Those people werent tortured for information at the behest of the U.S. government. They were tortured by a couple of bored jackasses who are now on trial for what they've done. If they had worked in a U.S. prison and been caught doing this, would you say that the "Justice System" is randomly torchuring people?

The so-called "torture" or authorized interrogation techniques in use to extract information from Guantanmo Bay is what I'm talking about. And anyone found to be abusing those techniques and torchuring people with no useful

[BoredShirtless]

YOU can ASSURE me that MOST of the people being kept in Cuba were not caught terrorizing, or supporting terrorists. Well I guess that settles it then.

Clown. It isn't good enough that the US government says "Ahmed is a terrorist, take our word for it". It WOULD be if the US government was above lying and perfect. Is the US government perfect, Admiral_K? How would you feel if your daddy was mistakingly called a terrorist and thrown into Guantanamo? Would you not HATE the US government? Would you not SPREAD your hate to people who would listen? Isn't that part of the vicious CYCLE the US government is in with the terrorists?

And No, you don't need a fucking trial to find out whether they are terrorists.

Yes you do. See above.

Its not possible to combat terrorism as you would normal crime.

And why the fuck not?

Because terrorists operate in a vast array of countries.

So?

You aren't going to be able to "subpeona" witnesses for one thing.

Why do they have to be flown to the US? Why not question witnesses in the country they live in? Or, hold the trial in the country the terrorists operated in. In fact, Germany recently held a trial for a guy accussed of helping plot 9/11, so it can work.

Further, if you are forced to treat them as criminal suspects, then you also have to give them "reasonable bail", and while some judges would deny that, there are many who would not.

Not everyone accused of being a terrorist, if out on bail, would strap dynamite around their waste and blow up a shopping mall, you ignorant chicken. Let the judges JUDGE, I'm sure the bar would be high, but there are always cases FOR BAIL. A guy accused of maintaing Al Quedas website, for example, the only source of income for a family of 4; why not give him bail?

Factor in the lost time be giving these enemy combatants "due process" instead of interrogating them, grately inhibits the fight against their pals still out in the world seeking to attack us.

Once again, the US government isn't perfect, and they could be WASTING TIME interrogating innocent people. Remove the blinds, chicken.

Whats so funny? Do you think that OJ was innocent? Or maybe you still think Jayson Williams didn't shoot his limo driver.

The one that should be laughing her is me at your Naivety

Wow, the justice system isn't perfect!

Moron. Name me one human system that IS perfect.

Prove what? Most of them were found in afghanistan fighting with terrorist groups. Thats how we got them in the first place. Given the number of terrorist training camps that existed in that country, that was to be expected.

Prove it.

The point is these people aren't being held by racial motivation. They are being held because they are seen as a danger to the safety of the American people at home and abroad.

Yeah, but only to a handfull of people, who could be WRONG, dumbass. That's why we need a TRAIL to FIND OUT FOR SURE!

And the US government stands to defend the people of the United States. If you feel that they are randomly torchuring innocent people for "kicks" then you are the one who should be felt sorry for.

Nice strawman, chicken. It's clear you're a chicken who let common sense get overwhelmed by fear. Pluck pluck PLUUUCK!

[Dahak]

Why do they have to be flown to the US? Why not question witnesses in the country they live in? Or, hold the trial in the country the terrorists operated in. In fact, Germany recently held a trial for a guy accussed of helping plot 9/11, so it can work.

The USA still refused to let key witnesses be questioned by the German judges and were not really cooperating.
So he was set free again because the judges were not only pissed and the evidence they got was thin and came from dubious sources (torture maybe?).
So we're in the second incarnation of this court case, and so far it doesn't seem like the USA are any more forthcoming...

[PainRack]

Which is what? What behavior and organization requirements are stated in the Geneva Convention?

They need to wear uniforms or have some highly visible symbol that illustrates their belonging to a valid armed resistance force.

[PainRack]

Its not nearly as cut and dry as you portray. The idea of an extrateratorial constituation is hotly debated. Precedents from the supreme court are mixed as each generation seems to view things a bit differently. The Supreme court may disagree with me now, but for most of our history the Constituation ONLY applied to U.S. citizens. And there is nothing in the Counstituation that states it extends outside of the boundries of the United States (Making your statement that the Constituation disagrees with me false).

So. If I'm a Dutch tourist in the US and I carry marijuana, can I claim the protection of Dutch laws and consitution?

Its not circular logic. You asked if they should be denied "due process" because they were non citizens. I said No, they should be denied due process because they've taken up arms against the United States in areas that are outside of our borders. AS the actions were taken outside of the United States, U.S. law does not apply. And by "due process" I mean giving them an American style court process with grand jury indictmnts etc.

Stravo is so going to kick your ass. Due process and so on means giving them a trial! You cannot hold someone indefinitely without charges or trial in the US.

The Navy's own website calls it communist soil. We are tenants, not owners.

Then the navy is wrong.

The US has never. Repeat. Never considered any military base it owns as being seperate from US soil. Indeed, international law as sanctioned by the UN makes every diplomatic building and military equipment like aircraft the soverign territory of its owner. This was one of the main reasons why the USN was not allowed to remain in the Phillipines.

[CJvR]

You cannot hold someone indefinitely without charges or trial in the US.

Except hostile combatants, they can be held until the war is over without trial.