Alpinfox Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 we'd be better off if we initiated a new international treaty that specifies how to treat and try terrorist suspects. As things are now, I think that using the Geneva Conventions as the immutable standard for detaining and trying terrorist suspects is like applying the rules for civil aviation to aerial combat, and we'd be less likely to see renditions, etc if there was some kind of standard in place that addressed some of the aspects that make terrorism different from interstate warfare. As things stand now, I'd rather have the US follow the Geneva Conventions because I think that the strategic losses that not being seen to do so are more costly than the benefits we're likely to gain from the intelligence that we get. However, I would like to see us at least press the case with the Euros and others and get them to spell out exactly how they intend to apply the conventions to terrorist suspects, so that they have to abide by the same principles that they're asking the US to apply. You mean joining into some sort of International Criminal Court? Why that would be just CRAZY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted September 28, 2006 Author Share Posted September 28, 2006 Those are probably labeled war crimes in the Geneva conventions. But before you sentence someone for a war crime in the Geneva conventions the SUSPECT needs to have a fair trial. What we are discussing here (or at least the subject of my overwrought initial post) is the current administration's goal of letting us skip this little part about a trial. Habeas Corpus is the right to a speedy, fair trial before you are punished. This seems like something JayB would agree to be a good concept, and is probably also something we could get the Euro's to agree with us on. With respect to uniformed soldiers picked up on a battlefield in a regular war, the Habeas part is probably a bit moot as it is usually pretty obvious these people are fighting against you. No need for a trial because you are going to want to hold them until the end of hostilities so they can't shoot at you anymore. Unfortunately, now we have the complicating factors that guerillas and terrorists don't wear uniforms AND that our current "war" basically has no end. In order to protect the many innocents from being unjustly swept up and confined indefinitely for whatever reason, there has to be some form of habeas. As I'm sure Underworld would agree, you can't trust any govt. to be all-knowing and always perfect in their motives. There has to be some redundancy or oversight in determining who is imprisoned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Isn't directly targeting innocent civilians, using them as human shields, and destroying/targeting places of worship against the Geneva convention? Effectively what our "civil rights for terrorists" advocates do is to tie one hand behind our backs, beat soldiers and policy makers about the head constantly (and bite at their ankles), while humming their mantra of "we're losing, it's unwinnable, blah blah". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Good post ChucK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Effectively what our "civil rights for terrorists" advocates do is try to prevent US government interrogators from tying terrorist suspects up, beating them, and biting their ankles () while shouting Seig Heil Bush! yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Isn't directly targeting innocent civilians, using them as human shields, and destroying/targeting places of worship against the Geneva convention? Effectively what our "civil rights for terrorists" advocates do is to tie one hand behind our backs, beat soldiers and policy makers about the head constantly (and bite at their ankles), while humming their mantra of "we're losing, it's unwinnable, blah blah". You do realize that under the current bill, we could term you a terrorist, and you could be shipped away and held indefinitely - with no possibility of habeas? That prospect doesn't frighten you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 full circle.... fulllllll circle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tivoli_mike Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 65-34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 I don't see why more people aren't furious at this attempt to remove this basic safeguard from the justice system. What is the Bush administration afraid of? If the POW's that Bush is filling Cuba with are so criminal, then why is he so worried about needing to prove this to a court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tivoli_mike Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 meanwhile the country is gripped by the news of another dead white girl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 You do realize that under the current bill, we could term you a terrorist, and you could be shipped away and held indefinitely - with no possibility of habeas? That prospect doesn't frighten you? So you say. I believe nothing that the left says. Such is our current state of affairs in this country. The boy has cried wolf one too many times, and there's been far too much hyperbole for me to believe any of what is being posited about this bill in this debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 You do realize that under the current bill, we could term you a terrorist, and you could be shipped away and held indefinitely - with no possibility of habeas? That prospect doesn't frighten you? So you say. I believe nothing that the left says. Such is our current state of affairs in this country. The boy has cried wolf one too many times, and there's been far too much hyperbole for me to believe any of what is being posited about this bill in this debate. Read the fucking bill yourself you dumbshit. You can read can't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tivoli_mike Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 AP - http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/C...-09-28-19-09-50 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush's plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism. The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president's desk by week's end. The House passed nearly identical legislation on Wednesday and was expected to approve the Senate bill on Friday, sending it on to the White House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 what chapter and verse is it that says i can point and you go to jail. i don't have the time to read 80-something pages right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 on a similar note... Ironically, efforts to curb the behavior may have exacerbated the squirrels' aggressive tendencies, Muela said. we need to understand the s haven't we learned that violence breeds violence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SneakySix Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense— “(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization—including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces—engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war; “(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so en5 gaged; or “© to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged. What would stop them classifying a US Citizen as an "enemy combatant"? Im amazed that the bill passed with such a majority, aparently Americans dont learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 What would stop them classifying a US Citizen as an "enemy combatant"? ummmm.. the same things that stop the police from classifying you as a murderer or any other common criminal. under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense similar to common police A)... B)... etc similar to common evidence and/or probable cause Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 What would stop them classifying a US Citizen as an "enemy combatant"? ummmm.. the same things that stop the police from classifying you as a murderer or any other common criminal. under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense similar to common police A)... B)... etc similar to common evidence and/or probable cause EXCEPT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT OF HABEAS CORPUS IF YOU ARE AN ENEMY COMBATANT! They don't have to tell you, or anyone else why you are being held, much less charge you or produce evidence. The Executive branch is saying "trust us" - something directly contrary to the checks & balances that have kept america... american. Are Americans this fucking stupid? We are sliding back over 700 years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 dude...that's what i wanted to find in the bill. i didn't see it in my skimming and i'm interested in how that is detailed out. the habeas corpus is one issue. the point and whisper is another. i'm just tired of hearing the point and whisper argument and if sneakysex's quote is the root of it, then you guys are blowing it out of proportion. i'm willing to read and disagree with the bill if the habeas corpus bit is as cut and dry as you say it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dt_3pin Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Effectively what our "civil rights for terrorists" advocates do is to tie one hand behind our backs, beat soldiers and policy makers about the head constantly (and bite at their ankles), while humming their mantra of "we're losing, it's unwinnable, blah blah". So you say. I believe nothing that the left says. Such is our current state of affairs in this country. The boy has cried wolf one too many times, and there's been far too much hyperbole for me to believe any of what is being posited about this bill in this debate. Oh, the sweet irony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 dude...that's what i wanted to find in the bill. i didn't see it in my skimming and i'm interested in how that is detailed out. the habeas corpus is one issue. the point and whisper is another. i'm just tired of hearing the point and whisper argument and if sneakysex's quote is the root of it, then you guys are blowing it out of proportion. i'm willing to read and disagree with the bill if the habeas corpus bit is as cut and dry as you say it is. You don't remember Jose Padilla? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 that was already covered in the bill clinton thread....geeeez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 that was already covered in the bill clinton thread....geeeez I avoid the true right wing moonbats - clinton brings them out like Herpes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 anyway.. back on topic... just want direction to find the specific wording that is pissing you guys off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 FOX NEWS - October, 2008 - bowing to the demands of Congress, the President today reluctantly agreed to extend his term in office and delay elections until the Islamic terrorist threat to America is ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.