|
Notices |
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-23-2009, 05:18 PM | #52 (permalink) |
Been told twice
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
|
It "specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Which means they must be "pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." |
01-23-2009, 05:29 PM | #55 (permalink) | |
Been told twice
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
|
Quote:
You mean that one? According to what I've seen on the case: "The CSRTs significantly impede "the detainee's ability to rebut the factual basis for the Governments assertion that he is an enemy combatant" because the detainee (1) lacks counsel and may be detained based on (2) undisclosed evidence, if it is deemed classified by the military, and (3) hearsay, depriving the detainee of an ability to confront his accusers. This deficient fact-finding process is not cured by judicial review because the D.C. Circuit is denied authority by the DTA to (4) make an independent finding about the sufficiency of the government's evidence and (5) "admit and consider relevant exculpatory evidence that was not introduced during the earlier proceeding." | |
Last edited by TwoBlackEyes; 01-23-2009 at 05:31 PM. |
||
01-23-2009, 05:33 PM | #56 (permalink) |
Poor Sport
|
The legal procedures set forth by the constitution are used for non citizens in the US, usually, but the exact specific rights are not afforded to non citizens, even if they are usually treated as such.
When, however, that non US citizen is an illegal enemy combatant in the US, they are obviously dealt with under different guidelines. |
01-23-2009, 05:39 PM | #57 (permalink) | |
Been told twice
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
|
Quote:
And I think you misunderstand the job of the constitution. We are endowed with certain inalienable rights. The constitution doesn't GIVE us rights. It simply protects the rights that we have inherently from tyranny by our government. By claiming that our constitution doesn't give non-citizens any rights, you're technically right, but only because those rights are inherent and not ours to "give" However, our government is limited by the constitution to not be able to limit those rights. Not anyone's rights. No matter where they were born. Our government cannot remove their rights as enumerated by the constitution, no matter where they came from. It cannot protect those non-citizens from tyranny by their own governments, but that's a different story. | |
01-23-2009, 05:41 PM | #58 (permalink) | |
Poor Sport
|
Quote:
| |
01-23-2009, 05:54 PM | #59 (permalink) |
Been told twice
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
|
The word of the geneva convention was met, perhaps, due to the sloppy and imprecise wording -- but surely you're not suggesting the spirit was met. The criticisms made by SCOTUS are legitimate and the fact that we sunk so low in the attempt to skirt the GC is one major reason why we have lost all honor and prestige on the world stage.
|
01-23-2009, 06:04 PM | #60 (permalink) |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 207
Internets: 1129
|
Ah the joys of westlaw.
457 U.S. 202, has about 34 negative citing references. One could say in many parts, Plyler is not good law in many areas. Shepardize Grasshopper, you must always Shepardize. I think I'll leave you kids to this. It's like vaga trying to play poker for keeps with UB, but more extreme. |
01-23-2009, 06:06 PM | #61 (permalink) |
Poor Sport
|
"So low"?
"lost all honor" Go get interrogated under similar circumstances, in any other other country, in any other period of history, get back to me on "how low" exactly you think we went, how much "honor" the "world stage" would have, and how close to the "spirit" of the Geneva Convention was met. Fucking give me a break, the prisoners in Gitmo have it better than any objective standard of what the treatment for fucking terrorists is. |
01-23-2009, 06:10 PM | #64 (permalink) | |
Been told twice
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
|
Quote:
You do realize that the entire POINT of the Geneva convention is to protect ALL combatants from the interrogation and treatment that any other country in any other period would have inflicted. Ask yourself if you'd like OUR "enemy combatants" (read: soldiers) treated the way we treat prisoners in Gitmo, and then get back to me. We can't expect better than we offer, and I personally think our armed forces (and even non-military contractors in the region) deserve to be treated with more respect than that. | |
01-23-2009, 06:19 PM | #65 (permalink) |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 207
Internets: 1129
|
Actually you don't know what the fuck you're talking about on so many, many levels. Unfortunately for you I'm the only person around here who gets paid to have an opinion on shit like this. In that case, I'm the fucking judge and I say you don't know what you're talking about and there's really nobody you can appeal to. Arguing spirit and the point gets you poured out of court quickly.
|
Last edited by hfam95; 01-23-2009 at 06:29 PM. |
|
01-23-2009, 06:29 PM | #66 (permalink) | |
Been told twice
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
|
Quote:
| |
01-23-2009, 06:35 PM | #68 (permalink) | |
Poor Sport
|
Quote:
Its not "two wrongs make a right" its "the bare minimum of ethics is right in this case". I would fucking love our soldiers to be treated the way the prisoners at Gitmo are, so would any US POW in the history of US POW's, even though that is not a reasonable comparison since those detained there ARE NOT FUCKING SOLDIERS, THEY ARE TERRORISTS. We treat these terrorists, who have violated every possible and conceivable convention of "fair warfare", with harsh, but at a bare minimum, fair and ethical, treatment. I don't know what fantasy world you currently reside in, where treatment of criminals, let alone enemy combatants anywhere in the history of the universe has been anything but much worse than exists in Gitmo, but there are county fucking jails worse than Gitmo. | |
Last edited by Beebs; 01-23-2009 at 06:38 PM. |
||
01-23-2009, 06:56 PM | #69 (permalink) |
Been told twice
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
|
Ah, all those county jails where they waterboard the prisoners. Yeah.
You know why we set up rules for war? To protect ALL combatants from the interrogation and treatment that any other country in any other period would have inflicted. How the hell do you think we're going to be able to expect any other nation to not torture their prisoners while we still torture ours? No matter how much you want it to, two wrongs still don't make a right. It's NOT ok to act like barbarians just because other people did. We're supposed to take the higher road than the people we're fighting, remember? They "hate us because of our way of life" remember? So what does it say when we give up our ideals in order to fight them? Oh yeah. They win. |
01-23-2009, 07:28 PM | #71 (permalink) |
Been told twice
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
|
Guantanamo is a US military base. Therefore it is US soil, though only leased from Cuba. The fact that the lease is no longer with a government we have a relationship with is the loophole Bush tried to use to pretend like he didn't have to follow the rules.
|