Without habeas corpus they can simply assert that you meet that definition.bdickens wrote:Frost: Actually, the Geneva and Hague conventions are what define lawful and unlawful combatants.
Without due process, especially habeas corpus, they don't need a reason. You can be detained arbitrarily.XtremeDuty.45 wrote:I am not gonna give them a reason to call me an unlawful combatant AKA TERRORIST! Therefore I will not have to worry about due process.
That may very well be. I am asking for a just process to make sure that that is true. Have i not been clear on that?XtremeDuty.45 wrote:There is a reason these scumbags are in GITMO.
An authority declares you to be an unlawful combatant. What are you going to do about it without due process?bdickens wrote:Unlawful combatants are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, nor are they entitled to due process.
I was referring to your suggested punishment:anygunanywhere wrote: If you insist that those in captivity at Gitmo were tortured then you have a skewed understanding of what torture is.
However, I am also not willing to take it for granted that no torture beyond water boarding taken place at gitmo or elsewhere.anygunanywhere wrote:4. When captured they should have been questioned in a manner consistent with the way they treated Americans they have held captive. Since the world does not define the way they treat us as barbaric then it must be just fine.
5. Once all valuable information was gleaned they should have been executed in a manner consistent with the way they have executed Americans they have held captive. Again, since the world does not define the way they execute captives as barbaric then it must be just fine.
We can easily deal with them all without allowing the government to arbitrarily detain people. There is a rather large difference between being captured in combat and being bought from warlords in Afghanistan. It is worth considering that those "allies" may have lied in exchange for a stack of cash.anygunanywhere wrote:They are not a few hundred, they are in the thousands. Maobama's executive order also applies to the terrorists held in Iraq and Afghanistan. When you made the statement in an earlier post that only a few were captured in combat, you were wrong. Most of them were actually captured in combat by US and our Iraqi and Afghani allies. Most were not sent by other nations. Take another drink of kool aid. These are not cab drivers being railroaded. They are murdering thug terrorists. Go ahead and say it along with me. M-U-R-D-E-R-I-N-G T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S. Not freedom fighters. Not uniformed military combatants. Not POWs. They do not even rank as criminals.
That is a question of fact for a justice system. Not necessarily the US civilian justice system, but it must be one that respects the inalienable rights of all people.XtremeDuty.45 wrote:It is amazing to me how many people dont get that they are... TERRORISTS
Killing someone already detained without a just process is murder. Torturing them is a greater evil.anygunanywhere wrote:Yes.Frost wrote:When your suggested punishment is torture and death, are you seriously asking those questions?anygunanywhere wrote:Why do I need proof? Why do I need to define a just process?
I grasped it well enough, but i felt it would be inappropriate to hastily accuse you of advocating murder and worse. I am hardly a "bleeding heart" I would imagine a liberal would accuse me of being rather hard hearted towards the "underprivileged."anygunanywhere wrote:I guess you have not quite grasped my stance. I am not the bleeding heart here.
I am no legal scholar, but i will do my best to describe a just system. I believe that habeas corpus is too important to be suspended except when it is necessary to temporarily detain masses of people. A few hundred detainees over a period of years hardly qualifies. I believe probable cause that they are an enemy combatant would be satisfactory for turning them over to a military tribunal. If the tribunal finds them to be an enemy combatant they should be interrogated without torture and executed.anygunanywhere wrote:You did not define your justice system. Tell us what it is. I am betting it is/will be the Maobama system.
No, not even the majority of them.anygunanywhere wrote:Were they captured in combat fighting against our troops?
Great question. How about we find out before we torture and kill them?anygunanywhere wrote:Did they kill US citizens?
Why deny them a just process to determine their guilt when they make it trivial with confessions?anygunanywhere wrote:Several have bragged about what they have done openly.
If, when captured, they tell interrogators that they want to kill us, deal with it.
When your suggested punishment is torture and death, are you seriously asking those questions?anygunanywhere wrote:Why do I need proof? Why do I need to define a just process?
Why are you certain that this is true for the every single one of the hundreds of detainees at GITMO?anygunanywhere wrote:These are terrorist. They swear alegiance to a religious ideal.
My disagreements with that position are relatively minor compared to a point you omitted. What would be a just process to determine that they are in fact terrorists?anygunanywhere wrote:My position so we will be clear:
I must confess it is hard to understand your position. It will likely take much more discussion for us to come to a meeting of the minds if we are both willing to endure it. My understanding is now that you believe the power to arbitrarily detain anyone is an appropriate power of the state, but we have simply allowed the wrong people to wield that power. If we had better bureaucrats we would not need to fear them labeling the wrong people.anygunanywhere wrote:
If we had stopped the three branches of government from trampling on the Constitution and BOR the very first time they tried we would not be concerned with being labeled as terrorists by tyrannical government thugs.
Allow who to challenge their detention and under what basis? The terrorists? Here is where we will disagree.
Anygunanywhere
If they were caught in the act. That is a question of fact that we must have a just process to determine which respects the natural, god given, inalienable and self-evident rights of all people.anygunanywhere wrote: They were caught in the act...
OK, i agree 100% with that.anygunanywhere wrote:Frost, I have said the exact same thing before so I believe we are on the same page here. Way back when the three branches of the gubmint first started wiping their dirty boots on the Constitution and BOR was when we should have corrected the situation.
I am not exactly sure what you mean here.anygunanywhere wrote:If it had been doen then we would not be worrying ourselves about being labeled terorist for our beliefs.
Do you mean we would lose the "war on terror" if we allowed people to challenge their detention?anygunanywhere wrote:Should we roll over on our backs and expose our bellies beause we fear being labeled? Which is worse? Why don't we deal with the wrongs?
Anygunanywhere
This is the only way i can think of to make my point more clear:anygunanywhere wrote:If we deny murdering terrorists rights they never had in the first place under our constitution and BOR it doesn't effect law abiding citizens either.
If we strip felons of the right to vote or carry it does not effect law abiding citizens one bit.anygunanywhere wrote:Those posters who insist that they do not believe in anyone losing their rights must be careful and not be convicted of a minor felony because you lose your God given rights to vote and the RKBA.
Frost wrote:If habeas corpus is denied to any group then all rights can be denied to anyone by simply asserting their membership in that group.
If habeas corpus is denied to any group then all rights can be denied to anyone by simply asserting their membership in that group. I am not willing to be stripped of my natural rights for the duration of a "war" undeclared. I am disheartened that you and so many of my countrymen are.TxD wrote:Frost,
With all due respect and hopefully without sounding too antagonistic, I completely and vehemently disagree with your view.