They Think It Can't Happen Here Again!!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Spence,
I doubt that. The U.S. consitution does not apply outside the U.S.,, neither do most U.S. laws. Do you think we just tried spies during our other wars when they were caught outside the U.S.? We did, and still do, treat POWs according to the Geneva conventions. But the guys at Gitmo don't qualify for POW status, as they were never in a recognized army to start with. IMHO thay are treating the majority of those guys waaay better than they deserve.

The US has agreed to International law which many believe we are clearly violating. The Constitution may not dictate International law, but that doesn't mean the Founding Fathers didn't write plenty about how they felt the US should act Globally.

Just because a prisoner isn't a POW doesn't mean there are no rules. If we believe in the Rule of Law then we should establish guidelines for treatment of suspected terrorist prisoners so it's clear we are within bounds. One of the major political failures of GITMO is that it sends the message we are above all law.

-spence

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by spence

The US has agreed to International law which many believe we are clearly violating. The Constitution may not dictate International law, but that doesn't mean the Founding Fathers didn't write plenty about how they felt the US should act Globally.

Just because a prisoner isn't a POW doesn't mean there are no rules. If we believe in the Rule of Law then we should establish guidelines for treatment of suspected terrorist prisoners so it's clear we are within bounds. One of the major political failures of GITMO is that it sends the message we are above all law.

-spence

Name the "International law" that many believe we are violating. there are no rules governing non-POWs. There are no laws, international or otherwise that govern how a soverign nation can treat detainess outside their own country who are not POWs. We are a nation of laws, that is we have laws that govern our actions within the country. Outside the country there are a few international treaties, but other than that, anything goes. That's why we have wars! There aren't and should not be any bounds on how we treat captives who are intent of harming innocent civilians. IMHO anything is fair game. How do you think the spy game is/was played, especially during the cold war? Do you think we fed enemy spies cookies to get the information we wanted out of them?

I know its difficult for epople, who are used to have laws or rules govern every aspect of their lives, but once you step outside the country and engange in hostile acts against a soverign nation, there are no rules. You may wish it otherwise, but that't the way it is and has always been.

[beachwalker]

ok spence, I set myself up for that...

I haven't heard much reporting on "ATROCITIES" at Gitmo since the reports of their return and their subsequent reports....


do you have anything current that I have missed ?

i hope so.....


The right and the left are usually poorly informed, IMO, and that has a huge impact on their rhetoric.

[spence]

Originally Posted by beachwalker

ok spence, I set myself up for that...

I haven't heard much reporting on "ATROCITIES" at Gitmo since the reports of their return and their subsequent reports....

Wasn't that like 2 weeks ago?

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Name the "International law" that many believe we are violating. there are no rules governing non-POWs. There are no laws, international or otherwise that govern how a soverign nation can treat detainess outside their own country who are not POWs.

That's simply not true. The Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions detail treament of prisoners who don't have POW status. The US Army's field manual even recognizes protections for non-POW's "engaged in hostile or belligerent conduct."

Perhaps even more significant was the recent US Supreme court ruling that "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay."

-spence

[Nebe]

I will never forget the day i was having breakfast and read that bush and CO refused to re-sign the treaty that held american forces liable for international war crimes. I think he was in office for about 1 month. 9/11 hadn't happened yet and when i read that i knew we were going to go to war. I had a hunch it was going to be Iran.
Bush has spent about 90% of his energy on fixing other nations policies and about 10% on our own.. I really dont agree with that..

janefonda was great in barberella IMO

[RIJIMMY]

Im staying out of this one.

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Im staying out of this one.

Me too....Im just enjoying some of the bonehead comments im seeing from the well known lefties on here. Its quite funny yet so sad in many ways

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Skip N

Me too....Im just enjoying some of the bonehead comments im seeing from the well known lefties on here. Its quite funny yet so sad in many ways

dont worry. i've heard some real classics from you too

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by spence

That's simply not true. The Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions detail treament of prisoners who don't have POW status. The US Army's field manual even recognizes protections for non-POW's "engaged in hostile or belligerent conduct."

Perhaps even more significant was the recent US Supreme court ruling that "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay."

-spence

O.K., I'm going to have to look up those two treaties. The U.S. army field manual is just that, a manual, no force of law and can be changed at the pentagon's whim. As far as the court rulings go, notice that they didn't say that the Consitution applied, only that the detainees needed to have some sort of hearing. In fact that decision proves my point about the consitution not applying outside the U.S. Do you think the courts would allow a hearing before a military tribunal to pass for justice, inside the U.S. ?

[Nebe]

boy it wouls really suck if you were innocent wouldnt it???

[Homerun04]

janefonda was great in barberella IMO

Eben is the man....always get's us all back on track in our threads.

Where does "common sense" play into this arguement? Geneva Convention or not....who cares? Here are the FACTS:

1. These terrorrists (radical Islamists, Muslins, and Al-Quaeda) are NOT a recognized nation. They come from many countries, and only share one thing in common -- their radical interpretation of their religion makes them beleive the West are the evil infidels, and they beleive they have a moral obligation to kill all Westerners.
2. They are training an Army of people every day to kill Americans.
3. They have declared war on America -- many, many times.
4. They have attacked America a number of times (embassies, 9/11, cruise ships - Achillie Lauro (sp?), etc).
5. They have killed thousands of Americans.
6. They will not stop until either they are all dead or we are all dead - IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

So, wouldn't common sense dictate that we do whatever we can to win this war now, and debate the "philosophies" of what we did after the war? If we do it the other way around, we might not be alive later on to have any discussions. I never understood the Geneva Convention -- or any conventions that try to put "rules" around wars. In reality who in their right minds would care about "good decurum" when they are about to be killed and wiped off the face of the earth? If you knew you where about to be killed, would you not prevent it because you thought you might be violating some convention?

Frankly, war is hell -- and IMO there are no rules in hell. Those of us looking to apply "rules" and "good behavior" during war time are destined to loose in war. IMO, we should be as brutal to them as they are to us. And once we eradicate them, then we can go back to being "nicey-nice". As for our Founding Father's, they rounded up many Torries on a regular basis without cause. The key to victory is not in defeating your enemy but it is in defeating your enemy's strategy (Tsun Tsu - The Art of War).

Sure, some might say that acting as brutal as them would make us as evil as they are, but I disagree. And here is the difference: We at least have the decency to go back to being civilized people after war, and act like barbarians only during war time. These terrorist people would still be looking for the next group of people to kill.

I sometimes think the people who are looking to treat everyone "fairly" are making the mistake of projecting our values onto everyone else -- so I ask, would they treat our prisoners according to the Geneva Convention? I don't think so. And as for me, I will always side with the men and women who have died -- and are fighting today -- for my freedom and the freedom, protection and safety of my children. Let's stop hamstringing our military - let them do their job. It would be done quicker, and ultimately a lot less lives would be lost on both sides of the ledger.

Do I wish we lived in a world where everyone obeyed International Laws and acted according to generally accepted rules of decency? Sure I do. But unfortunately we don't.

[likwid]

i do not support OBL's views, I'm just repeating what I read:

HR: I've read OBL's open letter to the US a half dozen times.
In it he says he wants us to leave the middle east and israel to stop killing palestinians and he'll stop.

In it he also says if we do not meet his conditions he'll continue ordering attacks on the US.

But yes, it also says he thinks we're psychotic and women blahblahblahblah all his psycho religiousbabble is nuts.

So blah, like I said, it all sucks.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.