Her's a question I doubt anyone can answer to the fullest. Unless you know History and the Geneva Convention.

Question

Alright. The Geneva Convention Documents provide rights to militants. To be a militant you must fufill at least one Basic Requirements.
1. The militant must wear identifying insignia to relate them to a countries military.
2. They must carry arms openly.
3. A country must claim them as citizens.

Now, we've gone and extended Constitutional Rights to the prisoners we've taken. Which means they have to adhere to our laws. But we can't try them for murder or terrorism because of the Ex Post Facto Law. They commited the crime when they were not under our Laws. And if we try them for international terrorism, they are tried with our rights, which makes them citizens of our nation. Therfore we claim them, which fufills one of the requirements of the Geneva Convention. Is this correct? Are these terrorist unlawful combatant and deserve no rights? I think so.

Answer 1

Actually in order to claim 'combatant' status and be qualified to the rights as a POW you must:

1) Wear a uniform or some sort of insignia identifiable at a distance.
2) Be under the command of a person who is accountable for your actions.
3) Carry arms openly.
4) Obey the Laws and Customs of War.

If somebody does not meet these criteria then they can be classified as 'illegal combatants' and after a quick tribunal to verify that they in fact did not meet these requirements - summarily executed.

The really sad part of this whole affair is the creation of a new international custom that there is no requirement to obey the laws of war in order to get the protection of the laws of war.

Is it not ironic that the last enemy we fought who obeyed the laws of war were the Nazis? (Personally, I am surprised that our enemies are not embarrassed to know that the Nazis had higher standards than they do.)

Answer 2

Apparently, you skipped a couple of paragraphs of the Geneva Convention.

Any inhabitant who takes up arms in the face of an occupying force is considered a protected person. They do not have to wear uniforms, carry arms openly, or anything else. Remember the French Resistance? That is what Iraqi insurgents are.

Secondly, it is a violation of the Geneva Convention to remove prisoners from the country in which they were captured, except in extreme circumstances to protect their well-being. In such cases, they are to be removed to a neutral, third party nation, who is not involved in the conflict.

As for extending Constitutional rights, we have not. The Geneva Convention, again, states that prisoners cannot be tried by military tribunal. Their trials must be conducted in a way that is consistent with the laws of 'civilized nations'. That means that they have a right to a lawyer, confront witnesses against them, see evidence, communicate privately with counsel, and participate in their own defense. All of these basic tenets of law are what the American government was seeking to supress. They didn't even want the prisoners to be present at their own trials.

Absolutely nothing about the process for trying someone in international courts or anywhere else would affect their citizenship, whatsoever. It wouldn't matter if we tried them in the US, the Hague, or anywhere else.

You are clearly misguided.

Oh, and BTW, EVERYONE has rights. Remember how we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable right? I don't think that the Founding Fathers were referring just to Americans. Every human being has rights, even baby rapers and mother killers. It's what to do with them AFTER they have been convicted that matters.

Answer 3

This is a question I'm sure the Attorney General is dealling with as we speak. They are Not Citizens, and they are unlawful combatants. However they may be given Combatant status due to the latest court ruling. If so We hold the bad guys till the war is over. So For the moment life in Cuba is status quo. In the future however save the trouble and the paperwork. Just take no prisioners................

Answer 4

I dont see why they deserve rights, at least not he rights of a united states citizen. Everyone should be allowed a fair trial, as a human.

Does that also include war trials? we cant hold them responsible for terrorist acts during war time? You know when like the world war ended a bunch of people were tried and killed, did we do that or was it the post war Germany? Am i mistaken completely?

gah! now iam going to wonder.

I should read those history books i have that are collecting dust. I just prefer ancient history ;)

Answer 5

re: "scared that God gained't answer as right now as he did very last time because i believe like I in straight forward words turn to God even as i favor him" Dont keep away from doing something good, because you comprehend theres something extra efficient. Do good in any respect you could. turn to God in prayer at any chance you could. and end with the senseless, inconsiderate, verbatim crap. guess what, God knows your prayers by heart... per chance he'd favor to take heed to from YOU sometime. tell him overtly about your complications, talk to him like a real individual who's incredibly listening. Pour out your heart and frustration and gratitude and each little thing. end conserving back because you experience to blame. it is a tactic of devil, no longer God. in case you want to reconnect, do it. keep attempting, dont get annoyed in case you dont get a beam of light from heaven after a verbal replace or 2. And once you've finished this, purely be quiet and nevertheless for a short even as. supply him the probability to reply by suggestion after. once you've a verbal replace with someone you dont purely yackyackyack and then walk away. You enable them reply. supply him that chance too. i am going to promise you, existence receives infinitely extra sturdy for you previous grades and boys sometime. Your courting with God will make extra distinction on your existence in the time of those cases than you could imagine. Its something properly worth combating for.

Answer 6

We must preserve their rights. So long as they choose to claim them. the second they take arms against the US, they are targets, not people. When the lay arms down and surrender, that's when we need to think about their survival, and not ours.
"If we are going to be doing things like this [strafing civilians] we had better make sure we win"
Gen. Chuck Yeager

Answer 7

Well that's alright then, they haven't been tried but you believe they deserve no rights, so be it.
You will require more than 6th grade Social Studies to be a high court Judge.

Answer 8

it seems simple enough,we extended them rights(you say we have ,i am not sure but for this answer we will go with yes they have,ok) and even under the ucmj you are innocent until proven guilty therfore they are defacto "innocent accused" are they not?making them ALEDGED TERRORISTS -no

Answer 9

This is why the insurgents fight the way they do. So the bleeding heart Liberals of the USA will cry foul. There is no foul when they fight it is kill or be killed.

Answer 10

I see your point, but have no answer, if they are a threat to us, howabout no trial, and just kill them, thats my theory of how it should be done. Why cant you, if they want to hurt US citizens?