We can hold people for years without charge & without right to counsel for over 4 or 5 YEARS?
Is that the American way?
2007-06-25 19:44:33 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Kelly, perhaps you should read the Geneva conventions regarding treatment of those captured on the battlefield. Concentrate on the parts about "illegal combatants." They are entitled to...guess what...summary execution...on the spot...we have been too nice to them.
ADDITION: I wonder if ArgleBargle thinks that when bin laden declared war on the US that he was just funnin' around.
2007-06-27 00:08:07 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Innocent until proven guilty applies to American Citizens. It's a Constitutional guarantee that applies to America Citizens. If you were a prisoner of an islamofacist organization you will automatically be judged guilty. Your sentence would be death once your usefulness ran out.
Enemy combatants do not have Constitutional rights. During the every preceding war, enemy combatants were held as prisoners of war. They did not enjoy any Constitutional rights in spite of the fact most of them were held prisoner in POW camps on American soil. They did not get a speedy trial, also only guaranteed to Americans in the US Constitution. They stayed in their respective prison until the war was over. Some then stood trial in places like Nuremburg, for their crimes.
BTW…Gitmo is technically American soil. Has been so since at least 1903 (due in part to Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders).
Ode to your sad battle cry, “BLAME AMERICA FIRST! BLAME AMERICA ALWAYS!”
2007-06-26 03:24:43 · answer #2 · answered by last_errant_knight 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
So how come none of those held have in any way officially been declared 'unlawful combatants'? Also how do you know if they're unlawful or enemies - or are the neo-cons suggesting that everyone even vaguely connected with the middle east is automaticly one? Also given that Bush declared the war to be won with 'mission accomplished' doesn't that mean that it's time to get around to giving these people a trial? Or are they saying that for the duration of the indefinite war on terror all rights should be suspended for anyone the Bush administration claims to be an enemy without any sort of checks or balances to determine the veracity of the administrations claim? Oh that's right, the neo-cons want us to take an administration's word for it when members of that same administration have repeatedly been caught out in lying (even for the reasons behind the war).
Also those saying military tribunal is appropriate - where is the supposed basis in law for that? If they're terrorists then they're criminals, treat them as such - if they're enemy troops, treat them as such... but you don't rewrite the laws based on all of the administrations' current whims and preferences. The whole point in a legal system is not having the executive or legislative branches deciding without trial who is guilty and who isn't.
Finally those comparing terrorism to WWII are making a foolish analogy that is an insult to the millions of people killed in WWII - you lost 3000 people, that doesn't justify any and every act no matter how illegal or morally reprehensible, particularly against people who aren't even connected with those responsible for 9/11.
2007-06-26 04:09:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes we can hold them indefinately. "Enemy combatants" would mean that they are soldiers who where a uniform, and therefore we treat them differently.
"Unlawful combatants" are those who use a civilian guise, wearing no uniform and do not abide by the rules set out by the Geneva convention. We can hold them for as long as we like. That's what terrorist are "unlawful combatants".
Right to counsel, due process and all that is what you are granted being an American citizen. It's not the same in every country, and these guys aren't american citizens.
2007-06-26 03:05:33 · answer #4 · answered by bigdaddy33 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
No, we do not have the right to force the American way on non-Americans not being held in America. If they are in Cuba, for example, they are handled in ways legal in Cuba. Our rights only apply to our citizens or other countrys' citizens while visiting here.
It works similarly in various states. If I am a resident of, say, Nevada, where prostitution is legal, I do not have a right to go to California and get a hooker.
Rights only belong to groups of people known to have morals. When certain groups of people are known to have high rates of immoral or even murderous activities, their "rights" begin to disolve. Victims will not stand for being sitting ducks and being blown up just so someone can have their fair rights. It is a fact of life that overides any constitution.
2007-06-26 03:02:13 · answer #5 · answered by furshluginer 2 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Yes it is. Read what we did during WW2.
There is a difference between a prisoner of war and an illegal combatant. Illegal combatants like what we have at guantanamo bay have never been given constitutional rights nor should they. If you fight out of uniform, support terrorism, and target civilians, you dont deserve rights. During WW2 we executed such people as soon as we found them and interogated them. We need to start doing the same again.
2007-06-26 03:17:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
You are correct on both counts.
Under the Geneva conventions and the law of war, we are allowed to classify the insurgency and the terrorists as "unlawful combatants." This is not the same as "enemy combatants" and we have the right to detain them without trial until the war is over.
The "innocent until proven guilty" is a civilian rule. NOT a military rule.
2007-06-26 02:51:30 · answer #7 · answered by Nickoo 5 · 5⤊ 4⤋
They are the ENEMY!!! Man, I'll never understand you liberals! Plus they aren't even citizens of this country! You think during WWII, we or our enemies would let enemy combatants go before the war was over?? Besides, these are cowardly f*cking terrorists that kill innocent people and children!! You think that they'd hesitate one second to kill every American they could because liberals like you spoke out to free them, f*ck no, they'd kill you in a nano second!
Why are liberals so damned naive and stupid?? Live in the real world and leave your utopian fantasy one behind!!
2007-06-26 03:01:59 · answer #8 · answered by Bunz 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Innocent until proven guilty is a right of U.S. citizens. Enemy combatants are prisoners of war. What would possibly make you think a foreigner fighting against our country would rate protection and rights through our constitution? Ahhh ... the simplistic, uneducated and naive mind of a liberal. Truly fascinating.
2007-06-26 03:00:58 · answer #9 · answered by Van1975 2 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Yes it is the American way. This is a war not a criminal trial. We sent in troops not lawyers or policemen.
War must be ought to win. We cannot give each enemy a trial before our troops are allowed to fire.
I am so glad that this mentality did not exist in WW2 or we would be speaking German right now.
Come to think of it we would still have been a British colony so there would have been no American way or even the freedom of speech to express it.
2007-06-26 02:54:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋