Should an enemy combatant ( if wearing a uniform POW) have rights in the US?
2007-12-05 08:17:27 · 19 answers · asked by wayne 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Nope. They have no rights.
The Geneva Convention has no effect here. They represent no government they fight for no country. They are enemy combatants and therefor have no rights...
2007-12-05 08:21:32 · answer #1 · answered by jskmarden 4 · 1⤊ 7⤋
Wow, that is a loaded question. Let me answer the second part of your question first since it is the easier of the two.
2) No, enemy combatant (if wearing a uniform POW) should not have "rights in the US OTHER THAN what is stated in the Geneva Convention. Beyond that the USA is doing nothing but setting themselves up.
1) Right is such a strong word. I don't think they should necessarily have the "Right" to a hearing in a US Court. Our US Courts are already backed up to the point of no return. We don't need to start stepping in on every military arrest, etc. As far as military detainees, which the folks at Guantanamo are really classified, they should be tried in Military Courts. Personally I think there should be standards regarding Guantanamo and they should be tried under a military tribunal. As far as the US Court System...they should stick to what they know.
2007-12-05 08:30:49 · answer #2 · answered by The TDB 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course. How do we know they are enemy combatants? How do we know they have committed any crime at all?
Turn it around. You are suddenly kidnapped by agents of a foreign government. You are taken to another country and tortured, then spirited away to a secret prison where you are told you have no rights. You can make no phone calls, never see a lawyer. You will not be told the charges against you or ever see the evidence. And you have no right to challenge your imprisonment in court. You can be kept locked up for the rest of your life, and there's nothing you can do to challenge it.
Does this sound like America to you?
2007-12-05 08:25:22 · answer #3 · answered by TG 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You mean as opposed to holding them indefinitely with no charges filed or even a chance to claim innocence?
Yes. The right to a fair trial is one of the rights that the Founding Fathers envisioned this country as championing.
And before you say "b-but, they're terrorists!" consider that no proof (that's PROOF) has been offered of that claim because they've never had their day in court. Until then, we're behaving like a police state, and not a country that values its freedom.
Besides, the courts are hardly easy on terrorists. Zacarias Masaoui's case is a prime example of that.
2007-12-05 08:26:24 · answer #4 · answered by John R 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I look at it this way.
If these guys are so bad that they must be locked up, then the govt. should have no problem presenting an open and shut case against them in a jury trial.
So why not give them a hearing in a US court and lend some legitimacy to the dentention of these men?
If it were done successfully, the protestors would be silenced.
2007-12-05 08:25:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe yes they should. And to all of the people who state they have no rights because they are not US citizens, you are wrong. No where in the the Bill of Rigths, specifically the Sixth or Eighth Amendments does the word "Citizen" appear. This was specifically left out because the USA is a nation of immigrants. Having a separate set of rules for new arrivals was not practical.
2007-12-05 21:27:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
maybe not to the U.S. but i think it should be illegal to hold people with no charges no matter where they are being held.
i would support a world coalition court (maybe UN run) which would investigate the background of each detainee and let the detainee give a defense as to why he should not be held captive.
and based on the independant court's findings...they should eeither be given a sentence or let go.
2007-12-05 08:26:50 · answer #7 · answered by sam f 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They need to either be charged with a crime and tried in court or we need to release them. Some of them were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time and weren't combatants. In the meantime, they've rotted away in jail for years now without being charged, without a trial, without legal counsel, etc. It's against our Constitution to hold someone indefinitely.
2007-12-05 08:26:46 · answer #8 · answered by mollyflan 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
they should be charged with a crime and tried in a court
military, civil, criminal, war crimes whatever there is a place that is appropriate. if convicted they should then serve the appropriate sentence. holding them indefinitely with no charges and no trial is just the kind of treatment that we claim to be fighting against. we have already allowed our personal freedoms to be encroached upon here at home and now we are showing the whole world just how just and righteous we are in our handling of these prisoners. no matter what you call them we are holding them in a prison that can not continue indefinitely.
2007-12-05 08:31:56 · answer #9 · answered by michr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the issue is we are treating them as some sort of special third group. If they are enemy combatants, then they have the rights granted by the Geneva conventions. if they are not, then they would have to be treated as criminals by our courts. Our legal system does not allow for different treatment of criminals based on citizenship save for deporting non-citizens.
We need to decide what they are and treat them as such.
2007-12-05 08:23:12 · answer #10 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
you mean suspected enemy combatant.
Yes they should according to the constitution and habeas corpus... Because Guantanamo Bay IS AMERICAN SOIL..We own it.
If Bush were smart he would be holding them in another country that doesn't care about the legalities of detainment, POW versus "detainee, fair trial and such... like Egypt or Saudi Arabia...maybe even China..
2007-12-05 08:22:57 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋