US to give Gitmo detainee's Geneva rights. 65 replies

Please wait...

emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

Due to the US Supreme Courts ruling the Bush admin has apparently announced it will start following International Law and afford the detainees all rights due under the Geneva Convention.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Guantanamo_Detainees

Good job U.S. Supreme Court! :thumbsup:




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,149 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,009 Posts

6 Threads

#2 12 years ago

I think there was a similar thread a while ago, but I'm too lazy to search and merge right now :)

It's a good thing that those prisoners will be treated according to some regulation from now on and that military tribunals will not be used for suspected terrorists. It'll restore a part of the former image of the US.




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

565,669 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,138 Posts

1,332 Threads

#3 12 years ago

I am in disagreement with this, and i will tell you why.....

The terrorists do no follow the laws and rules set by the geneva convention, they dont give people they capture protection under it, hell, they ignore it completely. I feel that if a country, organization, or what have you doesnt abide by the rules of the convention, then they should have NO protection under it.


If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

We are better than them, at least that is what we tell ourselves, it only makes sense that we actually act in a way better than theirs.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,149 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,009 Posts

6 Threads

#5 12 years ago

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.I am in disagreement with this, and i will tell you why.....

The terrorists do no follow the laws and rules set by the geneva convention, they dont give people they capture protection under it, hell, they ignore it completely. I feel that if a country, organization, or what have you doesnt abide by the rules of the convention, then they should have NO protection under it.

By that logic any criminal, no matter what he did, shouldn't be protected by any laws. What sense then to have laws at all?

We actually had a law-system like this in medieval times in Europe, people who broke the law stopped being under the protection of any law, so everyone could hurt or kill them if they wanted to, so what you are suggesting seems like a step backwards.




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

565,669 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,138 Posts

1,332 Threads

#6 12 years ago

im not saying that we should removed all protection for them, but saying we cant prosecute them as war criminals using military tribunals is crazy.


If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,149 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,009 Posts

6 Threads

#7 12 years ago
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.im not saying that we should removed all protection for them, but saying we cant prosecute them as war criminals using military tribunals is crazy.

Call me crazy, but weren't military tribunals supposed to be used for the military?

Terrorists are not soldiers, they are criminals from another country, but they don't (officially) work for another nation.

Don't you have it written in your constitution that the military is not supposed to be used as police-force within a nation's border unless in emergencies (martial law)? Most democracies have something like this. So strictly speaking the military shouldn't be involved at all with the war on terror.




Jill

Idiot Action-Adventure Girl

50 XP

7th July 2006

0 Uploads

3,415 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago
MrFancypantsCall me crazy, but weren't military tribunals supposed to be used for the military? Terrorists are not soldiers, they are criminals from another country, but they don't (officially) work for another nation. Don't you have it written in your constitution that the military is not supposed to be used as police-force within a nation's border unless in emergencies (martial law)? Most democracies have something like this. So strictly speaking the military shouldn't be involved at all with the war on terror.

If the military should not get involved with fighting terrorists...how else could we defend ourselves? Should we civilians plant car bombs around suspected terrorist families and kill them? Should we civilains arm ourselves and kidnap people and murder them by cutting off their heads? I know you don't like armies...but I can't understand your logic at all




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

Yes, and criminal trials are reserved for non-combatants and those who are not members of a foreign force waging war on the United States.

It's a grey area. Hopefully this will clear it up some.

Jill, he never said that.

Fancy, no we do not. What we have written in the Constitution is that the government can not force a landowner to keep a serviceman on his property during times of peace.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,149 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,009 Posts

6 Threads

#10 12 years ago

JillIf the military should not get involved with fighting terrorists...how else could we defend ourselves? Should we civilians plant car bombs around suspected terrorist families and kill them? Should we civilains arm ourselves and kidnap people and murder them by cutting off their heads? I know you don't like armies...but I can't understand your logic at all[/QUOTE] Don't you have police in the US? And what about the FBI? I thought it's their job to prevent crimes.

I know that it's impractical not to allow the military to deal with terrorists, in some cases it's really stupid (for example when a police helicopter is send to shoot down a 747), but there is a reason why a government is usually not allowed to use it's military as police-force.

[QUOTE=USMA2010] Fancy, no we do not. What we have written in the Constitution is that the government can not force a landowner to keep a serviceman on his property during times of peace.

Strange, I thought I read somewhere that the president can only use the military for interior problems if he declares martial law. Well, if you don't have such laws you can obviously scrap that argument :)