Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions  (Read 11421 times)

sarmstrong806

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2004, 12:14:43 PM »
Well, we can prove the assertion on terrorists.

I hope you are implicating the "great lengths" because if you think we deliberately harm innocent people, thats just not true.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #41 on: June 09, 2004, 12:16:44 PM »
And you know this how?

Well, we can prove the assertion on terrorists.

I hope you are implicating the "great lengths" because if you think we deliberately harm innocent people, thats just not true.

sarmstrong806

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #42 on: June 09, 2004, 12:21:45 PM »
And you know this how?

Well by our classification of them as "terrorists". If they were called Jihad Warriors, it might be a different story.

Well you may be right, because in Iraq instead of killing infidels, they are killing infidel invaders, its probably double virgins and goats milk for all.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2004, 12:24:04 PM »
Huh?

And you know this how?

Well by our classification of them as "terrorists". If they were called Jihad Warriors, it might be a different story.

Well you may be right, because in Iraq instead of killing infidels, they are killing infidel invaders, its probably double virgins and goats milk for all.


sarmstrong806

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2004, 12:27:52 PM »
Terrorists by definition kill innocent people.

The second part doesn't even make sense to me reading it over.  ???

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #45 on: June 09, 2004, 12:29:47 PM »
but that only begs the question.  How do you know that they are terrorists?

Certainly not from evidence provided by the people in power, because you already said you don't trust them.

Terrorists by definition kill innocent people.

The second part doesn't even make sense to me reading it over.  ???

Phillip79

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • ICQ Messenger - 0
    • AOL Instant Messenger - PhillipBach79
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - Phillip_Bach
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #46 on: June 09, 2004, 03:48:39 PM »
the courts have ruled that foreigners have the same rights as citizens, as it should be.

in our courts, everyone should be treated the same.

I don't see anything in our Constitution which suggests that civil rights granted to U.S. citizens should be applied to enemy combatants attacking our troops on foreign soil.  I don't see any basis in the Constitution for granting any "rights" whatsoever to Osama bin Laden and his cronies.   

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #47 on: June 09, 2004, 03:51:00 PM »
Those rights are extended to criminals regardless of citizenship.  That's what I was talking about.

As to 'terrorists'  who knows where they fit.  Certainly not the current administration.


the courts have ruled that foreigners have the same rights as citizens, as it should be.

in our courts, everyone should be treated the same.

I don't see anything in our Constitution which suggests that civil rights granted to U.S. citizens should be applied to enemy combatants attacking our troops on foreign soil.  I don't see any basis in the Constitution for granting any "rights" whatsoever to Osama bin Laden and his cronies.   

schoomp

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 603
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - schoomp
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #48 on: June 09, 2004, 04:02:46 PM »
If we are charging them with any crimes (attacking our citizens, terrorist threats, etc), then they are afforded the rights granted in the constitution by section 2, clause 1:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

because they are citizens of foreign states.




Regardless of whether they are foreign, terrorists, etc - we believe in the United States in the right to a trial - regardless of who you are we should give these rights to people.  If that is what we believe then why should it matter who/what you are?

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #49 on: June 09, 2004, 04:11:33 PM »
and if you hold them without charges are you denying them their rights or are you holding them as prisoners of war?  and who decides?

what is the legal definition of foreign combatants, which seems to be held as distinct from prisoners of war and who has defined it?

If we are charging them with any crimes (attacking our citizens, terrorist threats, etc), then they are afforded the rights granted in the constitution by section 2, clause 1:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

because they are citizens of foreign states.




Regardless of whether they are foreign, terrorists, etc - we believe in the United States in the right to a trial - regardless of who you are we should give these rights to people.  If that is what we believe then why should it matter who/what you are?