Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions  (Read 11130 times)

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 #50 on: June 09, 2004, 04:30:57 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:

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?

We aren't talking about private disputes with citizens of other countries.  The federal judiciary doesn't have jurisdiction here.  Al Qaeda didn't take us to court, and there's no reason to take them to court. 

The Bill of Rights was written to protect OUR people.  It isn't a universal protection of the citizens of the world, and certainly not foreign militias attacking our military.  Sorry if anyone doesn't like that, but it's true. 

I don't care if Al Qaeda suspects are not read a list of Miranda rights when they're captured. 

I don't care if they're detained indefinitely. 

I don't care if they never get a trial. 

I don't care if they don't have access to an attorney. 

Foreign terrorists do not have any rights whatsoever under our Constitution, which is as it should be. 

M2

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2004, 04:51:25 PM »
We aren't talking about private disputes with citizens of other countries.  The federal judiciary doesn't have jurisdiction here.  Al Qaeda didn't take us to court, and there's no reason to take them to court. 

The Bill of Rights was written to protect OUR people.  It isn't a universal protection of the citizens of the world, and certainly not foreign militias attacking our military.  Sorry if anyone doesn't like that, but it's true. 

I don't care if Al Qaeda suspects are not read a list of Miranda rights when they're captured. 

I don't care if they're detained indefinitely. 

I don't care if they never get a trial. 

I don't care if they don't have access to an attorney. 

Foreign terrorists do not have any rights whatsoever under our Constitution, which is as it should be. 

Philip!! you are making a crucial mistake.
These are SUSPECTS!! not necessarily terrorists. At least a few of these people are likely to be regular people.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #52 on: June 10, 2004, 09:28:49 AM »
For someone who doesn't care you have a lot to say.

The point that you seem to be avoiding is that you are taking as fact that these people are terrorists, even though we have no legal definition of terroristy  and that there seems to be no oversight to these arrests and detainments.  Someone -- we don't know who -- is deciding they are terrorists -- by unknown means -- and incarcerating them for an indefinite period of time with charge.

This is inherently a danger to human rights -- everyone's human rights.

What will happen when someone like you is detained because a bureaucrat decides you may have links to terrorism?  You are locked up in Gitmo, none or your family or friends are informed, you are not allowed a lawyer and you are held incommunicado.
Is that OK because some nameless faceless pencil pusher got the idea that you're dangerous?

 
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:

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?

We aren't talking about private disputes with citizens of other countries.  The federal judiciary doesn't have jurisdiction here.  Al Qaeda didn't take us to court, and there's no reason to take them to court. 

The Bill of Rights was written to protect OUR people.  It isn't a universal protection of the citizens of the world, and certainly not foreign militias attacking our military.  Sorry if anyone doesn't like that, but it's true. 

I don't care if Al Qaeda suspects are not read a list of Miranda rights when they're captured. 

I don't care if they're detained indefinitely. 

I don't care if they never get a trial. 

I don't care if they don't have access to an attorney. 

Foreign terrorists do not have any rights whatsoever under our Constitution, which is as it should be. 

bobfett33

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #53 on: June 15, 2004, 06:35:22 AM »
We go to great lengths to avoid loss of innocent lives, where as terrorists go to great lengths to destroy innocent lives, I can't see the comparison.

Unfortunatley, we can't prove or disprove this assertion

JeffJoe -I am SHOCKED that you said this.  It is EASY to disprove the ridiculous assertion that "[America] goes to great lengths to avoid the loss of innocent lives."  Wow.  I challenge anyone to show me a decade from the 1940s through the 1990s (that's SIX decades, boys and girls) in which the United States government was NOT responsible for the deaths of over 10,000 innocent civilians either directly or indirectly (through our active support of a terrorist regime or our passive denial of essential goods).  If anyone can name for me a decade in which the above did NOT happen, I will send you $100.  I would include the 2000 decade, but I'm not positive we've hit the 10,000 mark in between Afghanistan and Iraq.  But, hey, it's only been 4.5 years, and we've still got AT LEAST Iran to go.  (and it's not like we're done in either Afghanistan or Iraq, either!)

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #54 on: June 15, 2004, 10:46:25 AM »
Maybe I should have said it is difficult to reach a consensus within the current discussion.  that's nice talk for "there is evidence but I don't think certain people will accept"

We go to great lengths to avoid loss of innocent lives, where as terrorists go to great lengths to destroy innocent lives, I can't see the comparison.

Unfortunatley, we can't prove or disprove this assertion

JeffJoe -I am SHOCKED that you said this.  It is EASY to disprove the ridiculous assertion that "[America] goes to great lengths to avoid the loss of innocent lives."  Wow.  I challenge anyone to show me a decade from the 1940s through the 1990s (that's SIX decades, boys and girls) in which the United States government was NOT responsible for the deaths of over 10,000 innocent civilians either directly or indirectly (through our active support of a terrorist regime or our passive denial of essential goods).  If anyone can name for me a decade in which the above did NOT happen, I will send you $100.  I would include the 2000 decade, but I'm not positive we've hit the 10,000 mark in between Afghanistan and Iraq.  But, hey, it's only been 4.5 years, and we've still got AT LEAST Iran to go.  (and it's not like we're done in either Afghanistan or Iraq, either!)

smittie1984

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
    • My Website
    • Email
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #55 on: June 18, 2004, 01:19:36 AM »
I hear this talk about how bad our country is for Violating the Geneva Convention.  Why doesn't anyone get onto the people fighting our troops.

According to the Geneva Convention a Soldier is to wear a UNIFORM during Conflict.  These people don't were UNIFORMS so they are in Violation!

And doesn't the Beheading and killing of civilians violate it also???

When are people going to realize that we ar dealing with Gorillas.  Which is against the Geneva Convention.  The Geneva Convention is a Joke!

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 #56 on: June 18, 2004, 09:45:07 AM »
According to the Geneva Convention a Soldier is to wear a UNIFORM during Conflict.  These people don't were UNIFORMS so they are in Violation!

This is what I've been saying all along: The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists and militias. 

I wouldn't say that the Geneva Convention is a "joke," but it was clearly written for a different era.  The purpose behind it is to make sure that both sides fight "fair" and uphold certain standards.  It was written for an era when all battles were fought between uniformed soldiers representing legitimate governments, then those governments could be held accountable for their actions.  That isn't the situation we're faced with today. 

grahamers

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #57 on: June 18, 2004, 09:53:47 AM »
According to the Geneva Convention a Soldier is to wear a UNIFORM during Conflict.  These people don't were UNIFORMS so they are in Violation!

Several points here:

1. I believe that the Iraqi soldiers were in uniform when we invaded their country.  (When we were in violation of who know how may international laws, precedents and decency standards.)

2. However, the GC is irrelevant to the greater picture question.  As my earlier posts in several different threads have mentioned, there are moral reasons BEYOND a piece of paper as to why I don't want my country tourturing prisoners in our custody.  Forget the fine lines drawn by the GC. There is plain old right and wrong.  To use any justification for torture (End's focused, religious, they weren't in uniform) is to ignore the basic underlying WRONGNESS of turture.

3. The LEAST reason not to torture, but the one that is very practical, is that it increases the threat to our troops when captured.  This is a fact that all officers know and are taught from the get go.  In fact, this is one of the main reasons that there *are* officers.
34 years old    170 LSAT 2.33 UGPA
Accepted: Wake, Mason, Catholic, Maryland, Baltimore, WVU, Widener
Waitlisted: American
Dinged: GW, Georgetown
Still haven't heard from: Villanova
Attending Mryland

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #58 on: June 18, 2004, 10:00:49 AM »
It is my understanding that the GC does make allowances for irregular or guerrilla forces.

But let's put that aside for a moment.  If these prisoners are not prisoners of war, then they are criminals and fall under criminal law.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say we are at war with these people but they are not prisoners of war. 

Either they are prisoners of war or they are criminals.  Which is it?


smittie1984

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
    • My Website
    • Email
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #59 on: June 18, 2004, 02:29:35 PM »
Well I don't agree with some of the tactics that our troops use against the Prisoners.  No matter what kind they are. 

But I am for getting information from them in any manner that is possible without harming the prisoners.  The dog barking in the guys face.  It's like they tood the idea right out of 1984.  They scare the crap out of him and when he gives the information they let the dog back.  And naked on the leash.  I'm sure this wasn't for our troops enjoyment.  Even though I'm sur they got some kicks out of it.

And then when they beheaded that guy and said it was in retaliation to the POW abuse.  We could send all the prisoners of war to Disney World and they would get upset.  Nick was doomed from the time he was captured.  They would of killed him anyways.

I know our government does some dirty stuff.  And I'm sure that some of it is cruel.  But if it helps save troops lives and my friends lives and possibley YOUR life I'm for it.  But I don't want to hear about it.  If you understand what I'm saying.

And also I think the media are the real criminals.  Why publish those pictures when they knew the backlash it would create.