Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions  (Read 11032 times)

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2004, 10:37:09 PM »
I think the Bush administration wants it both ways.  We're at war, but the people we are fighting cannot be classified as prisoners of war. Hmmmmmmm.

Oh and they aren't criminals either entitled to legal representation or even habeus corpus

sarmstrong806

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2004, 08:05:56 PM »
Classifying terroists as POW's under the Geneva convention directly negates the entire purpose of it.

The Geneva convention is in place as a mutual agreement between warring countries. It protects our troops as long as we show enemy troops the same consideration.

Bush is actually upholding the GC by not clasifying the terrorists as POW's.

The GC is based on contracting parties. I think Al-Queda slicing Nick Berg's head off was a sign that they are not agreeing to the contract.

It damages the credibility of the GC to extend it to parties for which it was not designed to apply to.


jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #22 on: June 07, 2004, 10:37:30 AM »
The GC is binding on signatory countries even when the enemy is not a signatory, so let's not go there.

But if they are not POW's, because they do not represent a country, then they must be criminals.  As criminals they have rights, but Bush wants to have it both ways.

And please don't argue that they are not POWs and they are not criminals.  Either they are soldiers of another country or they are violating the law.

I see them as criminals.  Don't elevate them to a different status because you want to circumvent our constitution.

Classifying terroists as POW's under the Geneva convention directly negates the entire purpose of it.

The Geneva convention is in place as a mutual agreement between warring countries. It protects our troops as long as we show enemy troops the same consideration.

Bush is actually upholding the GC by not clasifying the terrorists as POW's.

The GC is based on contracting parties. I think Al-Queda slicing Nick Berg's head off was a sign that they are not agreeing to the contract.

It damages the credibility of the GC to extend it to parties for which it was not designed to apply to.



Jeremy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • I see you...
    • View Profile
    • Jeremyandlaw
    • Email
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #23 on: June 07, 2004, 11:51:37 AM »
The GC is binding on signatory countries even when the enemy is not a signatory, so let's not go there.

But if they are not POW's, because they do not represent a country, then they must be criminals.  As criminals they have rights, but Bush wants to have it both ways.

And please don't argue that they are not POWs and they are not criminals.  Either they are soldiers of another country or they are violating the law.

I see them as criminals.  Don't elevate them to a different status because you want to circumvent our constitution.

Classifying terroists as POW's under the Geneva convention directly negates the entire purpose of it.

The Geneva convention is in place as a mutual agreement between warring countries. It protects our troops as long as we show enemy troops the same consideration.

Bush is actually upholding the GC by not clasifying the terrorists as POW's.

The GC is based on contracting parties. I think Al-Queda slicing Nick Berg's head off was a sign that they are not agreeing to the contract.

It damages the credibility of the GC to extend it to parties for which it was not designed to apply to.



Yeah...they're definitely not POW's seeing that Congress has not declared war and they are not fighting for a particular country.  Criminals?  Most definitely YES.  I like Bush, but just like any other president, he's making some serious boo-boos.  I don't know that they are granted the same rights as your every day criminal given the circumstances, but that's based on my lack of knowledge of international and criminal law.
The ability to reason is a magnificant thing.  The ability to ignore this ability is even more amazing.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #24 on: June 07, 2004, 11:58:26 AM »
But if you don't deal with them as criminals like other criminals accused of violent crimes what legal rationale do you use to differentiate them?  I think it's dangerous to say these guys are different and we don't have to recognize their rights.

You can deny them bail without denying their rights.

You can confine them in higher security prisons.

But you can't hold them without counsel and without charging them with a crime and incommunicado without denying them their rights. 


Jeremy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • I see you...
    • View Profile
    • Jeremyandlaw
    • Email
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #25 on: June 07, 2004, 12:03:02 PM »
But if you don't deal with them as criminals like other criminals accused of violent crimes what legal rationale do you use to differentiate them?  I think it's dangerous to say these guys are different and we don't have to recognize their rights.

You can deny them bail without denying their rights.

You can confine them in higher security prisons.

But you can't hold them without counsel and without charging them with a crime and incommunicado without denying them their rights. 



Are they granted the rights that the US consitution grants its citizens?  Would one major criteria of these rights be that you are a US citizen?
The ability to reason is a magnificant thing.  The ability to ignore this ability is even more amazing.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #26 on: June 07, 2004, 12:03:58 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.

Jeremy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • I see you...
    • View Profile
    • Jeremyandlaw
    • Email
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #27 on: June 07, 2004, 12:11:11 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.

Okay.  So they are granted the same rights as the citizen of the US who the crime was commited against. That makes sense.
If it were not that way, there would be no deterant for criminals of foreign countries and no way to prosecute them.  Wouldn't extradition law come into play since they were actually IN the US? 
The ability to reason is a magnificant thing.  The ability to ignore this ability is even more amazing.

sarmstrong806

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #28 on: June 07, 2004, 01:14:21 PM »
Bush is not trying to have it both ways.

He is affording the treatment of the Geneva Convention to enemy detainees even though it is not applicable.

I'm tired of seeing people want to fight the war on terror through the court system. That is what is going to get this country destroyed.

The detainees may not be afforded all the rights that a U.S. Citizen would have, but at least they aren't having their heads sawed off. It's not fair, but neither is killing innocent Americans.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #29 on: June 07, 2004, 01:15:18 PM »
The site of the crime does not necessarily determine jurisdiction.  There are a number of laws that allow for prosecution of crimes outside of the country.

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.

Okay.  So they are granted the same rights as the citizen of the US who the crime was commited against. That makes sense.
If it were not that way, there would be no deterant for criminals of foreign countries and no way to prosecute them.  Wouldn't extradition law come into play since they were actually IN the US?