| Yes | 53% | 53% - 14 | ||||
| No | 46% | 46% - 12 | ||||
| Total: 26 | ||||||
Which are criminal acts, and perfectly well covered by criminal law, not war crimes committed during the course of a war, or acts committed by non-soldiers during the course of a war, or unlawful acts carried out by goverment agents outside a war.Those men gave up any entitlement to GC treatment when they performed acts that fell outside the GC...namely terrorism.
Nothing has been dreamed up. It's simply a difference of opinion on whether these people who are members of transnational groups that have "declared war on the US/West" are criminals or combatants and which set of international agreements apply.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which are criminal acts, and perfectly well covered by criminal law, not war crimes committed during the course of a war, or acts committed by non-soldiers during the course of a war, or unlawful acts carried out by goverment agents outside a war.Those men gave up any entitlement to GC treatment when they performed acts that fell outside the GC...namely terrorism.
No-one has needed to dream up any of this rubbish before, I don't see why its needed now.
Okay I would agree that the Geneva Convention does not cover terrorists. I would also agree that captured terrorists are not prisoners of war and are not technically afforded any protections under the Geneva Convention. But with the practices the US engaged in gathering detainees - and I don't blame them as terrorism is a form of warfare that we still don't know how to properly combat yet - so many detainees and civilians who are covered by the Geneva Convention are afforded no protections when they should be. They are simply labelled with the same 'enemy combatant' moniker and treated the same as them until they either prove they're not, they're otherwise determined not to be a terrorist or they commit suicide at which point, as previously mentioned, they are dismissed as having engaged in a form of asymmetric warfare against the US. Until then they are indefinitely detained and subject to torture. I suppose the question is what side to err on; treating every detainee as a POW and subject to the Geneva Convention or considering them all 'enemy combatants' and denying them human rights. It's a question that's generally been answered with "we're in a war dammit" and if you're satisfied with that than that's fine I guess, there's not really any right answer. Just as long as people realise what's going on.FEOS wrote:
Again...read the GC. It has nothing to do with changing definitions. It has to do with what a given signatory has to do or not do when the actors involved do not follow the tenets of the GC, even if they (or their home nation) is not a signatory. Those men gave up any entitlement to GC treatment when they performed acts that fell outside the GC...namely terrorism.Ty wrote:
Changing your definitions of prisoners so you don't have to follow the established rules on how to treat detainees is circumventing. While it may be following the convention to the letter it's nothing more than a loop-hole. I'm not even condemning it, I'm just calling it what it is.FEOS wrote:
We're not circumventing the GC at all. We're following it to the letter.
Clearly you need to read it.
You can call them whatever you want. It has nothing to do with the issue.
It's a different system with a different concept of justice. Maybe it is impossible to get a strict jury of peers but the differences between a jury of uninformed civilians and a 'jury' of military officers is something significant and can't be ignored. And again, the dismissal of the need for a unanimous verdict undermines the concept of guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Different system, different concept of justice. And let's be honest here, not a lot of effort is going to be put into protecting these guys - that's why their lawyers are fighting so hard and why they are being so uncooperative. Although your right, considerably more effort will be put into the preservation of evidence which has probably already made it to the public domain through Wikileaks or whatever.FEOS wrote:
So how would one get a jury of peers for the like of KSM, exactly? You can't.Military tribunals have always been different to civilian courts given they they don't include a jury of one's peers and they don't require panellists, generally made up of commissioned officers, to reach a unanimous verdict. What's more it is the panel that decides whether evidence is admissible or not as they act as both judge and jury. Don't tell me that's following the same rules as a civilian court.FEOS wrote:
And you obviously haven't educated yourself on military tribunals, either. They follow the same rules as civilian courts wrt evidentiary processes and burden of proof--the jurisdiction is simply different.
The bottomline is that the tribunal system follows the same process and procedures of civil court wrt evidence, discovery, etc. And the panel has to follow the same decision process as a jury. The reason it doesn't use a standard jury is the classified nature of some of the evidence--the deciding group has to be vetted to ensure classified information is protected.
I'm not criticising the methods I'm highlighting the ramifications of them.FEOS wrote:
Those same methods (tip lines et al) are employed by NATO and other coalition nations. It is standard practice, and those who are responsible for those programs know full well that sometimes people turn others in for reasons not compatible with the programs. It's not like the money fairy shows up and drops a load of cash on these people without validating the rationale for picking up the person.I wasn't arguing that, I was simply painting a picture of the sort of practices the US employed to gather terrorism suspects.FEOS wrote:
The alleged 9/11 conspirators (which this thread is about, btw) aren't Afghans turned in by their families for cash, so that argument simply doesn't hold water in this case.
Many would disagree.FEOS wrote:
It's not an example of that at all.Maybe not, but it is an example of an injustice that was caused by a nation abandoning its notion of civil liberties and human rights because of fear - or because they were using surreptitious means to achieve some form of justice in the eyes of the public. Either way it wasn't justice and this situation risks the same.FEOS wrote:
Surratt was a conspirator in the Lincoln assassination. While her punishment probably shouldn't have been death, she was guilty of involvement in aiding/abetting those involved, which makes her a part of the overall conspiracy. Keep in mind that the threshold for the death penalty was much lower in the mid-late 1800s than it is today. And it WAS ~150 years ago...not really applicable to today's argument, tbh.
You said it hadn't been suspended. I proved it had. Maybe not at the moment, at least not by US legislation, but the point remains there were at least two years where the US was very very active in rounding up suspected terrorists where Habeas Corpus was not in effect by legislation. Then consider that we have agreed that terrorists shouldn't qualify under the Geneva Convention and what Habeas Corpus rights that affords. Then consider that because of the aforementioned issue regarding those who aren't terrorists being rounded up and treated as terrorists you have a significant problem and I think it's naive to suggest Habeus Corpus rights aren't being violated to some degree.FEOS wrote:
So the act isn't in effect. That would mean habeas corpus hasn't been suspended. That's how you expand on it.In 2006 President Bush signed a law, the Military Commisions Act, which among other things suspended the right of habeas corpus to those determined by the United States to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. In 2008 the Supreme Court rule that the Act included an unconstitutional encroachment of habeas corpus rights and subsequently terminated the effect of the provisions that allowed this. I don't know how to expand on that.FEOS wrote:
Habeas corpus hasn't been suspended, either. They are held based on evidence provided to a panel of judges. Just because you haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that the process hasn't been followed.
Not sure why you mention hanging as if that's commonplace, or as if it's somehow a better way to go than getting shot by a firing squad. I'd hate to be hanged.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yes they should be executed. I believe that anybody that plays a part of ending another's right to life, revokes their basic right to life in the process. Therefore they merit death.
Electrical chair, hanging, and lethal injection executions are shitty. Tie 'em to a post and execute those motherfuckers with bolt actions and firing squads.
Don't watch if you have a soft heart-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yes they should be executed. I believe that anybody that plays a part of ending another's right to life, revokes their basic right to life in the process. Therefore they merit death.
Electrical chair, hanging, and lethal injection executions are shitty. Tie 'em to a post and execute those motherfuckers with bolt actions and firing squads.
I meant instant neck-snapping hanging. Not push-off-a-chair strangling by a rope.jord wrote:
Not sure why you mention hanging as if that's commonplace, or as if it's somehow a better way to go than getting shot by a firing squad. I'd hate to be hanged.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yes they should be executed. I believe that anybody that plays a part of ending another's right to life, revokes their basic right to life in the process. Therefore they merit death.
Electrical chair, hanging, and lethal injection executions are shitty. Tie 'em to a post and execute those motherfuckers with bolt actions and firing squads.
But yeah I guess you just felt like another half hearted attempt at trolling because you're bored, so no worries.
Osama declared war on the US back in 1993 (If memory serves me right) and what's happening in Afghanistan is most definitely called a 'war'.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which are criminal acts, and perfectly well covered by criminal law, not war crimes committed during the course of a war, or acts committed by non-soldiers during the course of a war, or unlawful acts carried out by goverment agents outside a war.Those men gave up any entitlement to GC treatment when they performed acts that fell outside the GC...namely terrorism.
No-one has needed to dream up any of this rubbish before, I don't see why its needed now.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-06-17 16:11:27)
Last edited by BVC (2012-06-17 17:20:23)
Ah, so anyone in the justice system who says they're sorry shouldn't receive their sentence under the law? Surely you meant this post for another section, not D&ST.PrivateVendetta wrote:
Spoken like a true forgiving christian
Troll somewhere else Adams. There's a difference between murder and killing for the defense of your country.Adams_BJ wrote:
Do military personell come under your blanket of "any body who plays a part of ending another's right to life"?
That only applies when someone is invading your country.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Troll somewhere else Adams. There's a difference between murder and killing for the defense of your country.Adams_BJ wrote:
Do military personell come under your blanket of "any body who plays a part of ending another's right to life"?
Yeah, that soldier surely defended his country when he invaded the homes of those Afghan civilians and killed them all.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Troll somewhere else Adams. There's a difference between murder and killing for the defense of your country.Adams_BJ wrote:
Do military personell come under your blanket of "any body who plays a part of ending another's right to life"?
That's 1 man in hundreds of thousands of U.S. military personnel. He needs to be given a trial, and if he's found guilty of their murder he should take the same path as anybody else that murders should take. It sucks, and I hate to say that, but murder is murder.globefish23 wrote:
Yeah, that soldier surely defended his country when he invaded the homes of those Afghan civilians and killed them all.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Troll somewhere else Adams. There's a difference between murder and killing for the defense of your country.Adams_BJ wrote:
Do military personell come under your blanket of "any body who plays a part of ending another's right to life"?
In the middle of the night, off-duty and alone, while being AWOL, with no threat to himself or his comrades.
Its what Jesus would do.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I'm sick of this "Civilized" bullshit. Shoot the fuckers
Why not just shoot the fucker? Why bother with the "civilised" bullshit?That's 1 man in hundreds of thousands of U.S. military personnel. He needs to be given a trial, and if he's found guilty of their murder he should take the same path as anybody else that murders should take. It sucks, and I hate to say that, but murder is murder.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-06-18 01:33:17)
