Miranda Rights for Terrorists

Originally posted by miasria
use those little fingers of yours and type the words:

geneva convention america on google.

i'm not doing your homework.

I already stated that I cannot find any clause in the Geneva Conventions which we are not adhering to.

Again, please tell me which part we are not honoring since it's so obvious as you stated.
Somehow I believe your response was a cop-out because you have no idea what you are talking about.

reply to post by miasria


They don't deserve any rights, most of them don't even claim a country. All this is doing is emboldening them. They are trying to Kill us, what don't you understand about that?

They are not American citizens. Our troops are p.o.'d at this. They are the ones on the ground over there losing their brothers, limbs and shedding blood, and you want to give the enemy rights?

They have rights under the Geneva Conventions. They don't even deserve that in my opinion, but I'll give them that.

Anybody can make a video supporting our troops, it doesn't mean anything.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
1)Who are we at war with?

The Taliban and AlQaeda. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

I already have numerous times.

Sorry, but you are the one making false statements. You do realize that just because you say something that it does not mean what you say is true.

They are from many places and not one in particular. However someone you believe they are from the land in which they are fighting. This belief of yours only proves your ignorance regarding this subject.

4)Pakistan is fighting the taliban because, the taliban is actually attacking them.

So again, you prove yourself wrong. The Taliban fighters are not actually from Pakistan so your previous statement of these people fighting for their home is false. Thanks for proving my point with your flawed logic. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

BTW, Pakistan is fighting the Taliban because they are attacking them as we are attacking the Taliban because they attack us. Remember 9/11?

Sorry buddy, but you are the poster child of ignorance.

Your words to the talking.


Because this what you do to the enemy. Good lord, we would never have won WWI or WWII with your flawed logic. In previous wars, we simply lined most of the prisoners up against a wall and shot them. Perhaps we need to start this policy again.

1)We are in an "Extended military action". We are not at war. Do you know what it means to declare war? The U.S. hasn't done it since 1942.

2)By the same logic, you do know that just because you say something isn't true doesn't make it so, right?

3) Don't deflect, answer the question. Where are they from? what region are they fighting in?

4)Can you actually debate here, or is it going to continue on this "bait and attack" trend that you seem to follow?

5)Again, show me how these people are our enemy in a time of non-war.

The truth is, you dont want to debate this. You want to keep taking it back to the childish "I'm right and you're wrong, I''m going to call you names because you disagree" tactic.

I'm not biting.


If you want to debate, great, say something of substance. If you want to keep trying to take this to a personal level, I'll kindly push the ignore button and debate with people who can do so without acting like a middle-schooler.

problem is, are we able to define who is the terrorist?

we've already proven that we can't always, that we've treated others barbarically inhumane and that we don't follow the geneva convention.

these "terrorist" that we raped, tortured and killed were those during war.

i think we tend to circumvent and "legally" skirt the laws as needed. sludge-bucket gonzales was the slipperly one when it came to gross misconduct and misrepresentation of the law. law that he was appointed to uphold.

world law became like lawyers who chased ambulences.

what a disgrace alberto brought to this country. i can think of several actually.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Anybody can make a video supporting our troops, it doesn't mean anything.

this is where i bow out of anymore discourse with you hasto.

farewell.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

Okay, so why you more worried about some freaking lunatics that are blowing up our troops, and not more concerned with fixing your own country?

I can care less about those people.

Maybe the MSM should start airing the videos of when they cut one of troops heads off on TV. Complete with sound.

Maybe that would change your mind. Having to read the enemy Miranda Rights has to be the best Jihadist recruitment tool in existence.

They are probably laughing their heads off at us right about now. Hey if they don't kill me I don't have to say anything and I get a lawyer.

Thats just it, friend. I am far more concerned with fixing this country. Fighting foreign wars in any capacity does not accomplish that.

I personally care about all people.

I have seen plenty of videos on what you speak of. it is horrific. Do you really think meeting one horrific thing with another is the answer?

That is sad.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
If you want to debate, great, say something of substance.

How can we have a debate when you ignore what I write and claim what you say is "fact" only because you say it. Somehow you believe that repeating yourself will make it factual.

You provide nothing but your opinion and claim it as fact. How can we have a dialog with that sort of ignorance. You ignore and dismiss all my factual points as if they were never written and I must keep repeating myself. Sorry, but you are sorely lacking in the substance department.

[edit on 6/11/2009 by WhatTheory]

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


No it isn't sad it's a fact of life.

What you and the other person are basically saying is that every single one of our troops are Barbarians and they are not abiding by the Geneva Conventions is what you are saying.

The media made a circus out of a few bad apples and now you saying our troops should have to submit to the enemy. That is what you are saying. That is what you are agreeing with.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
If you want to debate, great, say something of substance.

How can we have a debate when you ignore what I write and claim what you say is "fact" only because you say it.

Somehow you believe that repeating yourself will make it factual.

You provide nothing but your opinion and claim it as fact. How can we have a dialog with sort of ignorance. You ignore and dismiss all my factual points as if they were never written and I must keep repeating myself. Sorry, but you are sorely lacking in the substance department.

Ive addressed everything you have posed to me. You have not even touched what I have posed to you.

Perfect example:You claimed we are at war right now. I presented you with the FACT that the U.S. hasn't declared war since 1942. You come back and try to take it personal again.

You have made not one single factual statement on this thread.

I'm not going to get into your silly, immature little game. This is the last chance. You want to discuss, great. You want to post one more time like this, and we are done(not to mention that I will report you).

about this declared war thing...

since everything seems so "slippery" these days, i am wondering if there is some hidden presidential order stating that this "war on terror" is an actual war.

they can pretty much circumvent what they want.

which one of you can state that they can't?

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

No it isn't sad it's a fact of life.

What you and the other person are basically saying is that every single one of our troops are Barbarians and they are not abiding by the Geneva Conventions is what you are saying.

The media made a circus out of a few bad apples and now you saying our troops should have to submit to the enemy. That is what you are saying. That is what you are agreeing with.

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort, and I really don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth.

In fact, if you have read anything I wrote, you would have seen that I HAVE TWICE NOW POINTED OUT THAT THE GENEVA TREATY IS IRRELEVANT HERE. Selective comprehension, much?

it is not the troops who are in violation of the geneva convention. it is at the top.

It's a war of bullets and semantics.
The loopholes allow us to treat those captured, as terrorists.
It allows us to push the envelope. But we should also be prepared to face the results of what we do. That comes with the territory.
There are Chinese Muslims being released, after being held for many years, without being charged with anything. I wonder what their attitudes will be?

I may be wrong, but I'll assume that any US troops captured by "terrorists" should be treated to the same standards as Guantanamo detainees. And that you are ok with that, correct?

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Ive addressed everything you have posed to me. You have not even touched what I have posed to you.

Your ignorance is astounding!!

I answered all your questions yet you ignore mine.
You cannot disprove any of my facts because they are facts yet you keep insisting that your opinions are somehow facts.

You contradict yourself and when I point this out, somehow, I am the one who is wrong. Pfft....Good grief.

I'm not going to get into your silly, immature little game.

Of course you believe this is the case when you have lost every point made and ignore others in order to help make your lame point. Pathetic.

So hopefully I should not hear from you again since you are done right?

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Ive addressed everything you have posed to me. You have not even touched what I have posed to you.

Your ignorance is astounding!!

I answered all your questions yet you ignore mine.
You cannot disprove any of my facts because they are facts yet you keep insisting that your opinions are somehow facts.

You contradict yourself and when I point this out, somehow, I am the one who is wrong. Pfft....Good grief.

I'm not going to get into your silly, immature little game.

Of course you believe this is the case when you have lost every point made and ignore others in order to help make your lame point. Pathetic.

So hopefully I should not hear from you again since you are done right?

Congrats, you have earned a trip to my ignore list! It is amazing to me that you are still trying to drag me into you silly little game.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


You cannot even answer the simple question regarding the topic at hand so I will repeat myself:

Is the President ignorant, stupid or just a liar since he clearly stated that these terrorists do not deserve to have miranda rights.

Which President do you agree with? The one who believes that they don't deserve miranda rights like the one in the video or the President who now believes they do since they are reading the terrorists miranda rights.



So which is it?
Do these terrorists deserve miranda rights or not?

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Congrats, you have earned a trip to my ignore list!

Thank you!
I should not be hearing from you again right?

reply to post by WhatTheory


I'd also expect you to no longer reply to this member's previous posts.
It's not flattering to your case, and is exceedingly annoying to those trying to follow this thread. Please check the ego, and stick to your points, from this point on. Thank you.

Back on topic:

Do you think the Guantanamo detainees should at least be charged with something? Or, do you think, as war criminals, they should just be held captive for an unknown period of time? In addition, the abstract definition of this "war" allows for it to go on forever. There is no army, or country, or general, to surrender. Do we ever release the bulk of these people?


[edit on 11-6-2009 by spacedoubt]

reply to post by spacedoubt

Do you think the Guantanamo detainees should at least be charged with something? Or, do you think, as war criminals, they should just be held captive for an unknown period of time? In addition, the abstract definition of this "war" allows for it to go on forever. There is no army, or country, or general, to surrender. Do we ever release the bulk of these people?

Unfortunately, due to the aspects of this war they should be detained until the war is over. It's just the nature of war.

I think what people are failing to understand is that our troops don't just round people up and send them off to Gitmo or some other secret prison.

The troops take the people they find on the battle field back to base camp and question them to determine if they are a threat. If they keep them at base camp and send them off to a detention center or a prison it is because they feel they are a threat to them. Our troops are not police officers their job is to fight a war.

Are innocents going to get caught up in the mess? Sure they are, but is our troops fault for the person that gives them reason to believe they could be a threat? No it isn't.

Reading these people their rights when they are arrested means they can now remain silent and not tell them anything. They now have a right to a lawyer and now they can appeal their case in civilian US Courts.

This is nothing but a cleaver way for the administration to strip away our rights. Imagine the legal battles that are going take place that puts our Constitutional rights at risk for people that are not even American Citizens.

All it takes is a few activist judges to rule that they have no constitutional rights to set a very very bad precedent. Then American Citizens can get detained indefinitely while years pass till that legal mess gets straightened out.

Don't think it can happen? I didn't think the government could fire CEO's and take over private businesses and it happened. Is it a feel good decision? No it isn't. Is it a decision that is necessary so we don't lose anymore American Troops? Yes it is.

There are a whole host of things wrong with this and other things that can lead to other very bad things.

The main thing that is wrong with this is that it is not constitutional. I'll re-quote the fifth amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It's war and they were picked up on the battle field in the time of war. Obama is yet again trying to circumvent the constitution.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
[i
Unfortunately, due to the aspects of this war they should be detained until the war is over. It's just the nature of war.

As I have pointed out so many times before, America has not declared war since 1942. So no, we arent at war. Making this irrelevant.