Miranda Rights for Terrorists, page 9
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times


reply posted on 11-6-2009 @ 07:02 PM by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


I'd like for you to go walk on to a military base and say that and see what they say.

Yes we are at war, Congress delegated that power to the President. They voted to give him that decision and he decided to take us to war.

The government hasn't followed the Constitution in a long long time, so please quit playing semantics.


reply posted on 11-6-2009 @ 08:56 PM by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by WhatTheory


Oh no, god forbid we actually treat these SUSPECTED villains like human beings...

Incredibly sarcastic comments aside I think this is a step in the right direction, the sooner we start giving simple human rights to these people the better, I'm tired us being the bullies of the world and thinking we're all righteous and good and stand for freedom when it could hardly be farther from the truth

Now once the "terrorists" are actually found guilty they can be punished accordingly, but while they're still only detainees I think we need to give them human rights and Miranda rights...


reply posted on 11-6-2009 @ 09:16 PM by jsobecky
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
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.


The relevance that we are not in a declared war is that the detainees are not covered by Geneva.

But it brings up another question: how should they be handled?

As criminals under under our legal system?

As enemy combatants?

What are the ramifications of making either choice?


reply posted on 11-6-2009 @ 09:31 PM by Chevalerous
Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
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.


The relevance that we are not in a declared war is that the detainees are not covered by Geneva.



Isn't this relevant?


The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29, 2006, decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld applied Common Article 3 to a global conflict with a non-state actor, al-Qaeda, taking place within the territory of a country that is a party to the Geneva Conventions, Afghanistan. Its implications are that Common Article 3 applies to the global conflict with terrorists anywhere on earth involving the territory of a party to the Geneva Conventions. As cited below, this reality has influenced recent developments within Department of Defense (DOD) detainee policies, including DOD Directive 2310.01E on DOD’s detainee program and the new Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations, both released Sept. 6, 2006. (Note that clicking on the link for the Army Field Manual opens an 11MB, 384-page PDF).


www.cdi.org...

Look!

"Its implications are that Common Article 3 applies to the global conflict with terrorists anywhere on earth involving the territory of a party to the Geneva Conventions."

Are you guys blind!?


reply posted on 11-6-2009 @ 09:52 PM by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Your perspective is a xenophobic one...


I'm sorry but I believe that the rights we have belong to everyone... there is nothing special about being American other than the fact that we view the reality of rights different than others...

It is our world view... not simply an exclusive view we hold for people lucky enough to be born here...

We disagree completely...

Thank God the man I voted for is in Office!




reply posted on 11-6-2009 @ 10:17 PM by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by HunkaHunka


I'm not going to say what I really want to say just because I don't want to get warned. But I will leave it at this.

You have an unrealistic World View. Not my fault I don't hate things that are "foreign" but I respect our troops enough to know that when people are trying to blow them up, shoot at them to kill them, driving Car bombs into hotels, etc. That isn't right, and they deserve no rights they forfeited them when they went and committed those acts.

Oh well, maybe one day you will grow up and see the world for what it really is.

Edit to add -


It is our world view... not simply an exclusive view we hold for people lucky enough to be born here...


I agree completely with immigration, if people want the rights that are afforded by the US Constitution, if it exists by the time your guy gets done, then they can immigrate here, I have no problems with it.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]


reply posted on 12-6-2009 @ 09:21 AM by miasria
i have the book "the torture papers... the road to abu graib" there is also a video i watched not too long ago. interviews from those who were presecuted in this tragedy as well as a few others. www.youtube.com...

i would suggest people watch this.

these guys clearly stated that they "cleaned things up" when the red cross was scheduled to arrive to assess the treatment of these detainees. remember... these were detainees.

there was alot more stated. good read.. good video. disturbing at the level of systemactic and around the clock torture that took place. these guys were in a play ground with free rein.

the book is about 3" thick. what disturbs me is the level of official documentation that flew around. had those photos not been revealed to the public, i suspect they would have been "lost"

this is reality. we expect our own people to be treated humanely and should provide the same. are we going to turn into barbaric terrorists? it is one thing to rashly make a bad judgement call... be under fire, watch a friend killed.. i have sympathy for these guys and feel that they should be given consideration for being under duress.

it's another to systematically commit horendous acts against another human being..

as should be the case... it flows from the top down. only the little people were convicted in these acts.... though they say, "everyone knew it"


reply posted on 12-6-2009 @ 11:01 AM by cautiouslypessimistic
Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


I'd like for you to go walk on to a military base and say that and see what they say.

Yes we are at war, Congress delegated that power to the President. They voted to give him that decision and he decided to take us to war.

The government hasn't followed the Constitution in a long long time, so please quit playing semantics.


I'll gladly say that to any member of the military, because it is true. Congress has not declared war since 1942.

n 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in deploying troops without a declaration of war. A compromise in the debate was reached with the War Powers Resolution. This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the United States and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be employed without a formal declaration of war.

Although the constitutionality of the act has never been tested, it is usually followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. The only exception was President Clinton's use of U.S. troops in the 78-day NATO air campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo War. In all other cases, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

It is not arguing semantics, because laws are based on titles and wording. If we are not in a declared war, The Geneva Convention does not apply.

Please, do a little constitutional research.



reply posted on 12-6-2009 @ 02:43 PM by cautiouslypessimistic
Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by HunkaHunka


I'm not going to say what I really want to say just because I don't want to get warned. But I will leave it at this.

You have an unrealistic World View. Not my fault I don't hate things that are "foreign" but I respect our troops enough to know that when people are trying to blow them up, shoot at them to kill them, driving Car bombs into hotels, etc. That isn't right, and they deserve no rights they forfeited them when they went and committed those acts.

Oh well, maybe one day you will grow up and see the world for what it really is.


And why exactly are these people trying to "blow up" our troops(who are illegally occupying a country)?

Do you believe that American troops in Iraq deserve no rights? I hope you do, otherwise you are nothing more than a narcissistic hypocrite.

I do have to say though, that I love the assertion that the "grown up" point of view is that of a barbarian, that those opposed to us deserve no human decency or rights, that killing people by the thousands is the mature way to deal with things.

Quality
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11  >>    ^^TOP^^