John HSOG said:
So if Bush is snatched up by Iraqis and moved to an undisclosed location and accused of a crime by them, waterboarding him would be ok?
The blind leading the willing
- Thread starter eyrei
- Start date
So if Bush is snatched up by Iraqis and moved to an undisclosed location and accused of a crime by them, waterboarding him would be ok?
John HSOG said:
Then international law applies. That makes Bush a war criminal.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
John HSOG said:
Ouch, is that your attitude? So much for your screenname (assuming it does mean "holy son of god") and all that "do onto others as you would wish to be done to you" stuff. Was that a comandmentor anything like that btw?
I wouldn't go that far; I would be MUCH more afraid of going to Iran that the States. In fact, I cannot think of circumstances where I would be willing to go to modern-day Iran. I can think of circumstances where I would go to the States.
The fact that I am now MORE afraid of going to the States (as an absolutely innocent person) should be extremely telling. I will not go unless there is a compelling reason. There is now a mechanism in place to take away ALL my rights once there.
I don't believe that John claims to be Christian; though one of the people with the "Don't Tread on Me" symbol is one. I used to get John and Irish Caeser confused.
The fact that I am now MORE afraid of going to the States (as an absolutely innocent person) should be extremely telling. I will not go unless there is a compelling reason. There is now a mechanism in place to take away ALL my rights once there.
I don't believe that John claims to be Christian; though one of the people with the "Don't Tread on Me" symbol is one. I used to get John and Irish Caeser confused.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
JollyRoger said:
Too ridiculous to answer.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
JollyRoger said:
Which specific International Law(s) do you refer to?
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
nihilistic said:
Humble Servant of God
No, it was not a Commandment.
God said:
Look, in the end, I want the same thing that you guys want. I want them to have representation. I want them to have a day in court, but the fact is that the U.S. Courts do not have jurisdiction outside of the United States.
A precedent CANNOT be set by allowing them jurisdiction over such things without written law. If the Democratic Party or anyone else wants to propose a law that would delegate jurisdiction of criminal cases over non-military personnel on U.S. Military Bases, then I would be fine with that, but you can't just make up law on a whim.
The Administration and the Defense Department immediately tried to set up military tribunals to take care of the situation, as has always been the case, and they were shot down by Democrats. And believe me, they knew what they were doing. Now, we have this question, and nobody knows what to do with these people, cause we can't convene a military tribunal, our laws prohibit our domestic court system from taking these cases, and the United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court system.
ironduck
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 6,561
El_Machinae said:
I would be a lot less worried about going to Iran than a whole lot of other places. Iran is being held under control by the regime for the most part, and they generally do not have an interest in having western visitors disappear. Many other countries are much less controlled (or the regimes don't care). Those places are a lot more dangerous to go to. What I meant with my comparison was that both in Iran and the US the regime will be able to label you as an 'enemy' and make you disappear.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Sidhe said:
Please, quote me an exact case where a foreign government has been in a similar situation and I have chosen to "decry them as wrong."
Again, for the umpteenth time. I support due process, but the U.S. Court system DOES NOT, by LAW, have any jurisdiction over military bases. You are asking me to support breaking the law to give these people their day in court.
The Defense Department was more than willing to set up generously open and transparent military tribunals for these people. The Democratic Party refused to allow that. Now, we have these pickle where the U.S. Courts CANNOT take the cases and military tribunals are off of the table. What do you want?
CartesianFart
Deity
If you have no proof that these individuals are terrorist or not,they why suppose that it is safe to give them a trial?If you are not in the position to know that it is safe or not,why should you think this circumstances is the same in our civilian courts?eyrei said:
Seems to me that you are a some kind of a ,"Self-Hating Liberal."
What is the difference of value and law?Where does it say that we have a law that allows foreign combatents that is not recognized by its own country to have a fair and open trial?Are you saying you wish that is our values or law to recognize other foreign enemy combatants or domestic combatants for a fair and decent trial?
Again,your egoistical rhetoric makes this paragraph worthless. Try again without those vague buzzwords and you might actually get a decent response.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
JollyRoger said:
It comes in the first three words of the Constitution; or seven, if you want to take it further.
"We the People of the United States"
Not to mention that it is the "Constitution for the United States of America", not the Constitution of the World.
What is ridiculous about it? I thought waterboarding suspects was ok.John HSOG said:
Geneva ConventionsJohn HSOG said:
That doesn't show that it does not apply to non-Americans. Can you explain the 217 years worth of case law that has applied the Constitution to non-Americans?John HSOG said:
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
JollyRoger said:
OKAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. The Geneva Conventions explicity excludes non-uniformed combatants such as those at Guantanamo Bay.
2. The Geneva Conventions define these individuals as spies and allows for their execution.
Which one do you want us to go by?
John HSOG said:
Most of the detainees in Gitmo were not even combatants. They were people turned in by rival tribes to collect a bounty. If they committed a crime against the U.S., they should be charged.
If you think they are spies under international law, then try them as spies. I don't think you will be very successful in those trials.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
El_Machinae said:
I am a Christian.
John HSOG said:
Sorry, I couldn't tell. I didn't know you claimed to be one.
Because of the snake in your old avatar, I got you and IC confused when I first arrived.
Similar threads
