warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
To try foreign combatants? I think not.
To try people who committed crimes on U.S. soil.
If I robbed a bank in the U.S. I'd be tried in a U.S. court, right?
What if I blew up a bank?
To try foreign combatants? I think not.
Can you link me to a formal declaration of war? Like it or not, we are not formally at war.
Try asking a serious question. Because that one is just silly.
To try people who committed crimes on U.S. soil.
If I robbed a bank in the U.S. I'd be tried in a U.S. court, right?
What if I blew up a bank?
Would we try a Japanese Pilot from the attack on Pearl Harbor in Civilian court?
I suggest you read up on Operation Demetrius - better known as internment without trial.This topic is best discussed in another thread if you wish. But honestly, what the UK did in regards to the IRA doesnt mean crap in this situation.
There is nothing that says military tribunals have to be secret or sequestered. We could go all Nuremberg on them if we want.
Why would you try such a pilot at all? I can see an argument for trying Yamamoto in front of a military tribunal had he survived to the end of the war, since he would've been the representative of a party that the US can actually be at war with, and was at war with, but why would you try a random pilot?
I suggest you read up on Operation Demetrius - better known as internment without trial.
Sure, but the war power is divided between Congress and the President. When Congress decides not to get involved formally via declaration, then it cedes some of its co-existant power to the Executive branch. This gives the President some flexibility on how to deal with detainees resulting from the conflict as the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Military and also head of the executive branch where the power to prosecute federal crimes resides (DOJ).Formal declaration of war is not required. How many wars/conflicts has the USA been involved in without a formal declaration of war? Answer: lots.
Try again.
Lets consider my earlier point.
Would we try a Japanese Pilot from the attack on Pearl Harbor in Civilian court?
Hell no.
Get the picture?
Point being there is a difference between combatants....and criminals. They are not the same thing, nor should they be considered the same thing. McVeigh was a terrorist yes....but he wasnt a combatant, he was a criminal, and thus tried in US federal court. KSM is an entirely different fish alltogether. He was indeed a combatant at war/conflict with the USA. Thats why he (and the other foreign terrorists) should be tried via military tribunal or courts martial.
The Constitution is not universal nor meant to the voice of God. Thus constitutional rights applies to Americans and not some outsider who flying planes into buildings. That's why people who in the past came to America wanted to be an American citizen as then they can protected by our constitution and laws. Now we want to protected even attackers by our constitution. How insane is that?
Go to any urban criminal courthouse for docket call and you will see non-Americans being subject to the jurisdiction of American courts and being given the same rights as Americans.The Constitution is not universal nor meant to the voice of God. Thus constitutional rights applies to Americans and not some outsider who flying planes into buildings. That's why people who in the past came to America wanted to be an American citizen as then they can protected by our constitution and laws.
The fact that Al-Qaida can not be pin down on one spot on a map is a huge advantage for them. For Al-Qaida to survive and continue their attacks they must spread out into small groups.I was not aware we were. Please tell me, what is the capital of Al-Qaida? What is the population of Al-Qaida? What are the main exports and imports of Al-Qaida? Does it get nice weather in the summertime?
Just like many criminal enterprises.The fact that Al-Qaida can not be pin down on one spot on a map is a huge advantage for them. For Al-Qaida to survive and continue their attacks they must spread out into small groups.
So let me get this straight. We are at war with the terrorists, but prisoners taken during that war are not Prisoners of War, and treatment of these prisoners are not subject to the Geneva Convention.
Riiiiiight....![]()
No, thats part of the problem. The conventions were written when nation/states went to war, soldiers/combatants wore uniforms, carried unit insignia, etc. etc.
Things have changed while the conventions havent really caught up. As I have said before if todays 'terrorists' were caught doing what they have done during WWII, they would have been simply lined up and shot for being saboteurs. Point being while the conventions cover uniformed combatants (soldiers) very well, it does do all that great of a job covering what is now called 'illegal combatants' essentially terrorist or insurgents that fight with no uniform/insignia and dont conform to the laws of land warfare.
The people taken prisoner during the invasion of Afghanistan (i.e. the war with Afghanistan, which was actually legally declared via UN resolution), but denied PoW status and held indefinitely in Gitmo -- are you saying that these people are not prisoners of war? Even though they were taken prisoner during war?No, thats part of the problem. The conventions were written when nation/states went to war, soldiers/combatants wore uniforms, carried unit insignia, etc. etc.
Things have changed while the conventions havent really caught up. As I have said before if todays 'terrorists' were caught doing what they have done during WWII, they would have been simply lined up and shot for being saboteurs. Point being while the conventions cover uniformed combatants (soldiers) very well, it does do all that great of a job covering what is now called 'illegal combatants' essentially terrorist or insurgents that fight with no uniform/insignia and dont conform to the laws of land warfare.