Check These Out: Buddy Finder | Videos | SpouseBUZZ | My Friend Network | News | Military Equipment


Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Hot Topics & Current Events  Hop To Forums  Point-Counterpoint    Under the Geneva Conventions, don’t unlawful belligerents have rights inferior to
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Set This World Ablaze
Picture of Killswitch_Engage
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by liberal90:
quote:
Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
quote:
Originally posted by MaddogK:
quote:
Originally posted by liberal90:
quote:
Originally posted by outlaws93:
how about this all of the detainees swear off the jihad and promis that they will go home and stop fighting and they can go home and do just that... how about demanding them do that????


I gotta say, after 5 years in Gitmo, I'd be jihading even if I was innocent to begin with.


damn right !!


By this stupid logic, John McCain after 5 years of captivity should have wanted to go all RAMBO on the North Vietnamese after they released him, right? Roll Eyes


"I hate the gooks. I will hate them for as long as I live."

- John McCain


And just how many has he killed since he was released?
 
Posts: 2161 | Registered: Tue 23 October 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Set This World Ablaze
Picture of Killswitch_Engage
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grachus:
quote:
Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
I'm not saying we (Bush) didn't dilly-dally for far too long on this issue but that doesn't mean we need to roll out the Constitution like a red carpet for these illegal Jihadis to prey on, pun intended.

Anyone remember when they beheaded a Korean guy on an American flag? Mad


The point here is not that we have to release them. We can hold them as POW's. And those who we have proof of commiting crimes, we can try as criminals. Even if acquitted, they can still be held as POW's.

No cause was worth less than that of the Nazi's in WWII - Yet we didn't try EVERY German as a war criminal just because they fought for such an evil cause. This is why WE wrote the Geneva Conventions in the first place.

Now we are saying to the world that WE have the right to pick and choose whom we will treat according to these treaties. That they don't respect them is not exactely a shock - But in the future, wouldn't it be to the advantage of the Russians or the Chinese or ANY enemy to simply say the same?

"The United States tore up the treaties, and it's in our interest to ignore them as well. The treaties are Dead, tough."

We wrote those treaties for OUR National Interests - You simply can't pick and choose when a law is convenient or not.

Dave


Not a matter of convenience.

I simply don't believe it applies and 4 Justices agree with me.
 
Posts: 2161 | Registered: Tue 23 October 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Picture of MaddogK
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
quote:
Originally posted by MaddogK:
quote:
Originally posted by liberal90:
quote:
Originally posted by outlaws93:
how about this all of the detainees swear off the jihad and promis that they will go home and stop fighting and they can go home and do just that... how about demanding them do that????


I gotta say, after 5 years in Gitmo, I'd be jihading even if I was innocent to begin with.


damn right !!


By this stupid logic, John McCain after 5 years of captivity should have wanted to go all RAMBO on the North Vietnamese after they released him, right? Roll Eyes


huh ??
I don't think he could claim innocence while wearing a flight suit and a crater with a burning aircraft in it close by.Roll Eyes

Besides I think I was replying to a comment about an American citizen arrested in his own country, then transported out of country and deprived of his constitutional rights by the military for 5 years while they tried to figure out what to do with him.

Try and keep up with the thread, friend.
 
Posts: 1008 | Registered: Sat 23 December 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:

I simply don't believe it applies and 4 Justices agree with me.


COMMENT: And that's ultimately irrelevant given that the majority (the other five) have a countervailing, prevailing legal opinion. It's not a perfect solution and will cause legal turmoil, but the administration "played" this issue "on the edge" from the beginning, and now they have to deal with the results of their own making.
 
Posts: 2820 | Registered: Fri 29 February 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Highly Experienced Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
I'm not saying we (Bush) didn't dilly-dally for far too long on this issue but that doesn't mean we need to roll out the Constitution like a red carpet for these illegal Jihadis to prey on, pun intended.

Anyone remember when they beheaded a Korean guy on an American flag? Mad


The Bush admin REFUSED to follow the Constitition until the courts forced it to and tried to not follow several court orders before this one that simply told them to follow the law about hearing. It was the actions (and inactions) of the Bush admin in direct opposition to the Constitition and US law that forced the courts to go with this action.
 
Posts: 8418 | Registered: Wed 02 July 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Highly Experienced Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by shades_of_grey:
quote:
Originally posted by liberal90:
quote:
Originally posted by outlaws93:
how about this all of the detainees swear off the jihad and promis that they will go home and stop fighting and they can go home and do just that... how about demanding them do that????


I gotta say, after 5 years in Gitmo, I'd be jihading even if I was innocent to begin with.


I seriously doubt that you have the cojones to go "jihading" under any circumstances, libby.


Even people that were held and their families that do not take active action against the US will be MUCH more likely to provide support to the terrorist and insurgents after being held prisoner in this way.
Remember this is a culture that sees vengence (against both individuals and groups) rather than legal action as acceptable and honorable.
 
Posts: 8418 | Registered: Wed 02 July 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
No Geneva Protections for terrorists!! Mad



No. They are not uniformed soldiers of any nation. They are "spies and sabetuers... entilted only to be shot on the scene.
 
Posts: 163 | Registered: Sun 27 July 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community Page 1 2  
 

Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Hot Topics & Current Events  Hop To Forums  Point-Counterpoint    Under the Geneva Conventions, don’t unlawful belligerents have rights inferior to

© 2008 Military Advantage, Inc.