McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Byrd
Man, y'all went back and forth so much here that it exhausts me to read it. I'm not sure anything'll get people who don't believe in the rule of law or due process to ever persuade them otherwise, Dragonrider.
The one person who'd still be in here fighting the good fight with you, Dragonrider, and speaking truth to misperception, is MIA till Wednesday or Thursday. My better half, Mrs. (Birdgirl) Byrd, is cooling her heels in the hospital. We put her in there last night to start her on some new medicine to slow down her heart rhythm. I'll tell her what she's missing.
Not sure how long everyone here in this discussion besides P4B and Birdie and Breukelen Advocaat have been reading this forum. It certainly stands out now compared to what it once was. Major improvement in the tone. Civil debate like this used to be unheard of here. The factthat it exists now really has smartened up the place.
Eh... actually I think Dragonrider and I have come to the conclusion that we both essentially agree with each other for the End Goal Results (due process or process of some sort) but we just view it differently on how we need to get there.
I hope Birdgirl is alright. Give her my best wishes. I don't know her well but I thoroughly enjoy her posts/discussions as they are typically well written and well informed/educated. Something I greatly admire in people.
Quote:
Funny thing is the two who are arguing the most stringently against it here would no doubt be the first to insist upon it for themselves or their family members if they were accused or being indefinitely held in other countries.
I think this would be true of anyone in that situation. Self preservation is a natural instinct. To say that someone wouldn't insist upon it or try to get it is a little bit silly. Of course we would, but what we want and what is *right* are two different things. And what is right or wrong is different from place to place, country to country and from person to person.
Again give the Misses my best Wishes. (damn.. I should become a rapper. My rhymes are so awesome.. lol j/k). :thumbsup: :hippy:
McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Byrd
Man, y'all went back and forth so much here that it exhausts me to read it. I'm not sure anything'll get people who don't believe in the rule of law or due process to ever persuade them otherwise, Dragonrider. Funny thing is the two who are arguing the most stringently against it here would no doubt be the first to insist upon it for themselves or their family members if they were accused or being indefinitely held in other countries.
The one person who'd still be in here fighting the good fight with you, Dragonrider, and speaking truth to misperception, is MIA till Wednesday or Thursday. My better half, Mrs. (Birdgirl) Byrd, is cooling her heels in the hospital. We put her in there last night to start her on some new medicine to slow down her heart rhythm. I'll tell her what she's missing.
Not sure how long everyone here in this discussion besides P4B and Birdie and Breukelen Advocaat have been reading this forum. It certainly stands out now compared to what it once was. Major improvement in the tone. Civil debate like this used to be unheard of here. The factthat it exists now really has smartened up the place.
Man, you think it was exhausting to READ it, imagine what it was like to WRITE it!
I'm really sorry to hear about Birdgirl. Give her my best wishes. It's probably best she wasn't reading this at the time, because I doubt it would have helped with the heart rhythm!
Thanks, and let Birdgirl know we are thinking of her.
McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling
Pardon my interruption into this quarrel, but on the note of the original topic:
Why are you both(hashi and dragonrider) arguing over prisoners being afforded Geneva convention rights? The United States did not ratify the Geneva convention...so they never have to allow or follow those rules.
Just something to consider.:cool:
McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshNugz
Pardon my interruption into this quarrel, but on the note of the original topic:
Why are you both(hashi and dragonrider) arguing over prisoners being afforded Geneva convention rights? The United States did not ratify the Geneva convention...so they never have to allow or follow those rules.
Just something to consider.:cool:
Kind of.. It's unclear to me as right now but very good point. Here's an excerpt from a website discussing the united states and the geneva convention.
It sounds to me as if we would still have to abide by the prisoners of war (assuming we could somehow categorizes these 'detainees'/'enemy combatants' as such) because that part was not amended in 1977?
But to be honest I'm really not sure. Here's what's written. Maybe you can read it and tell me what you think?
Quote:
The Red Cross movement (later renamed the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement) spearheaded the first Geneva Convention in 1864. The purpose of this first treaty was to protect wounded soldiers and those caring for them during times of war. Twelve nations signed the initial document. Over the following decades, more countries agreed to the convention.
In 1882, U.S. President Chester Arthur signed the treaty, making the U.S. the 32nd nation to do so. The U.S. Senate ratified it shortly thereafter. At the same time, the American Association of the Red Cross was formed (many nations had begun to create their own Red Cross organizations in concert with the first Geneva Convention).
The second Geneva Convention in 1907 extended protection to wounded armed forces at sea and to shipwreck victims. The third convention in 1929 detailed the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth convention in 1949 revised the previous conventions and addressed the rights of civilians in times of war. This convention is said to be the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law. It was amended in 1977 with two protocols that further protect civilians during wartime and address armed conflicts within a nation.
According to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the U.S. has signed each of these international agreements. However, a signature does not bind a nation to the treaty unless the document has also been ratified by that nation (in the U.S., Congress ratifies such treaties). Generally, these treaties are open for signature for a limited time period after they're written. The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977.
McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
I posted this recently but felt the need to follow up on this particular post:
McCain is all for Human rights, he just doesn't believe in giving American rights to non Americans (thus the reason for me putting in bold "aliens"). But I would never expect anyone here who just chooses to blindly bash the Right (this is not directed at you; this is a general message to the board members as a great number of you refuse to look at the flaws on both sides of the table. Too much fingerpointing here.) without even looking up to see if they are justified in their attack.
Good day. :jointsmile:
edit: Just want to reitterate that this was not an attack on you Reefer. I simply felt it was a good example on how alot of people on the board tend to yell misinformation. You are not in the US (at least judging by your listed location) and I don't expect you to know all the happenings in our country; but some of the other people on here who are in the US I would hope to get a little more from. This isn't meant as an insult to ANYONE... but rather I'm trying to encourage people to read and research before blindly crying wolf. I feel it's important regardless of what your political stance is. No hard feelings reefer? :thumbsup:
Well McCain is entitled to his opinion whether non americans have the right to american rights but the fact is, that 5-4, they are allowed the rights. Majority rules and thus can lie a problem with democracy, do you feel this is a tyranny of the majority? I don't recall when i've ever yelled out misinformation and when i do i'm more then happy to concede. I've said that the US government (bush administration) allows or allowed for water torture, i find this unacceptable, i don't know how McCain feels. They wouldn't have been allowed to even appeal their sentences in the military tribunals so i support the decision. I have no hard feelings i just believe in justice, a consistant and fair process, regardless of nationality, race, sex, wealth because we are all eqaul and should be innocent until proven guilty, not being allowed to be held in captivity like an animal without charge or evidence.
McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Kind of.. It's unclear to me as right now but very good point. Here's an excerpt from a website discussing the united states and the geneva convention.
It sounds to me as if we would still have to abide by the prisoners of war (assuming we could somehow categorizes these 'detainees'/'enemy combatants' as such) because that part was not amended in 1977?
But to be honest I'm really not sure. Here's what's written. Maybe you can read it and tell me what you think?
Well they signed it of course, as did most countries. However before they are subject to it, it must be ratified....and the US never did this. Same with the International Criminal Court, etc....they do not participate in international law because they refuse to let the fate of their people be decided by international judges. AKA. they want protection for the abusive guards and soldiers.
McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling
Sorry for the double post but I couldn't edit, waited too long. Now that I've found coffee I can articulate a bit
Your excerpt is true, the US signed and ratified all four of the original protocols.
Here is a link which provides info on that.
Geneva Conventions 1949 - United States of America reservation text
In reference to topic at hand, whether or not guantanomo prisoners should be subject to it, or prisoners from this war...whichever..
The parts you referred to in 1977 are commonly known as the additional protocols - the US did not ratify these.
They are:
I. Protection of victims in armed conflicts to situations where people are fighting in the exercise of their right of self determination against colonial domination, foreign occupation, or racist regimes.
II. Protection of victims of internal conflicts in which armed opposition controls enough territory to enable it to carry out sustained military operations.
Source for ^^: Geneva Conventions - MSN Encarta
So, the cases of Gunatanamo, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and pretty much every single colonial war are not applicable to the Geneva protocols.
By not ratifying these protocols, the US is essentially open to disregard protection of victims in armed conflicts surrounding colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes...Last I checked, Al Quaeda, and many fanatical groups are fighting because they don't like foreign invaders on their land, disrespecting their sovereignty. Just the same as Vietnam and Korea..
Therefore these "enemy combatants" are not even close to being afforded protection, because the protocol which would offer it to them is not ratified. Basically its a loophole, allowing them to be subject to torture, as we have seen.
McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Byrd
I'm not sure anything'll get people who don't believe in the rule of law or due process to ever persuade them otherwise, Dragonrider.
LOL...since when did the rule of law or due process in a U.S. Court have ANYTHING to do with a POW during a time of conflict? ONCE AGAIN, how many of the 435,000 Germans detained in the U.S. during WW2 made their way into a U.S. court?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Byrd
Funny thing is the two who are arguing the most stringently against it here would no doubt be the first to insist upon it for themselves or their family members if they were accused or being indefinitely held in other countries.
As for myself I kind of like it here in the U.S. where my rights as a citizen are granted....some of which you lose when you travel in distant lands.
Now my brother is an exception, due to his job he is a world traveler. Now lets say I were to get the 3:00A.M. wake up call stating that he was caught in the middle of an Al-Quada camp cleaning his AK-47; hell ya I'd feel bad for him but I'd tell the caller to tell him from me, "enjoy the complimentary breakfast....dumbass!".
So what rights under U.S. law OR the Geneva Convention did either Nick Berg or Eugene Armstrong have just to name a few? NONE...both were beheaded! Giving people from this group rights under the Geneva Convention is one thing; giving them the rights of a U.S. citizen is completely wrong!
Have a good one!:s4:
McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
LOL...since when did the rule of law or due process in a U.S. Court have ANYTHING to do with a POW during a time of conflict? ONCE AGAIN, how many of the 435,000 Germans detained in the U.S. during WW2 made their way into a U.S. court?
P4B, you keep going back to the idea that these detainees are prisoners of war, and while I might tend to agree with you on that, the government has claimed that they are not POWs. So just forget it -- they aren't POWs.
And even if they were considered POWs, the rule of law and due process do apply to POWs. You are wrong if you are saying it doesn't. The definition of a POW is a legal definition and there are laws that apply to the treatment of people with a legal status of POW. So POWs receive due process in accordance with their status as POWs. You are right that they do not get their day in court, but that doesn't mean they don't have protections under the law or receive due process as POWs. Both civilians and POWs recieve due process, but under different rules.
The reason that they are being given their day in court is because the governemnt has chosen not to process them as POWs, so the court has said they must be given due process under civilian rules. It's the government's blunder, not the court's.
When I refer to the breakdown of the rule of law, I am referring to the government's attempt to designate these people as neither POWs nor civilians. They were attempting to create a situation in which the detainee could not recieve due process as a POW nor as a civilian. They wanted to create a legal black hole in which they could do whatever they wanted with these people, subject to neither set of rules. That is an attempt to circumvent the rule of law by creating a situation in which no laws apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
So what rights under U.S. law OR the Geneva Convention did either Nick Berg or Eugene Armstrong have just to name a few? NONE...both were beheaded! Giving people from this group rights under the Geneva Convention is one thing; giving them the rights of a U.S. citizen is completely wrong!
Nick Berg and Eugene Armstrong did have rights. Thier rights were incorrectly taken from them and they were beheaded. It's an atrocity, and everyone the world over knows it was wrong. What makes us different from the terrorists is that we respect the rule of law and don't do that kind of thing. I think that is what this court ruling is about --- keeping us from taking a step toward ignoring the rule of law and just doing whatever the hell we want to people.
McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling
I agree with ya on what the government, Bush, "wanted" to do but this thread isn't about that; it's about what we have in store for the future. McCain has stated, more/less, that these people should be treated as a POW and the other camp wants these people to have the same rights in a U.S. court as a civilian. Once again, out of 435,000 Germans in U.S. POW camps I can't find anything in regards to their due process in a U.S. court as to whether or not they should be held.
I think when the court made this decision they should have stated just that....these people have rights under the Geneva Convention and will be treated as such.
But once again, what do we do with the people that we are now ready to release but their own homelands won't take them back or when they do return they'll face a fate worse than that of Gitmo?
Have a good one!:s4:
