KS, read the post. I agreed with you. We should "first determine they are terrorists" before we shoot them. Obviously.
As for what rights our soldiers "should have" in a conflict with any enemy that respects those rights upon being captured, they need only give their name, rank and serial number, then sit back and try to cope with being a POW. Trying them as criminals would be against those Geneva Conventions, assuming both sides are signatories, UNLESS they committed some crime not involving military service on the battlefield.
If they are dressed in mufti and running around tossing bombs in kindergartens, I hope they ARE shot when caught. Saves us the trouble.
Again, read my post. I'm even granting that the Taliban were soldiers (of a sort - its entirely too convenient to be able to seamlessly blend into the civilian mass - which is why they should have had some sort of identifying uniform item).
Special forces are uniformed troops 99.9% of the time. They are prone to being treated as spies and shot the other 0.1% of the time, and are very aware of that danger. In point of fact, few of the current opposition in the middle east are what you would call "concerned" about the Geneva Conventions. Has, for instance, Al Qaeda offered to leave off chopping heads and to start obeying the restrictions of the Conventions? Has the Taliban, for that matter?
I don't think that we need to do tit for tat - but applying gentile rules to ungentle monsters gains us nothing but their contempt.
I'm not worried about their contempt, but the population's contempt in which they hide. If we become terrorists to fight terrorists, then it's no longer right versus wrong.
The Airline attack was foiled because a Pakistani woman believed we were right. throw away that distinction, and we have no intel.
The Geneva Conventions apply to Nations not criminal organizations. The Mafia, Mexican Druglords, Columbian Druglords, et. al., torture, kill, and maim without regard to law and order either.
It's why they are criminal.
I used to live in San Diego, and what the cartels would do to people was disgusting. I would rather be beheaded.
___________________________________
I gotcha' on your post re: determination -just clarifying with regards to less literate persons who may have read it.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
What constitutes a trial in circumstances where uniformed combatants may have committed, say, crimes against humanity, is complex and extensively covered in the Conventions.
The need to try spies, disguised saboteurs, terrorists and anyone else attempting to pass themselves off as something they are not is really not at issue. Both sides have kept these issues very simple: In Uniform, and the COnventions kick in. Out of uniform and they don't. During the competitive years in Berlin after the Curtain came down and both sides were spying for all they were worth, the one thing that was respected was the Uniform and the Conventions. Spies in mufti disappeared, got in "accidents", and were scooped up, scoped out, and disposed of without a backward glance.
Terrorists fall into this later group, not the one covered as uniformed combatants on the field of battle.
The Constitution of the United States was written for US, not foreigners, though all such are welcome to borrow from it (and many do). This is not to confuse the issue where foreigners arrive on our shores as terrorists.
They SHOULD enjoy none of the rights and privileges of citizens, or even uniformed enemy combatants (a few of which have been interred for years on end in the US, until the end of the war in which they were captured).
The question that needs answered is: Which category does each and every one of these people fall under? The Bush administration has pretty nearly fumbled this ball. Playing cute with the POW camp at Gitmo, leaving all the captured men in limbo, was the wrong thing to do. It was wrong AND stupid, and both those failings bother me.
Itemizing how the Geneva Conventions apply, EXPLICITLY, to Americans and (for that matter) American conflicts is something LONG overdue. The timing to bring it up now as some sort of fig leaf to hide behind is lame to the point of pain. Indeed this needed doing YEARS ago, perhaps DECADES ago, but to abruptly raise these legalisms and parse these vague terms NOW?
Bad rules and precedents will come out of this. Political fractures will be created that will slow the reaction time of our government during a time of war, and the least damage that will occur will acrue to the Republican party just prior to an election.
I really don't care about the Republicans - but I DO care about the very important perceptions of the rest of the planet when such in-fighting goes global. It makes us all look bad, and THAT is bad.
But arranging trials for POW's isn't needed - just some end of the war covering their part of the world, so they can go home.
Terrorists are all living on borrowed time, far as I am concerned.
The innocents mixed in among them - and yes, I agree, there certainly appear to be some - need to be weeded out, and sent home.
I'm not sure who needs a trial in all this. The POW's don't - they are immune from prosecution for just being "enemy soldiers".
The terrorists have no rights, and rightly so.
The innocents shouldn't be tried for anything - they aren't guilty of anything!
If the idea is that someone needs to discover who is who, NO KIDDING! But subjecting everyone to a trial would needlessly terrorize the innocent and the POW's, and likely give unwarranted rights and protections to terrorists deserving none.
The whole thing has been mis-handled. But giving away the farm doesn't fix it - some solid research and good judgement (but not judges) needs to be inserted into the mix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
That is correct, they would be eligible for the death penalty if proven to be terrorists. Absolutely correct.
But first, both the Constitution AND the Geneva Conventions (which were BASED upon our Consitution) demand a free and fair trial of civilians, and humane treatment of soldiers.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
What constitutes a trial in circumstances where uniformed combatants may have committed, say, crimes against humanity, is complex and extensively covered in the Conventions.
The need to try spies, disguised saboteurs, terrorists and anyone else attempting to pass themselves off as something they are not is really not at issue. Both sides have kept these issues very simple: In Uniform, and the COnventions kick in. Out of uniform and they don't. During the competitive years in Berlin after the Curtain came down and both sides were spying for all they were worth, the one thing that was respected was the Uniform and the Conventions. Spies in mufti disappeared, got in "accidents", and were scooped up, scoped out, and disposed of without a backward glance.
Terrorists fall into this later group, not the one covered as uniformed combatants on the field of battle.
The Constitution of the United States was written for US, not foreigners, though all such are welcome to borrow from it (and many do). This is not to confuse the issue where foreigners arrive on our shores as terrorists.
They SHOULD enjoy none of the rights and privileges of citizens, or even uniformed enemy combatants (a few of which have been interred for years on end in the US, until the end of the war in which they were captured).
The question that needs answered is: Which category does each and every one of these people fall under? The Bush administration has pretty nearly fumbled this ball. Playing cute with the POW camp at Gitmo, leaving all the captured men in limbo, was the wrong thing to do. It was wrong AND stupid, and both those failings bother me.
Itemizing how the Geneva Conventions apply, EXPLICITLY, to Americans and (for that matter) American conflicts is something LONG overdue. The timing to bring it up now as some sort of fig leaf to hide behind is lame to the point of pain. Indeed this needed doing YEARS ago, perhaps DECADES ago, but to abruptly raise these legalisms and parse these vague terms NOW?
Bad rules and precedents will come out of this. Political fractures will be created that will slow the reaction time of our government during a time of war, and the least damage that will occur will acrue to the Republican party just prior to an election.
I really don't care about the Republicans - but I DO care about the very important perceptions of the rest of the planet when such in-fighting goes global. It makes us all look bad, and THAT is bad.
But arranging trials for POW's isn't needed - just some end of the war covering their part of the world, so they can go home.
Terrorists are all living on borrowed time, far as I am concerned.
The innocents mixed in among them - and yes, I agree, there certainly appear to be some - need to be weeded out, and sent home.
I'm not sure who needs a trial in all this. The POW's don't - they are immune from prosecution for just being "enemy soldiers".
The terrorists have no rights, and rightly so.
The innocents shouldn't be tried for anything - they aren't guilty of anything!
If the idea is that someone needs to discover who is who, NO KIDDING! But subjecting everyone to a trial would needlessly terrorize the innocent and the POW's, and likely give unwarranted rights and protections to terrorists deserving none.
The whole thing has been mis-handled. But giving away the farm doesn't fix it - some solid research and good judgement (but not judges) needs to be inserted into the mix.
Article III Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by Amendment XI.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
________________________________
Rights reserved for citizens are clearly labelled as such.
____________________________________
For example:
Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
* He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. -number one objection
* He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. -another
* He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. -Homeland security?
* He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. -Military Tribunals . .
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
The best one can ever hope for in a war is the neutrality of civilians. In the case of invading a foreign country, even this is more than can be expected, and it is perhaps only fear of reprisal that keeps civilians from actively aiding our opposition.
Winning "the hearts and minds" is unlikely to transpire in any civilization as foreign to us as Iraq or Afghanistan. There will be no tears wept when we leave - and we should get used to that. Naive notions that rebuilding a country, regardless of the purity of your motives, will gain you much in the way of thanks is an exploded theory.
Which is why you enter into such conflicts ONLY when your own national goals require it. Iraq was not a "must do", and should therefore have been left to rot. The same people that glare at us and help the terrorists today should be living in terror beneath the iron boot of their own chosen tyrant right now. To expect them to appreciate the difference is a sysiphusian fantasy.
We should be concerned with stabilizing the Iraqi government, supplying it with the means it must have to survive, and (so far as is possible) tracking down our adversaries and destroying them. If we can also safeguard our troops at the same time, fine. Anything extraneous to that (like building schools, clinics and feeding hungry Iraqis) which might get our guys killed should be avoided.
In the rare case when some bad apples among our troops pull crimes, we should catch them, try them, and punish them - and we do.
But worrying overmuch why the Arab street dislikes us is a worthless endeavor. We're not muslims, and we therefore fall into one of three categories:
1. Dam infidels that MIGHT turn to Islam, and therefore can be allowed to live as slaves.
2. Dam infidels that WON'T turn to Islam, and therefore must die.
3. Dam infidels that are just too darn tough and mean to kill, and therefore need to be respected until they go away or become more vulnerable.
I vote we encorporate as many of us as possible under #3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
I'm not worried about their contempt, but the population's contempt in which they hide. If we become terrorists to fight terrorists, then it's no longer right versus wrong.
The Airline attack was foiled because a Pakistani woman believed we were right. throw away that distinction, and we have no intel.
The Geneva Conventions apply to Nations not criminal organizations. The Mafia, Mexican Druglords, Columbian Druglords, et. al., torture, kill, and maim without regard to law and order either.
It's why they are criminal.
I used to live in San Diego, and what the cartels would do to people was disgusting. I would rather be beheaded.
___________________________________
I gotcha' on your post re: determination -just clarifying with regards to less literate persons who may have read it.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
If we want to visit an Amendment to the Constitution that would give the full Rights of citizens to non-citizens we can do that, but its not a good idea, and I would fight it.
There's no quandry here. If you need for me to cede that any citizens of the US (Johnny Taliban springs to mind) need to be segregated out and brought to trial for Treason, fine, that was never in doubt.
If you're saying all those folks down in Gitmo enjoy the same Constitutional protections as a citizen, its really not a good idea.
Its this sort of thinking that has us in such hot water with illegal immigrants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
Article III Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by Amendment XI.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
________________________________
Rights reserved for citizens are clearly labelled as such.
____________________________________
For example:
Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The best one can ever hope for in a war is the neutrality of civilians. In the case of invading a foreign country, even this is more than can be expected, and it is perhaps only fear of reprisal that keeps civilians from actively aiding our opposition.
Winning "the hearts and minds" is unlikely to transpire in any civilization as foreign to us as Iraq or Afghanistan. There will be no tears wept when we leave - and we should get used to that. Naive notions that rebuilding a country, regardless of the purity of your motives, will gain you much in the way of thanks is an exploded theory.
Which is why you enter into such conflicts ONLY when your own national goals require it. Iraq was not a "must do", and should therefore have been left to rot. The same people that glare at us and help the terrorists today should be living in terror beneath the iron boot of their own chosen tyrant right now. To expect them to appreciate the difference is a sysiphusian fantasy.
We should be concerned with stabilizing the Iraqi government, supplying it with the means it must have to survive, and (so far as is possible) tracking down our adversaries and destroying them. If we can also safeguard our troops at the same time, fine. Anything extraneous to that (like building schools, clinics and feeding hungry Iraqis) which might get our guys killed should be avoided.
In the rare case when some bad apples among our troops pull crimes, we should catch them, try them, and punish them - and we do.
But worrying overmuch why the Arab street dislikes us is a worthless endeavor. We're not muslims, and we therefore fall into one of three categories:
1. Dam infidels that MIGHT turn to Islam, and therefore can be allowed to live as slaves.
2. Dam infidels that WON'T turn to Islam, and therefore must die.
3. Dam infidels that are just too darn tough and mean to kill, and therefore need to be respected until they go away or become more vulnerable.
I vote we encorporate as many of us as possible under #3.
Didn't work for the Germans, Japanese, or Israelis. They fear you for a while, then they will do anything to get you out. Resistance springs up, and it becomes a bloody fight that is only solved through attrition. Sooner or later the invader either intermarries (as the Spanish did) engages in a genocidal killing spree (US) or leaves -the British.
In contrast, the carrot worked for decades, until the carrot was removed after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The only Islamic Republic that enslaves people is Sudan. There are no slaves in Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia, etc., etc., etc.,
BTW: Christians enslaved more folks than Muslims.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
If we want to visit an Amendment to the Constitution that would give the full Rights of citizens to non-citizens we can do that, but its not a good idea, and I would fight it.
There's no quandry here. If you need for me to cede that any citizens of the US (Johnny Taliban springs to mind) need to be segregated out and brought to trial for Treason, fine, that was never in doubt.
If you're saying all those folks down in Gitmo enjoy the same Constitutional protections as a citizen, its really not a good idea.
Its this sort of thinking that has us in such hot water with illegal immigrants.
We didn't have a problem with Illegals until the Gov't stopped enforcing the laws.
Think about that -200 years, and only the past 20 years have been problematic.
There are HUMAN RIGHTS, and there are Rights preserved for Citizens. Both protect us.
You don't know that the folks in Gitmo ARE terrorists. Seems more than half were tortured without cause. Some were not only innocent, but were CRITICAL of corrupt Gov't. We tortured the folks who should have been a force for freedom in their own country.
Gee, that's the way to empower allies.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
Of course it didn't. We still have military bases in Germany, Japan and (indirectly) Israel. We achieved what I said - a neutrality of the citizens, with perhaps a bit more respect (for cultural reasons) from the Japanese. This enabled the work of reconstruction and occupation to proceed quickly and with few casualties.
Fear works to keep people in line so long as a martial law environment (particularly featuring lots of tanks and open fire zones) is maintained. Once you bring in their own government and law enforcement, its time to pull back into your own bases and keep a low profile.
The resistance you refer to never arrived in Germany, Japan or Korea, though it was present in Vietnam. In Iraq, we've already discussed this - we need to be winding down our presence, not winding it up. When I hear Democrats pushing for more troops in Iraq, I swear the thought goes through my mind that they are suckering the Republicans into doing something stupid.
Of course, it could be that both sides are just plain stupid.
The best way to solve Iraq's problems is for us to pull back to our fortified bases and limit our visibility in the populated areas. Turn entire swathes of the country back to Iraqi control. Start pulling down the Coalition staffing levels, a few percentage points at a time. Make sure the Iraqi army and security forces get all the support they need, particularly air support and supply, but commit our forces only in unusual circumstances.
Those insurgent/terrorist groups intent on targeting us will wither away from lack of targets and opportunity. Those groups content to target Iraqis will find they are fighting a losing battle of attrition with a local foe. In time, they too will wither away.
By placing more attractive targets in play, we would merely be playing the game on their terms.
When victory is achieved in Iraq, it will be a result that is 60% Iraqi and 40% Coalition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
Didn't work for the Germans, Japanese, or Israelis. They fear you for a while, then they will do anything to get you out. Resistance springs up, and it becomes a bloody fight that is only solved through attrition. Sooner or later the invader either intermarries (as the Spanish did) engages in a genocidal killing spree (US) or leaves -the British.
In contrast, the carrot worked for decades, until the carrot was removed after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The only Islamic Republic that enslaves people is Sudan. There are no slaves in Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia, etc., etc., etc.,
BTW: Christians enslaved more folks than Muslims.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
What I said was that its a problem to give illegal aliens (and terrorists of course) the same rights, privilegs and protections as citizens. And yes, we DID have an illegal immigration problem when the laws were being more vigorously enforced - it was just a little smaller.
Prior to that we had LEGAL immigration, which is about as different from ILLEGAL immigration as anything can be.
"Human Rights" are political buzzwords. Their importance waxes and wanes with such things as the vagaries of trade relationships with Red China. I certainly don't count on them when traveling abroad. The Constitution protects US citizens and any guests legally present on our soil.
KS, this is getting tiresome. I never said all the folks in Gitmo were terrorists - in fact, I took pains to lay out the three groups that I think make up the prisoners at Gitmo: POW's (imo, the Taliban fighters) - terrorists - innocents. Determining who is who is the process that has been grossly mis-managed by the Bush Administration. This has been allowed to coast for years, and now we are paying the price (not to mention any innocent folks cooling their heels in Gitmo).
Actually, there may be a 4th group at Gitmo. People we don't want to keep that their home countries will not take in. Men without a country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
We didn't have a problem with Illegals until the Gov't stopped enforcing the laws.
Think about that -200 years, and only the past 20 years have been problematic.
There are HUMAN RIGHTS, and there are Rights preserved for Citizens. Both protect us.
You don't know that the folks in Gitmo ARE terrorists. Seems more than half were tortured without cause. Some were not only innocent, but were CRITICAL of corrupt Gov't. We tortured the folks who should have been a force for freedom in their own country.
Gee, that's the way to empower allies.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
Any time Coyote starts quoting the constitution I want to puke………
The guy who would throw out any part he doesn’t like for whatever reason he doesn’t like stand there and preaches like he know what he is talking about.
Coyote you have already showed you lack of knowledge of the legal system know you like the liberal you are you are sympathizing with terrorists and their supporters.
Terrorist are not soldiers,
Soldiers attack military targets by order of their superiors.
Revolutionaries are soldiers who attack military targets for political gain.
Soldiers and revolutionaries operate within internationally accepted laws of war and therefore entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. Soldiers and revolutionaries are entitled to prisoner of war status.
If a soldier commits an illegal act during a war the can be tried as war criminals.
If revolutionaries attack civilian targets for political gain they are terrorists. Terrorist are not entitled to prisoner of war status. Once a revolutionary group commits a terrorist act the revolutionary group loses all protection under the Geneva Convention for failing to follow internationally accepted laws of war.
Look it up
“On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip…..”
So , let me get this straight…..your Honda has 1.6 liters, whereas my bottle of Mountain Dew has 2?
Change…..it’s what is left after taxes.
- Shaken....Not Stirred 2003 Mach I Auto Torch Red - Sold
-1988 Ford Mustang GT Convertible, 331 Trick Flow Stroker with a Tremec 3550....oh yea and a 1.6 liter V-TECH motor to work the convertible top.
- 1966 Inline 6……..the pile of parts car!
Countymounty,I agree it seems the libs and socialist will hide behind the constitution when it benifits them. We all know they despise the 2nd and 10th admendments.
I cannot belive this country is arguing over the treatment of terrorist and sabatoures (you execute them,real simple) Could you imagine these femminized so called men had been around in WW2? Im waiting for them to put an * by the names of FDR,Patton, Eisenhower etc. For being to harsh on the enimies of this country.
KS, The constitution only applies to US citizens and those who are here legaly.
__________________
06' GT Tungsten gray,seq. turn sigs. no spoiler.
XM,
An armed man is called a citizen.A disarmed man is called a subject.
Any time Coyote starts quoting the constitution I want to puke………
The guy who would throw out any part he doesn’t like for whatever reason he doesn’t like stand there and preaches like he know what he is talking about.
Coyote you have already showed you lack of knowledge of the legal system know you like the liberal you are you are sympathizing with terrorists and their supporters.
Terrorist are not soldiers,
Soldiers attack military targets by order of their superiors.
Revolutionaries are soldiers who attack military targets for political gain.
Soldiers and revolutionaries operate within internationally accepted laws of war and therefore entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. Soldiers and revolutionaries are entitled to prisoner of war status.
If a soldier commits an illegal act during a war the can be tried as war criminals.
If revolutionaries attack civilian targets for political gain they are terrorists. Terrorist are not entitled to prisoner of war status. Once a revolutionary group commits a terrorist act the revolutionary group loses all protection under the Geneva Convention for failing to follow internationally accepted laws of war.
Look it up
“On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip…..”
1) you have to determine that they ARE terrorists FIRST. That
2) If they ARE terrorists, they are eligible for the death penalty.
3) if they are SOLDIERS, the Geneva Conventions apply. That is the LAW.
4) Pat Robertson, (Tr)Anny Coulter, etc., said the same things. Defining a group of people on the basis of a few Crazy People is not logical.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
Countymounty,I agree it seems the libs and socialist will hide behind the constitution when it benifits them. We all know they despise the 2nd and 10th admendments.
I cannot belive this country is arguing over the treatment of terrorist and sabatoures (you execute them,real simple) Could you imagine these femminized so called men had been around in WW2? Im waiting for them to put an * by the names of FDR,Patton, Eisenhower etc. For being to harsh on the enimies of this country.
KS, The constitution only applies to US citizens and those who are here legaly.
No, the NAZIs and the Japanese engaged in summary executions, and other criminal activities.
US soldiers rarely committed war crimes, and these were NEVER sanctioned by the US gov't.
One can argue about Dresden and the Nukes, but that's another argument -One that was erased by out treatment of the people of Germany and Japan at the end of hostilities. It's what separated us from the Soviets, from the NAZIs, and from the Japanese. We were BETTER. We did NOT become NAZIs to defeat NAZIism, or communist to defeat the communists.
BTW: the strategic decision was to capture saboteurs.
_________________________________
Heard from the Blind Sheik recently?
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
