detainees have no constitutional rights.....

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by manu1959, Feb 21, 2009.

  1. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
  2. xsited1
    Offline

    xsited1 Agent P

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,750
    Thanks Received:
    5,299
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Ratings:
    +5,306
    :eek:
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Hmm, kinda goes with this, who would have thought? :

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/us/21gitmo.html?_r=1

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Toome
    Offline

    Toome Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    906
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +259
    The article is a little misleading. The Obama administration's rationale is different than the Bush administration's.

    The Bush administration logic was based more on the principle that terrorists are "illegal combatants" that are not subject to due process whether detained in Afghanistan, Cuba or even in the US.

    The Obama administration logic is based more on the principle that whether terrorists or uniformed enemy soldiers, applying due process in a combat zone doesn't make sense. Otherwise, we'd have soldiers obtaining search warrants before conducting a raid, advising enemy combatants of their rights to an attorney, etc. For those of us who have touched the elephant, this is a multi-dimensionally stupid idea on so many levels. Combat zones are very unique. The Obama administration's logic holds water.

    I can see the consistency of the Obama administration's logic that if a captured enemy is removed from a combat zone and taken to an area under US control, then the civilian principles of law begin to take precedence over those of military law. I see no contradiction here, and this is more consistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Geneva Conventions and other international agreements.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2009
  5. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    of course ..... of course ...... so if he just moves all the folks from gitmo to afganistan it will all be ok with you......
     

Share This Page