Why accused terrorists should have rights.

Maybe but The Geneva convention is an agreement between nations. And like all conventions, parties to the convention are not bound by the convention to parties who are not. Al Qaida is not bound by the Geneva convention. They arent states. They arent protected by the Geneva Convention and could never be such.

So the Geneva Convention is irrelevant when it comes to Al Qaida.



It would really be great if righties actually could find the time to read the Geneva Convention.

In the opening section

"The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."

Iraq and Afghanistan were both parties to the Geneva Convention, therefore it applies to the respective occupations of these countries.
 
I don't see very many Arab protests against the evils of Al-Qaeda.
Gee, maybe that has something to do with the fact that tyrants can't be persuaded by dissent?
I do see protests against the US.
Maybe that's because democracies can be persuaded by dissent?

I love how righties like to analyze everything in a vacuum.

I can totally imagine a scenario in which we, the US, "liberates" some Arab country--a "democracy" is set up and those savages "vote" Al-Qaeda into office. Those savages are completely capable of that mess.
HIstorically, in general, those who use the word "savage" to refer to large groups of other people are usually much more savage themselves than the group they are critisizing.
 
How would you know there are?

I love it, I ask you a question, and for an answer, you ask pretty much the exact same question back at me

Let me rephrase the question, to make its intent more clear.

What method is in place to ensure that there are no U.S. citizens in those secret prisons?
 
Sorta means citizens don't ya think?



Yeah, that's real good, you figured out that the People of the United States wrote and ratified the Constitution.

Now tell me why the 4th amendment uses the term "person" and not "citizen" and explain where it says anywhere in the Constitution that the "persons" refered to in the 4th amednment are more specifically citizens?
 
I love it, I ask you a question, and for an answer, you ask pretty much the exact same question back at me

Let me rephrase the question, to make its intent more clear.

What method is in place to ensure that there are no U.S. citizens in those secret prisons?

Well, first you didn't ask me. Second, what secret prisions? Where are they?
If you know about them they're not secret are they?

So tuber, what's the point of the thread?
 
Gee, maybe that has something to do with the fact that tyrants can't be persuaded by dissent?

Maybe that's because democracies can be persuaded by dissent?

I love how righties like to analyze everything in a vacuum.


HIstorically, in general, those who use the word "savage" to refer to large groups of other people are usually much more savage themselves than the group they are critisizing.

Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities. I hope I didn't give you the vapors. :rolleyes:

608burnflag.jpg


911-tower2-1.jpg


Dirty, good for nothing, ignorant, murderous, hillbilly
SAVAGES
 
Yeah, that's real good, you figured out that the People of the United States wrote and ratified the Constitution.

Now tell me why the 4th amendment uses the term "person" and not "citizen" and explain where it says anywhere in the Constitution that the "persons" refered to in the 4th amednment are more specifically citizens?

:rotflmao: You mean this part...NOTE THE WORD PEOPLE. That kinda reflects the Preamble...

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their....
 
It would really be great if righties actually could find the time to read the Geneva Convention.

In the opening section

"The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."

Iraq and Afghanistan were both parties to the Geneva Convention, therefore it applies to the respective occupations of these countries.

You shouldnt assume anything. Ive read it multiple times and Ive seen the argument it has no merit. Al Qaida has no territory in Iraq or Afganistan.
 
i will tell ya what..... when these terrorists stop cutting off peoples heads on video and actually treat another human being according to the geneva convention then .... i am with ya .... till then ... fuck em .... they can rot at gitmo till hell freezes over .....
 
i will tell ya what..... when these terrorists stop cutting off peoples heads on video and actually treat another human being according to the geneva convention then .... i am with ya .... till then ... fuck em .... they can rot at gitmo till hell freezes over .....

I'm with ya manu, and my understanding is, hell ain't freezing over anytime soon.:tdown2:
 
You shouldnt assume anything. Ive read it multiple times and Ive seen the argument it has no merit. Al Qaida has no territory in Iraq or Afganistan.


They don't have to "have territory". The Convention applies to the occupation itself. Furthermore, actual Al Qaeda fighters comprise only a fraction of the total number of people who have been detained in the war on terror. Since you are so familiar with the COnvention, you would know that it applies, under 4.A.1 to Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan during our invasion of Afganistan - regardless of whether or not they wore a uniform. It also applies, under 4.a.6, to any civilians who took up arms against the invasion. I know you like to argue over and over again that none of these people are covered since they are not under 4.a.2, but the fact is the opening paragraph of 4.a only requires that ONE of the conditions of 4.a.1 - 4.a.6 be fulfilled.

If the Taliban fighters captured during the invasion are not covered, that would mean that if a foreign power invaded the U.S., neither our military nor our citizenry would be allowed to employ guerilla techniques to defend our nation, not without sacrificing our POW status.
 
i will tell ya what..... when these terrorists stop cutting off peoples heads on video and actually treat another human being according to the geneva convention then .... i am with ya .... till then ... fuck em .... they can rot at gitmo till hell freezes over .....

How do you know the people at Guantanmo have anything to do with the terrorists?


Your statement about the Geneva COnvention is laughable. You obviously aren't serious, considering the COnvention specifically states that the violation of its provisions by one side does not mean the other side is free to violate them. You don't get to pick and choose which provisions you want to follow.
 
How do you know the people at Guantanmo have anything to do with the terrorists?


Your statement about the Geneva COnvention is laughable. You obviously aren't serious, considering the COnvention specifically states that the violation of its provisions by one side does not mean the other side is free to violate them. You don't get to pick and choose which provisions you want to follow.

how do you know they aren't terrorist?....

they want to fight dirty....i am fighting dirty....fuckem
 
However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

Careful what you support spiddy, In Iraq they could lose their head, in Gitmo they have 3 hots and a cot.
 

Forum List

Back
Top