Good Question

If our rights are inalienable and were granted by our Creator, I think we have to assume that theirs are equally inalienable and from the same Creator.

Shouldn't every person expect some minimal standards for arrest and detainment by the US government or their agents?

Well, no, not when you put it that way. You want to go on a jihad against Uncle Sam you ought to expect a swift and effective death. We ought to be as ruthless and violent as our enemies.

So who gets to decide and what is the standard for determing that a captured prisoner has commited "jihad against Uncle Sam"?

On the combat field, I agree Jimmy.

Once they're prisoners, no, I don't believe we should treat them as they do our captured soldiers and citizens.

ohio county wrote:If our rights are inalienable and were granted by our Creator, I think we have to assume that theirs are equally inalienable and from the same Creator.

Shouldn't every person expect some minimal standards for arrest and detainment by the US government or their agents?

Well, no, not when you put it that way. You want to go on a jihad against Uncle Sam you ought to expect a swift and effective death. We ought to be as ruthless and violent as our enemies.

Amen.

Well we have a whole multitude of moral dilemmas at play here.

International Law/Geneva Conventions, U.S. Constitutional Law, Religious and personal moral standards, etc.

And everyone is mixing bits and pieces of all of them togethor.

I would suggest breaking it down and discuss them separately.

I am not opposed to closing Gitmo or to banning waterboarding and other near-torture interrogation techniques. What bothers me about the Supreme Court ruling, however, is that not only has the Court extended unprecedented constitutional rights to non-U.S. citizens, but it has also actually granted the Taliban fighters more rights than they would have as uniformed POWs lawfully held under the Geneva Conventions. That's quite a reverse incentive.

ohio county wrote:If our rights are inalienable and were granted by our Creator, I think we have to assume that theirs are equally inalienable and from the same Creator.

Shouldn't every person expect some minimal standards for arrest and detainment by the US government or their agents?

Well, no, not when you put it that way. You want to go on a jihad against Uncle Sam you ought to expect a swift and effective death. We ought to be as ruthless and violent as our enemies.

So who decides who is on a "jihad" against Uncle Sam? You think we should just "trust" the powers that be only to detain the guilty?

Jimmy, I'm surprised.

Randall wrote:I am not opposed to closing Gitmo or to banning waterboarding and other near-torture interrogation techniques. What bothers me about the Supreme Court ruling, however, is that not only has the Court extended unprecedented constitutional rights to non-U.S. citizens, but it has also actually granted the Taliban fighters more rights than they would have as uniformed POWs lawfully held under the Geneva Conventions. That's quite a reverse incentive.

I believe the decision was made to provide incentive for our government to stop treating people this way. If they're POW's, then treat them as POW's. If they are being held for crimes against our nation or her people, then haul their butts into court and bring them to justice.

Locking people up on another continent and not allowing them visitors, even lawyers isn't justice. The America I want to live in doesn't commit such acts.

Stephanie agrees with me again. This situation was created because the adminstration wants it both ways. That doesn't work and the adminstration knows that. They've been struck down, what, 3 times yet they keep insisting on having it both ways instead of putting the detainees in front of a military judge and reading them the charges.

It's just like the warrant thing. This is nothing but pure and simple arrorgance and for the life of me, I don't understand why the legislative branch allows it to keep happening. As Americans we are supposed to be better then this, aren't we!!!

Sometimes we do agree, Aaron. This is most certainly one of those times. I don't understand, and will never understand, how our government can feel in any way justified in telling other people how to live and what kind of government they should have all the while failing to live up to their own standards.

We should lead by example, not by force.

Amen to that Steph.

Look out!

When Aaron and Ziggy and Stephanie and Sherm all agree on the same thing, the Gods must be up to something big.

Aaron wrote:
All they have to do is bring each individual criminal before a military judge, read them the charges for their dentention and show them what they are being held for. To do any less is un-American.

Is not, during times of War, ..... the Commanding Officer is the de facto Military Judge of all Military personell under his Command or of all combatant persons taken prisoner by the Military personell under his Command?

YES ..... or ..... NO?

.

No.

Plus no matter how many times the republicans make the claim, we are not "at war".

We were not attacked by a sovereign state but by a band of international outlaws.

Oh, let's just roll over then...

Well OC we pretty much have rolled over.

We diverted our resources two countries away instead of going after the band of international outlaws who attacked us.

That is one area where Obama seems to have a clear vision of the situation.

I knew you'd come around.

You mark my words: by election time, Obama will not set a timetable for withdrawal.

I have been saying that.

This bunch could rival Machiavelli.

I think he knows the country will rally around any effort to go after bin Laden.

He will brand bush and the neocons as sissies for not doing so.

And invade Pakistan.

Why again do we care what the Geneva Conventions say? They are the first to go.

I think we should treat our prisoners humanely to the extent possible, but we should not be submitting ourselves to international law/protocol EVER.

Well we should care because we signed the agreement.

Plus it's the right thing to do.

If our enemies don't abide by the Geneva Conventions, don't we hamstring ourselves by our slavishly following them?

Which enemies?

Of course international outlaws dont comply.

Nor do they sign.

They are criminals.

You guys keep calling this a "war" when it is not.

You're the only one I've heard insist that against all evidence to the contrary.