Times Mag Reveals Gitmo Torture

[KipWellsFan]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/12/gitmo.time/index.html

 

 

Afterward, interrogators began their sessions with al-Qahtani at midnight and awakened him with dripping water or Christina Aguilera music if he dozed off, the magazine article reported.

 

The magazine said the techniques approved by Rumsfeld included "standing for prolonged periods, isolation for as long as 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair" and hanging "pictures of scantily clad women around his neck."

 

These are the people who tried to kill us," he said. "It includes the guy -- the 20th hijacker, that was Mr. Qahtani who was caught coming in -- who didn't make it to the planes that drove into New York," Hunter said following an appearance on "Fox News Sunday."

 

Earlier on the program, Hunter said the "legend" of Guantanamo Bay is "different than the fact" and repeatedly cited the menu.

 

"Here you have a guy who was on his way to kill 5,000 Americans," he said. "And we have people complaining because he had a dog bark at him in Guantanamo."

 

Nineteen hijackers commandeered four commercial airliners on September 11, 2001, piloting two into the World Trade Towers and one into the Pentagon. Another, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed in a Pennsylvania field. The death toll from the attacks was just under 3,000.

 

All the planes were hijacked by five men except Flight 93, which was commandeered by four. Some officials have speculated that al-Qahtani might have been the missing hijacker on Flight 93.

 

According to the Time article, lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was waiting for al-Qahtani outside the airport in Orlando, Florida, when he was detained by an immigration officer a month before the attacks.

 

I don't think I feel sorry for this foolio, but are these kinds of methods defeating the purpose of the whole war on terror?

 

Tons more at link

Edited June 13, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

When I spotted this article while surfing earlier in the evening I said to myself "here comes another Soxtalk thread" and sure enough...........

 

 

As far as I'm concerned this is just another cry-fest by the liberal media.

 

 

AWWW The poor terrorists. They have to stay up all night, or they have to stand for a long time or a dog barked at them. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

 

Listening to Christina Aguilera, well that's well beyond my defenition of torture however...... .

 

 

I'm so sick and tired of the media and these do gooder groups like Amnesty running around whining about how these pieces of human filth are being treated in Guantanamo. As far as I'm concerned they are treated FAR too well. These people who are there are dangerous and if given half a chance would kill as many Americans as they possibly could because their warped interpretation of Islam tells them to.

[YASNY]

Dripping water and Christina Aguilera music? OMG! The horror of it! :headshake

[Rex Kickass]

Saying torture and terror tactics is acceptable to end terror is not acceptable to me.

 

I thought we were fighting this war because we were supposed to be better then them.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Above and beyond the both torture tactics issue and the venom of the detainees toward the US,

when only a handful of prisoners out of close to 600 have obtained any type of legal proceedings since the first arrivals in 2002 there is an issue. Until the Supreme Court decision a year ago placd the onus on the Bush administration to justify the continued captivity of each enemy combatant, almost no detainees were allowed access to lawyers. That giving a handful of lawyers security clearance has since then become one of the key reliable sources of abuse information is somewhat ironic, but the Court decision is the corrent one I believe.

 

Getting past the shell game of reminding us all the Geneva doesn't apply to illegal enemy combatants, John Gibbons' (a Nixon bench-appointee btw) legal briefs suggesting the US Constitution does not allow for the creation of a prison beyond reach of the judiciary are still valid. Whether the place is the Gulag of our time or not (and I'd agree that is hyperbole), Gitmo doesn't exactly shine a favorable light on America's commitment to human rights or due process.

[sec159row2]

When I spotted this article while surfing earlier in the evening I said to myself "here comes another Soxtalk thread" and sure enough...........

As far as I'm concerned this is just another cry-fest by the liberal media. 

AWWW  The poor terrorists.  They have to stay up all night, or they have to stand for a long time or a dog barked at them.  WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA   

 

         

Listening to Christina Aguilera, well that's well beyond my defenition of torture however...... .

I'm so sick and tired of the media and these do gooder groups like Amnesty running around whining about how these pieces of human filth are being treated in Guantanamo.  As far as I'm concerned they are treated FAR too well.  These people who are there are dangerous and if given half a chance would kill as many Americans as they possibly could because their warped interpretation of Islam tells them to.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Dripping water and Christina Aguilera music?  OMG! The horror of it! :headshake

 

LA Times...3/22/04

 

Pentagon officials on Friday increased to 37 the number of detainee deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan that have prompted investigations, including at least eight unresolved homicides that may have involved assaults before or during interrogation.

 

Earlier this month, defense officials detailed 25 cases of prisoners who died in U.S. Army detention centers. But in an unscheduled briefing at the Pentagon, a senior defense official and a senior Pentagon medical official said the number had risen to 30 cases, including some involving more than one death, for a total of 37 deaths. Thirty-two deaths occurred in Iraq and five in Afghanistan.

[Balta1701]

One other important point to keep in mind about Gitmo is this...we have absolutely no idea who is guilty there and who is innocent.

 

We have brought hundreds of people to Gitmo who have been released after multiple years of captivity without ever being charged. Some of them have gone back into normal lives.

 

There are other people who we've brought to Gitmo and released who have immediately turned into Al Qaeda leaders.

 

In other words, we have 600 people or so down there, and we have absolutely no idea which ones we should be holding onto or which ones are in fact innocent.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of one of the ones who is actually innocent. How would you like disappearing for 3 years, being denied access to your lawyer, not allowed to sleep for days, and occasionally being roughed up/abused by the jailers? (even if it is only occasional, which evidence suggests it is not)

[KipWellsFan]

These people who are there are dangerous and if given half a chance would kill as many Americans as they possibly could because their warped interpretation of Islam tells them to.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...iews/khadr.html

there's 10 percent of them that should be kept there and 10 percent of them if they go out and they catch up with Al Qaeda again they might go back to being Al Qaeda. But there's only like 10 percent of the people that are really dangerous, that should be there and the rest are people that don't have anything to do with it, don't even, don't even understand what they're doing here.

 

That's a quote from former CIA informant inside Guantanamo, Abdurahman Khadr.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nuke, fun American idea -- "innocent until proven guilty". If these "pieces of filth" are so guilty then perhaps the US government would have no qualms in actually bringing them before a trial where they have the right to counsel? Nah, instead they'll just wait for years without bringing charges like they did to Jose Padilla. Because that sounds like strict Constitutional protections of due process and the writ of habeas corpus to me

 

And as Chuck Hagel said today on FNC, this sort of behavior is putting our own troops in a hard way if they are captured.

 

Plus, military tribunals don't have a leg to stand on legally in this case of trying supposed terrorists. In the words of the Supreme Court's 1866 ruling Exparte Milligan, the leading precedent on this issue: "[T]he Constitution was intended for a state of war, as well as a state of peace, and is equally binding upon rulers and people at all times and under all circumstances." When the Sixth Amendment mandates that in "all criminal prosecutions" certain rights should apply, including the right to a jury trial, the framers mean what they say. And the Supreme Court has understood the injunction. It is undisputed law that if the civilian courts are open and functioning, the armed forces cannot convene a military commission or tribunal to try offenses that fall within the civilian courts' jurisdiction.

[Rex Kickass]

LCR is spot on. If we don't hold enemy combatants to the same courtesy we expect our captured fighters to face, we can't complain when they don't get that courtesy.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke, fun American idea -- "innocent until proven guilty".  If these "pieces of filth" are so guilty then perhaps the US government would have no qualms in actually bringing them before a trial where they have the right to counsel?  Nah, instead they'll just wait for years without bringing charges like they did to Jose Padilla.  Because that sounds like strict Constitutional protections of due process and the writ of habeas corpus to me

 

And as Chuck Hagel said today on FNC, this sort of behavior is putting our own troops in a hard way if they are captured.

 

Plus, military tribunals don't have a leg to stand on legally in this case of trying supposed terrorists. In the words of the Supreme Court's 1866 ruling Exparte Milligan, the leading precedent on this issue: "[T]he Constitution was intended for a state of war, as well as a state of peace, and is equally binding upon rulers and people at all times and under all circumstances." When the Sixth Amendment mandates that in "all criminal prosecutions" certain rights should apply, including the right to a jury trial, the framers mean what they say. And the Supreme Court has understood the injunction. It is undisputed law that if the civilian courts are open and functioning, the armed forces cannot convene a military commission or tribunal to try offenses that fall within the civilian courts' jurisdiction.

 

 

There you go again trying to apply constitutional protections to people who's only connection to this country is that they were caught shooting at our soldiers. You can't compare Jose Padilla to anybody in Guantanamo because JOSE PADILLA IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!! Those people are not. They DO NOT have the same rights as American citizens do despite the best efforts of the left to give them to those who don't deserve them.

 

Listen carefully. T-H-E C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N D-O-E-S-N-T A-P-P-L-Y T-O P-E-O-P-L-E W-H-O A-R-E N-O-T A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S!!!!!!!

 

 

These people have no rights under the geneva convention either though because they are not part of the armed forces of or a part of any government agency either. That's how we can do what we're doing down there. Had that not been the case the courts would have shut down Guantanamo a long time ago.

 

You people should find better things to do than to be shilling for a bunch of people who would gladly behead you on Al Jazeera if they had the opportunity.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

LCR is spot on. If we don't hold enemy combatants to the same courtesy we expect our captured fighters to face, we can't complain when they don't get that courtesy.

 

 

Why should we show them any courtesy on the battlefield?

 

 

You know what happens to our people when they get captured by these savages?

 

-They get beaten to death and dragged through the streets with all the other assholes around cheering and spitting on them ( Mogadishu 1993)

 

-They get their heads chopped off on live television and the video gets broadcast all over the internet ( SPC Matt Maupin, 2004, Iraq )

 

-They get hung from a bridge and used as human pinatas by a mob ( 4 Blackwater contractors, Fallujah, 2004 )

 

f*** these people. Where are all the cries of protest at the way our people get treated when they fall into enemy hands? You won't hear them because as far as Amnesty and all those other do gooder asshole groups are concerned our soldiers are nothing but murderers and baby killers so instead of sticking up for our people they run around and shill for a bunch of people who are only interested in killing as many Americans as possible.

 

As I stated before we are going far too easy on these scumbags we have in our custody.

[Soxbadger]

Cleveland,

 

I have heard this argument a variety of places and so far no one is willing to step up to my challange.

 

Find any piece of precedent or language from the constitution that states that it only applies to citizens of the United States.

 

Your suggestion is that immigrants and non-citizens do not get constitutional protections is questionable to my understanding of the law. First of all, your suggestion would mean that any non-citizen does not get constitutional protections. Therefore legal immigrants would be subject to being deprived a right to trial, or even not allowed to worship. It would also mean that police could do anything to illegal immigrants, as well as legal immigrants as the clause of cruel and unusual punishment would not apply.

 

Now here is my precedent to suggest otherwise:

 

Amendment V

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.

 

Pay particular attention to the drafting. NO PERSON. Not, no-citizen, only citizens, etc, but instead NO PERSON. That means, every person in the US, citizen and non-citizen alike.

 

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aclu/kyrengaclu.pdf

 

http://ga.berkeley.edu/academics/rights.html

 

Now if you would like to change your remark to noncitizens have lesser rights in regards to adminsitrative and deportation proceedings, than I would agree with you.

 

But in terms of civil protections, the US SC has been consistent in applying the same standards to citizens and noncitizens alike. This does not mean a noncitizen can vote, or that congress can not make laws about noncitizens. It just means that with out law made by congress, noncitizens should be viewed in the same light as citizen.

 

Or that is atleast my understanding of the law.

 

SB

Edited June 14, 2005 by Soxbadger

[Cerbaho-WG]

Why should we show them any courtesy on the battlefield?

You know what happens to our people when they get captured by these savages? 

 

-They get beaten to death and dragged through the streets with all the other assholes around cheering and spitting on them ( Mogadishu 1993)

 

-They get their heads chopped off on live television and the video gets broadcast all over the internet ( SPC Matt Maupin, 2004, Iraq )

 

-They get hung from a bridge and used as human pinatas by a mob ( 4 Blackwater contractors, Fallujah, 2004 )

 

f*** these people.  Where are all the cries of protest at the way our people get treated when they fall into enemy hands?  You won't hear them because as far as Amnesty and all those other do gooder asshole groups are concerned our soldiers are nothing but murderers and baby killers so instead of sticking up for our people they run around and shill for a bunch of people who are only interested in killing as many Americans as possible.

 

As I stated before we are going far too easy on these scumbags we have in our custody.

 

Well, what point of

 

T-H-E G-E-N-E-V-A C-O-N-V-E-N-T-I-O-N A-P-P-L-I-E-S T-O T-H-I-S C-A-S-E

 

Convention I, Article 3, Section 1d

 

The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions are forbidden unless all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people have been met and a regularly constituted court has pronounced a judgment.

 

Protocol I, Article 85, Section 4e

 

Depriving combatants, prisoners of war, refugees, or medical or religious personnel of a fair trail is a grave breach of the Geneva Convention.

 

Grave breaches of the Conventions and Protocols are war crimes.

 

Now unless you're one of the neocon imbeciles who thinks it's okay to s*** all over the Geneva Convention, you really forget that Amerikkka doesn't rule the world. We do have rules to, you know, follow.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Why should we show them any courtesy on the battlefield?

You know what happens to our people when they get captured by these savages? 

 

-They get beaten to death and dragged through the streets with all the other assholes around cheering and spitting on them ( Mogadishu 1993)

 

-They get their heads chopped off on live television and the video gets broadcast all over the internet ( SPC Matt Maupin, 2004, Iraq )

 

-They get hung from a bridge and used as human pinatas by a mob ( 4 Blackwater contractors, Fallujah, 2004 )

 

f*** these people.  Where are all the cries of protest at the way our people get treated when they fall into enemy hands?  You won't hear them because as far as Amnesty and all those other do gooder asshole groups are concerned our soldiers are nothing but murderers and baby killers so instead of sticking up for our people they run around and shill for a bunch of people who are only interested in killing as many Americans as possible.

 

As I stated before we are going far too easy on these scumbags we have in our custody.

 

You talk about the whining pussies of Amnesty and here you are crying a river. Pot meet kettle. And actually Amnesty has come out and condemned the activity of insurgants. And Nuke, you still haven't answered my question -- if we're so certain of their guilt, why no trials to prove it so?

 

My shilling is not for Al Qaeda but for the erosion of Constitutional protections that has taken place in the name of national security when they can't prove that these eviscerations of the Bill of Rights has done anything to make us safer. I don't appreciate a government having the ability to say "Well, we say he's a suspect. We don't have to prove it. We'll just detain them for an indiscriminate amount of time and never bring charges. Even if acquitted in the illegal military tribunals, people could still be detained.

 

And Nuke, it says no person in the Constitution as Soxbadger so noted. But let's say for the sake of argument that the Constitutional protections don't apply to people who are not US citizens. That brings up more trouble for the "f*** 'em all" side. What about the Americans like Jose Padilla who are being held at Guantanamo? It took 2+ years for him to get a trial -- talk about his constitutional rights of a speedy trial, due process and his writ of habeas corpus being violated.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Cleveland,

 

I have heard this argument a variety of places and so far no one is willing to step up to my challange.

 

Find any piece of precedent or language from the constitution that states that it only applies to citizens of the United States.

 

Your suggestion is that immigrants and non-citizens do not get constitutional protections is questionable to my understanding of the law. First of all, your suggestion would mean that any non-citizen does not get constitutional protections. Therefore legal immigrants would be subject to being deprived a right to trial, or even not allowed to worship. It would also mean that police could do anything to illegal immigrants, as well as legal immigrants as the clause of cruel and unusual punishment would not apply.

 

Now here is my precedent to suggest otherwise:

Pay particular attention to the drafting. NO PERSON. Not, no-citizen, only citizens, etc, but instead NO PERSON. That means, every person in the US, citizen and non-citizen alike.

 

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aclu/kyrengaclu.pdf

 

http://ga.berkeley.edu/academics/rights.html

 

Now if you would like to change your remark to noncitizens have lesser rights in regards to adminsitrative and deportation proceedings, than I would agree with you.

 

But in terms of civil protections, the US SC has been consistent in applying the same standards to citizens and noncitizens alike. This does not mean a noncitizen can vote, or that congress can not make laws about noncitizens. It just means that with out law made by congress, noncitizens should be viewed in the same light as citizen.

 

Or that is atleast my understanding of the law.

 

SB

 

 

By your logic the U.S. constitution applies to every person on the face of the planet then. If you want to split hairs about wording it said "no person" without mention of where they lived, you added the part about living here.

 

-By your logic we could go into Russia and tell Vladimir Putin to cease and desist his manipulation of the media and supression of his opponents.

 

-We could go into Saudi Arabia and say that they have to let women vote because women are guaranteed the right to vote under our constitution.

 

For the sake of argument though lets say they meant "no person who lives in America". The terrorists we picked up in Afghanistan do not live in the United States. The people we detained in Iraq do not live in the United States. These people are not citizens, they are not resident aliens and they are not green card holders either. These are a bunch of people who were captured on a battlefield engaging our troops in combat. For the millionth time, their only connection to the United States is that they engaged our soldiers in combat on foregin soil. They aren't even entitled to geneva convention rights because they are not part of any army and are not representatives of any government. The people we're fighting are a bunch of free-lance terrorists and nothing more. They have no rights whatsoever. They are most fortunate to be in our custody because out of all nations we probably treat our captives a whole lot better than anyone else.

[Balta1701]

By your logic the U.S. constitution applies to every person on the face of the planet then.  If you want to split hairs about wording it said "no person" without mention of where they lived,  you added the part about living here.

 

-By your logic we could go into Russia and tell Vladimir Putin to cease and desist his manipulation of the media and supression of his opponents. 

 

-We could go into Saudi Arabia and say that they have to let women vote because women are guaranteed the right to vote under our constitution. 

 

For the sake of argument though lets say they meant "no person who lives in America".  The terrorists we picked up in Afghanistan do not live in the United States.  The people we detained in Iraq do not live in the United States.  These people are not citizens, they are not resident aliens and they are not green card holders either.  These are a bunch of people who were captured on a battlefield engaging our troops in combat.  For the millionth time, their only connection to the United States is that they engaged our soldiers in combat on foregin soil.  They aren't even entitled to geneva convention rights because they are not part of any army and are not representatives of any government.  The people we're fighting are a bunch of free-lance terrorists and nothing more.  They have no rights whatsoever.  They are most fortunate to be in our custody because out of all nations we probably treat our captives a whole lot better than anyone else.

 

Nuke...you're creating a straw man here.

 

The argument is not that the U.S. constitution applies to everyone. The argument is that the U.S. constitution is the defining document regarding how the U.S. government operates.

 

Therefore, when the U.S. government does something, it has to follow the U.S. constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say that it applies to all people. Rather, it says "We the people of the United States of America." Therefore, the constitution is rules made by the people of the United States governing how its government will operate.

 

Thus, when the constitution says "No Person" it is giving an instruction to the U.S. government, and the U.S. government alone, that it must follow that rule.

 

In addition, if we picked these people up on a battlefield, as you suggest, then they should be entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners of war. There is no "inbetween" space. Either they are subject to the regulations of the constitution, or they are prisoners of war. Just because they are not part of an organized army does not deny them the protections of the Geneva conventions.

 

And finally...is being beaten or frozen to death somehting you would be grateful for? Because there is strong evidence of those sorts of things occurring within the U.S. detention facilities since we created them a few years ago.

Edited June 14, 2005 by Balta1701

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

You talk about the whining pussies of Amnesty and here you are crying a river.  Pot meet kettle.  And actually Amnesty has come out and condemned the activity of insurgants.  And Nuke, you still haven't answered my question -- if we're so certain of their guilt, why no trials to prove it so?

 

My shilling is not for Al Qaeda but for the erosion of Constitutional protections that has taken place in the name of national security when they can't prove that these eviscerations of the Bill of Rights has done anything to make us safer.  I don't appreciate a government having the ability to say "Well, we say he's a suspect.  We don't have to prove it.  We'll just detain them for an indiscriminate amount of time and never bring charges.  Even if acquitted in the illegal military tribunals, people could still be detained.

 

And Nuke, it says no person in the Constitution as Soxbadger so noted.  But let's say for the sake of argument that the Constitutional protections don't apply to people who are not US citizens.  That brings up more trouble for the "f*** 'em all" side. What about the Americans like Jose Padilla who are being held at Guantanamo?  It took 2+ years for him to get a trial -- talk about his constitutional rights of a speedy trial, due process and his writ of habeas corpus being violated.

 

These terrorists WHO WE PICKED UP ON FOREGIN SOIL SHOOTING AT OUR TROOPS, have no right to a trial, they have no right to a Quran, they have no right to anything because there is no legal authority protecting FREE LANCE TERRORISTS.

 

Padilla is another matter. Padilla is an American citizen and the government had to let him go because he actually has rights ( as much as it pains me to say so ).

 

Stop trying to equate Jose Padilla to the other detainees. Their legal status is so radically different they may as well be from different planets.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke...you're creating a straw man here.

 

The argument is not that the U.S. constitution applies to everyone.  The argument is that the U.S. constitution is the defining document regarding how the U.S. government operates.

 

Therefore, when the U.S. government does something, it has to follow the U.S. constitution.  No where in the Constitution does it say that it applies to all people.  Rather, it says "We the people of the United States of America."  Therefore, the constitution is rules made by the people of the United States governing how its government will operate.

 

Thus, when the constitution says "No Person" it is giving an instruction to the U.S. government, and the U.S. government alone, that it must follow that rule.

 

 

How many times must I repeat myself. These people we have down there are free lance terrorists who were captured ON FOREGIN SOIL. They are not US citizens or residents or whatever, they are not part of a standing Army and they are not part of any governmental organization. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS.

Edited June 14, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Balta1701]

How many times must I repeat myself.  These people we have down there are free lance terrorists who were captured ON FOREGIN SOIL.  They are not US citizens or residents or whatever, they are not part of a standing Army and they are not part of any governmental organization.  THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS.

 

Here you are actually blatantly wrong. The Geneva Convention writers anticipated that at some point, this sort of ambiguity could appear. Therefore, they built in a clause into the conventions giving rights to anyone who is not appropriately categorized by the conventions. In those cases, the holding power is required by law to assume that the detainee is granted all of the priveledges of a Prisoner of War, until a "Competent Tribunal" can be held to hear the status of that detainee. They are also granted fundamental rights, such as the right to not be tortured or murdered, as per Article 75, even in the event that they are not found to qualify as POW's.

 

1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

 

2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.

 

3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.

The Geneva Convention was signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. Therefore, as a treaty, it stands as the law of the land of the U.S., and has the full authority of any other law. Edited June 14, 2005 by Balta1701

[Soxbadger]

No, I am arguing that anyone on US soil enjoys US protections.

 

If I am correct US bases are considered US territory, and therefore subject to US jurisdiction.

 

As for the US constitution applying to anyone anywhere, that is clearly not true. The US constitution only operates over territory where the US governs. It could not apply to Iraq, because Iraq has its own constitution which govern's its territory.

 

So now that I went through that, can you answer my question?

 

Why does the US constitution not apply to noncitizens on US territory?

 

Thank you,

 

SB

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

No, I am arguing that anyone on US soil enjoys US protections.

 

If I am correct US bases are considered US territory, and therefore subject to US jurisdiction.

 

As for the US constitution applying to anyone anywhere, that is clearly not true. The US constitution only operates over territory where the US governs. It could not apply to Iraq, because Iraq has its own constitution which govern's its territory.

 

So now that I went through that, can you answer my question?

 

Why does the US constitution not apply to noncitizens on US territory?

 

Thank you,

 

SB

 

If I read you right then you are saying that as soon as we bring terrorists to Guantanamo they supposedly entitled to the same rights as you and me sitting here? If that is the case then the Supreme Court would have shut down Guantanamo long ago.

[Soxbadger]

No actually the reason that the SC has not shut down GITMO is far more complex than your misunderstanding of the constitution.

 

I will gladly discuss how the United States government has created a loop hole that makes these detainees exist outside of both the Geneva Convention and US jurisdiction.

 

But, I am pretty certain it is not because noncitizens do not have constitutional rights.

 

SB

[Rex Kickass]

Why should we show them any courtesy on the battlefield?

You know what happens to our people when they get captured by these savages? 

 

-They get beaten to death and dragged through the streets with all the other assholes around cheering and spitting on them ( Mogadishu 1993)

 

-They get their heads chopped off on live television and the video gets broadcast all over the internet ( SPC Matt Maupin, 2004, Iraq )

 

-They get hung from a bridge and used as human pinatas by a mob ( 4 Blackwater contractors, Fallujah, 2004 )

 

f*** these people.  Where are all the cries of protest at the way our people get treated when they fall into enemy hands?  You won't hear them because as far as Amnesty and all those other do gooder asshole groups are concerned our soldiers are nothing but murderers and baby killers so instead of sticking up for our people they run around and shill for a bunch of people who are only interested in killing as many Americans as possible.

 

As I stated before we are going far too easy on these scumbags we have in our custody.

 

If we aren't being better than them, why are we even bothering to fight them?