Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

why do we have to define "enemy combatants"??

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 04:51 PM
Original message
why do we have to define "enemy combatants"??
Why cant we simply treat all human beings with the same laws and respect that American citizens enjoy (at least up until now)?

Wouldnt America be taking the high road by applying our laws to non-citizens when it comes to legal treatment???

I dont understand the need for laws for citizens and laws for non-citizens.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. because the repukes think they are less than human...
why give them any rights at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. Taking the high road.....
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
What a quaint concept.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. yes I am asking waaayyyyyyy too much with this GOP Congress
But really, what benefit is there to not treat all people the same???

It would simplify the legal questions, wouldnt it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yes, we have a court system in the US.
We don't need to create a kangaroo court in Cuba.

The 1993 WTC bombers were tried in New York, in a real court, not a kangaroo court.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. "enemy combatants" could be a US citizen.
Some of the people who are held under this statute are US citizen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. I don't understand the need for laws for citizens and laws for non-citizens
Neither do the Bushitstas they want to take all our rights away. The Decider is to be the ultimate decision maker and decide who has Rights and who does no.
I think that to have rights under this cabal you have to be a * voting homo hating pro death anti abortion Fristian.


The internment camps are for the rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 04:57 PM
Original message
The basic idea is
that if you are fighting a war, the process to determine that must be very efficient and put a minimal burden on the military so as not to interfere with the war effort.

Many of the people held at Guantanamo where not captured by the US military, but brought to them by cooperating warlords. Also some are people captured by the CIA. So there is a question about whether they all were captured "on the battlefield".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
7. helpful link below
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002239.html

"Moniot debunks the Government's theory that the Guantanamo detainees are exempt from POW status.

But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war. "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusEarl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
8. Repugs doing what they do best, driving wedges !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. And you can pick an insurgent out of a lineup?
Let's see, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Mohandas Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King and Tim McVeigh. Quick, spot the terrorist!

I know, tough choice what with all them colored fellas standing next to each other. But do we have to waste the white guy's time? He says he has to get a rental truck back to Ryder or they'll charge him an extra day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genie_weenie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
10. It's a product of the Nation-State going
way back even before the Treaty of Westphalia.

It's also an evolutionary thing, your tribe/kin and not your tribe/kin. Prior to the very unusal step of the creation of cities (post agricultural revolution and the end of the neolthic age) all members of a tribe were (most likely) related.

Nowadays, each Nation-State is stuck in this Hobbesian State of Continual War...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. The only reason I can think of is
because they already tortured these people and there is
no way we can possibly give them a fair trial in this country
after they have been tortured.

And also because bUSH said so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. that is why the bill has something in it about September 2005
Where any testimony produced from torture prior to that date would be allowed in court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC