Originally posted by plawrence:
But I think that the person is entitled to a trial within a reasonable amount of time.
As far as what their rights are, with respect to them being American citiznes or having the rules of the Geneva Convention apply to them:
If they were arrested on American soil, they are entitled to the same rights as anyone else who is arrested on American soil.
But it doesn't appear that many of these people
have been captured on American soil, and are they being held in the United States. Unless I'm mistaken, as I've said before, most of these people have been apprehended either by coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan or by allied counterterrorist organizations across the globe.
If they are Americans (as I mentioned in the case of Jose Padilla), they are entitled to a trial. Otherwise, they are, legally, not.
Originally posted by plawrence:
If a French tourist in the United States is accused of a crime and arrested, he isn't denied the same rights that an American citizen would have simply because he isn't an American citizen, is he?
Or an illegal immigrant from Mexico, say?
Again, you're assuming a.) that they've been captured on American soil and/or b.) that I don't think they have the right to a trial if they were caught on US soil or are American citizens, which is exactly the opposite of what I've said before:
Originally posted by Double-J, Jun 12 2006, 12:27 PM:
And again, there is neither any legal precedent, nor any legal statute (from the Geneva Convention to the US Constitution) that requires us to try these detainees (obvious exceptions such as Padilla, who is a US citizen) or requires we give these people a "trial" at all...
Padilla is an American citizen who, after traveling to various Middle Eastern countries (including Iraq and Afghanistan) and trained with Al Qaeda, was apprehended (with a warrant no less, go USA) when he tried to re-enter the US in 2002. Obviously, his status as a citizen (as well as apprehension on our soil) gives him the right to trial in our courts.
Originally posted by plawrence:
As far as the others go....
This is a unique situation, this business of our enemy not being the member of the army of a specific enemy country (altho I would argue that those captured who were originally members of the Iraqi army and the Taliban are entitled to have the Geneva Convention applied to them), and a unique solution for the problem of what to do with those we capture on the battlefield is called for if you're going to say that the Geneva Convention does not apply to them.
Again, you're missing the point. It isn't whether or not I "think" the Geneva Convention should or shouldn't apply to them. It doesn't matter.
The Geneva Convention still would not help their case.
Even if it did apply to them (hypothetically), they would fall under Prisoner of War (POW) status, which means they
STILL aren't entitled to a trial, or a lawyer, and would still be legally held indefinitely until the end of hostilities. Period. There isn't any personal feelings or opinions about it. They are not guaranteed a trial by the Geneva Convention.
Originally posted by plawrence:
The unique solution that we've come up with, however - detaining them indefinitely without counsel or a trial - is not, IMO, a practical one.
How is it not practical? We're keeping these agents of terror off the streets in a maximum security facility on an island in the Caribbean and extracting information that is helping us either capture or kill their comrades. What would be more practical? Throwing them into a pit and machine gunning them down like the Nazi's did the Poles and Jews?
It is not only practical, it’s legal, and its far more humane than what the vast majority of them deserve. Lesser nations, in my humble opinion, would easily put a bullet into the back of each and every one of their heads. That would be practical, but not very humanitarian, wouldn't it?
Originally posted by plawrence:
Same thing for those we capture in a foreign country that we accuse of terrorism who we do not capture on the battlefield.
Like I said in my previous post, the government likely has a reason for holding these people, and we've already released people in the past who have been determined as a non-threat. But again, they are captured in a foreign country, and to say that they aren't captured "on the battlefield" if we, hypothetically, capture them in a known terrorist safehouse with explosives, automatic weapons (Soviet surplus, of course), and sketches of potential U.S. troop movements, I think they fall under the same jurisdiction as someone who is unlucky enough not to be sent to Allah with his 72 raisins by our boys and girls in a firefight.
Regards,
Double-J
