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

[LSK]

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.

[cynatnite]

1. because the repukes think they are less than human...

why give them any rights at all?

[sutz12]

2. Taking the high road.....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
What a quaint concept.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[LSK]

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?

[Eric J in MN]

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.

[Mass]

4. "enemy combatants" could be a US citizen.

Some of the people who are held under this statute are US citizen.

[Vincardog]

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.

[BootinUp]

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".

[Solly Mack]

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. "

[RufusEarl]

8. Repugs doing what they do best, driving wedges !!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

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.

[genie_weenie]

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...

[dkofos]

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.

[LSK]

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.