Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (14846)	3/2/2003 6:41:41 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 25898

Another jewel from the Doktor: Message 18647779

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (14846)	3/2/2003 9:23:15 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

in the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Hmmm. At best, those are POWs. Maybe. POWs do not receive the civil rights of US citizens. The Executive branch, by using Executive Orders and emergency interim agency regulations as its tools of choice for combating terrorism, has deliberately chosen methodologies that are largely outside the purview of both the legislature and the judiciary. How can an executive order that violates the Constitution not be subject to judicial review? Are you telling that if the President issued an executive order that all who criticized him be arrested and held without trial, it could not be challenged and overturned in court? Sorry. I don't believe that. it has denied detainees access to legal representatives; and has conducted its hearings in secret, in some cases denying the very existence of such hearings. In a democracy, the actions of the government must be transparent or our ability to vote on policies and the people who create those policies becomes meaningless. Again, it depends on who those detainees are. If they were taken prisoner fighting American troops in Afghanistan, tough luck. If they were taken on US soil, they've got a point. From the USA PATRIOT Act's over-broad definition of domestic terrorism, to the FBI's new powers of search and surveillance, to the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens without formal charges, the principles of free speech, due process, and equal protection under the law have been seriously undermined. Agreed. Finally, the United States' actions with regard to prisoners held at Camp Delta at the Guantanamo Bay naval station have been in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. These prisoners are being held as "unlawful combatants," a term that has no meaning in international law. The government's disregard for international law can only serve to encourage other nations to act likewise and undermine the very War on Terrorism it seeks to fight. The second point is valid. At some point, some other nation is likely to declare US soldiers "unlawful combatants" with unpredictable results. THe status of the Afghani fighters may be vague. There was no state of war declared. However, in the interests of future US soldiers, it would probably be best to treat them as POWs.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (14846)	3/2/2003 9:43:12 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

The Executive branch, by using Executive Orders and emergency interim agency regulations as its tools of choice for combating terrorism, has deliberately chosen methodologies that are largely outside the purview of both the legislature and the judiciary. These Executive Orders and agency regulations violate the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the United States, and international and humanitarian law. As a result, the war on terror is largely being conducted by Executive fiat and the constitutional guarantees of both citizens and non-citizens alike have been seriously compromised. So is this saying the Patriot Act wasn't passed by Congress? I haven't been following the domestic security issue but I thought it had been passed by Congress. I make no comment, however, on the Patriot Acts wisdom as I don't know enough about it to say anything. Hundreds of non-citizens have been rounded up and detained, many for months, in violation of constitutional protections, judicial decisional authority and INS policy. The government has repeatedly resisted requests for information regarding the detainees by loved ones, lawyers and the press; it has denied detainees access to legal representatives; and has conducted its hearings in secret, in some cases denying the very existence of such hearings. ..... the United States' actions with regard to prisoners held at Camp Delta at the Guantanamo Bay naval station have been in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. We are in a defacto war situation with international terrorists. I'm willing to suffer depriving international terrorists (or even those suspected of being such) of the Constitutional rights we extend to common criminal suspects. Preventing future terrorist acts is an overriding interest that we all have. Would anyone like to extend every right to terrorists and terrorist suspects and in the process hamper the investigation of terrorist activities and suffer another 9/11 attack? How would anyone here feel if their family members died in a future attack which took place because we released terror suspects or failed to squeeze all the info out of them we can?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (14846)	3/2/2003 10:09:43 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

What is said there as applied to the al Qaeda fighters is misleading: Geneva Convention to cover Taleban US President George W Bush has decided that the Geneva Convention on the conduct of war will apply to captured Taleban soldiers in Afghanistan but not to al-Qaeda fighters. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, however, that neither Taleban soldiers nor al-Qaida fighters detained in Afghanistan at the US base in Guantamano Bay in Cuba would qualify as prisoners-of-war - because they had not carried arms openly or been part of a recognisable military hierarchy. Under the convention, prisoners-of-war are entitled to remain silent under interrogation, giving only their names, ranks and serial numbers. The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said that although the United States did not recognise the Taleban as a legitimate government, it had decided to apply the Geneva Convention because Afghanistan was a signatory of the treaty. "Al-Qaeda is an international terrorist group and cannot be considered a state party to the Geneva Convention," Mr Fleischer said. The Bush administration has been heavily criticised for the treament of some 150 prisoners transferred from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay. Despite the administration's decision on designation, Mr Fleischer said, there will be no difference in how the two groups of prisoners are treated. "It will not change their material life on a day to day basis. They will continue to be treated well, because that's what the United States does," Mr Fleischer said. The United States has always insisted that the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay are being detained in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Mr Fleischer said the International Committee of the Red Cross would be allowed to visit each detainee privately - and they would be give three meals a day, medical treatment and the opportunity for religious worship. But he said al-Qaeda d etainees would not be subject to the convention's rules because they were simply members of an international terrorist organisation that had not signed the agreement. Officials in Washington suggested that Mr Bush's decision to invoke the conventions was aimed at ensuring that American soldiers captured in Afghanistan would be entitled to the same rights. news.bbc.co.uk So: Those who were legitimate soldiers are being treated as POWs under the Geneva Convention. The others, in the view of the US gov't, were not legitimate soldiers and are not criminals in the usual sense and are being called "illegal combatants".