constitutional rights for terrorists????

[AllArmyoutdoorsSD]

Just curious, who here supports the idea that terrorists jailed for acts of violence against our uniformed men and women should be afforded the same rights as law abbiding US citizens. My question applies to terrorists jailed in the US and abroad.

[Gator]

Terrorists, traitors, should NOT be afforded the same "rights" as other criminals.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

NO.

[buckee]

I think they should be treated like Human beings ..WHY ? ... because my Lord and saviour says so. (as hard as that may be)

[TreeStandBowHunter]

Totatally disagree Steve. I don't think the constitution should apply to them. You start giving people rights and they start getting off the hook. It happens with our own people. I think "They" have too many rights over here anyway as it is. JMO

[AllArmyoutdoorsSD]

I understand where buckee is coming from, however I just understand the push in polotics to afford or extend our constitutional rights to a group of people that we are currently at war with. Further more Geneva convention seems only to apply to our troops and not enemy combatants. I am not a political know it all, but when I hear someone wanting to make it easier for the enemy I get a little disturbed.

[VermontHunter]

I'll go with the politically disliked answer on this one....

YES they have a right to be HUNG immediately.... http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Sorry folks but I put this one right up there with treason....

[buckee]

The Geneva convention should apply to the enemy, even though the enemy will not comply with it. Human rights are more of what I was talking about, as opposed to constitutional rights.
If we can't treat the enemy as human beings, then what the heck are we fighting for, or against ??

[johnf]

I understand and agree with what Buckee is saying here, I think. These people should be given the respect that you would give any human being created in the image of God.

However, they are enemies of the state and have no rights to access of the courts, nor should they be allowed the opportunity to litigate against any person or group untill the time which the military deems them safe to return to thier place of origin. Our tax dollors should not be used to someone who's goal is to do harm to our nation or it's people.

Furthermore, it should be the right, even the duty, of the military to use any means necessarty to extract information that would lead to saving American lives.

[johnf]

[ QUOTE ]
The Geneva convention should apply to the enemy, even though the enemy will not comply with it. Human rights are more of what I was talking about, as opposed to constitutional rights.
If we can't treat the enemy as human beings, then what the heck are we fighting for, or against ??

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to disagree with you on this one buckee. Most of these people are not military soldiers. The Geneva convention as I understand it is for nations who are actively at war with each other. If these folk aren't fighting for their nation of origin, which have not declared war against us, then the Geneva convention does not apply to them.

The only thing I would think would apply to them would be something pertaining to international criminals. After all Iraq has a government, militar, and police system. These combatants are not affiliated with any of them. They are fighting in a country that doesnt' want them. How could this possibly give them Geneva convention rights?

[AllArmyoutdoorsSD]

My reference to Geneva Convention, is made mostly due to the hype of certain politicians trying to give "due process rights" The Geneva convention applies to organized militias, the battles we fight are against people in civilian attire, hiding among civilians. They have exploited our nations weaknesses time and again with the televised beheadings of non combatants, and road side bombs. How is possible for a politician to hold his/her head up in public after arguing that that be afforded the rights you and I have?

[VermontHunter]

First off a Country or groups must be part of the Geneva Convention,, and last I looked Terrorist Groups weren't..... http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif,,, and I don't believe Iraq or even Afganastan are members of the Geneva convention....I could be wrong this so don't qoute me... http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[AllArmyoutdoorsSD]

Ya it is kind of like NATO, but there are many rules and the such about battle and combatants and treatment of prisoners etc.

[VermontHunter]

I understsand where Steve is coming from, and agree to a certian extent.... It's just the enemies of today love to wheeled that double edge sword,, crying for humanity when caught but yet chopping the heads of soldiers at the same time...

There are concenquences (sp) to war so I suggest the enemy be prepared... http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[stevebeilgard]

the geneva convention does not apply to terrorists. very simply put, the geneva convention applies only to uniformed military soldiers of any country. the fact that other countries may not adhere to the convention is a mute point. the point is that they are not in uniform. a person not in uniform actively fighting for his country is called a spy. terrorists are in the spy catagory. spies may be executed immediately according to the rules of war, and the geneva convention. so, if we have a terrorist out of uniform, and not a united states citizen, how could we possibly afford him protection under our constitution? treat them with respect, and execute them promptly. and humanely, of course.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

[ QUOTE ]
NO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to expand upon my answer. Constitutional Rights should be granted to US citizens and others who are legally in our country. PERIOD! NO EXCEPTIONS!

[BowJoe]

When was the last time anyone got a trial before a soldier put a bullet in them or received a rapid lead cavity insertion. I don't recall a judge standing by the battle field deciding who to kill or not kill. You kill the guys pointing the dangerous end of the gun at you and you get on with your day. God has lead many an army into battle and no one ever criticized him for not giving them a chance to defend themselves in a court of law. I say that in battle it's shoot first, ask questions later and let God sort out the rest. (A little cliche yes, but still stands firm)

[VermontHunter]

That's just the problem BowJoe,, terrorists aren't your normal uniformed combatants on a common battle field, fighting with honor....

They are scum cowards that hide in the shadows willing to bomb and shoot decent and innocent civilians going about a normal day...

This is why I say, the only right they have afforded to them is to hang in a quite and quick way... http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[buckee]

[ QUOTE ]
When was the last time anyone got a trial before a soldier put a bullet in them or received a rapid lead cavity insertion. I don't recall a judge standing by the battle field deciding who to kill or not kill. You kill the guys pointing the dangerous end of the gun at you and you get on with your day. God has lead many an army into battle and no one ever criticized him for not giving them a chance to defend themselves in a court of law. I say that in battle it's shoot first, ask questions later and let God sort out the rest. (A little cliche yes, but still stands firm)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we're talking about combatants here. A prisoner of war is no longer a combatant, once he is captured, different rules apply.

[johnf]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't think we're talking about combatants here. A prisoner of war is no longer a combatant, once he is captured, different rules apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the grey line here buckee is that these aren't the kinds of prisoners that Geneva convention was adopted for. A German, Italian, Japanese,ect POW's were part of an organized military, they had set goals and were under the command of either a military, elected civilian, or totalintarian leader.

The people that we have detained in no way form or fation fit that description. Yes I think they should be treated as human beings, but I don't think they have any legal rights in the US court system.

How can we call them a POW when their country of origin is not at war with us?

[buckee]

Yeah, I hear ya John, and I agree. I don't think the world has ever seen this kind of war before, in the physical sense.
I really don't have much of a bleeding heart for these individuals, if that's what you guys are thinking. They are deranged, sick, brainwashed, psychotic animals that need to be dealt with, no doubt, but at the same time, they are people,and I wouldn't want myself to turn into what they are, because I let hatred get hold of me, like it has gotten hold of them.
That's why I say we must treat them like human beings. I think they should be pitied, more that hated.

[py_archer]

It's not really about them, it's about who we are . If we are going to promote a better form of goverment then we need to live up to that standard, not act like a bunch of thugs. Where's the love? They should be given, not constitutional rights, but basic legal rights in the sense that we show some form of common decency.

Or are they just "animals" as buckee said? Hmm??

[Gator]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not really about them, it's about who we are . If we are going to promote a better form of goverment then we need to live up to that standard, not act like a bunch of thugs. Where's the love? They should be given, not constitutional rights, but basic legal rights in the sense that we show some form of common decency.

Or are they just "animals" as buckee said? Hmm??

[/ QUOTE ]

What do YOU call someone who straps a bomb to their body and kills INNOCENT people, not the soldiers, but the Iraqis that want us their. Can they possibly be human? I don't think so.

Terrorists should get a bullet to the head IMO. No trial, no jail, instant death