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....

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..... ,,, 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...

[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...

[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.