Constitutional rights for enemy combatants?
 

I think they should water board that fucking African asshole every day for the rest of his life.

Why on fucking earth would you give a shit head like that Constitutional rights?

Torture him or let him right the lightning. :2 cents:

I'm sorry, those are big words for this crowd.

Terrorists who try to blow up planes. Do we give them the same rights as US citizens have, or try them as true terrorists in a military court, stripping them of the same rights we have?

I agree 100%! Let these terrorist fucks burn!

Most simple minded people think it's okay to torture people.

People who get shit done will do whatever it takes to get it done. A country should do whatever it takes to protect the people. If that means you torture someone you caught red handed trying to cause a terrorist attack, do whatever you need to do with them.

I'm not saying torture is ok for those who get swept up and held in Gitmo with no charges. I'm talking about cock suckers we catch red handed. If you are fighting with us and we catch you, sorry about your Jihad luck.

Bottom line, is you have to try him first. For that he has to have right. He is still innocent until proven guilty. You start trashing your civil rights, then you wind up like the country he came from. Its this kind of attitude that caused one of the most useless wars in my lifetime...Iraq. Both times.

edit: if you are going to call them combatants...then the Geneva Convention applies. One way or another. This combatant thing was a karl rove idea to circumvent that convention and allow torture and detention....like "detainees"...what the fuck is that. If there is a war on terror, then they are prisoners of war...again The Geneva Convention applies.

they feel they are at war with us, Obama said we are at war, they should be tried by the military, not civilian courts. That only gives them a platform for their views, which they want! They should tried, they the sentance carried out and never see the light of day

That can be done under the Geneva Convention

xyklon b the mother fuckers!!!

You're a little off on your facts. Being held as an 'enemy combatant' was a slick move by the Bush administration to not give the people POW status and therefor the Geneva Convention does not apply to them. They can only be tried by military tribunal and not by a civilian court. The anti-torture rules of the convention also do not apply. Enemy Combatants have no civil rights and no habeas corpus.

President Obama phased out the "enemy combatant" term in march of last year, so this underwear bomber's status will be.... interesting.

like the Blackwater killers ?

Of course, everybody must keep their rights. For some people who prefer higher priority to their desires than the historic evolution for constitutional civilizations this is bullshit, let´s educate more the people to let them understand that personal desires are just an useless drop in this ocean.

Torture does not always get information out of people, at that, people do not always have information worthy of torture to give. This is actually the majority, most people tortured, gave up nothing.

We are a Country at war... stop being a pussy and trying to take the easy way out.

Actually they are not 'constitutional rights', they are "natural rights" (or as some of your founders put it "god given rights". The Constitution and Bill of Rights recognize this fact.

Why do so often non Americans understand the US constitution better than Americans? This has always puzzled me. Failure in education? The dumbing of America? The Sarah Palin syndrome?

Lots of different ways to get info but a lot of it takes a lot of time and thats one of the reasons they skip it and go for the fast track torture .

1. Most professional interrogators will tell you that there are better methods to obtain reliable information other than using torture. One should use the most effective method...don't you think?

2. By giving "terrorists" a military tribunal...it legitimizes their status to that of being some kind of soldier...where as a civilian court reduces their status to that of being a mere criminal.

3. If they were to be given the status of being a POW (while that would be legitimize their status to that of being some kind of soldier) it would also mean that they can be held without trial for the duration of the "global war on terrorism"...which will end when hell freezes over.

The point being that there are multiple trains of thought about their status and what to do with them.

Just send them to China. I like the way the Chinese handle people like this.

Out to the field, a bullet in the head, send a bill for the price of the bullet to the family.

Here's a thought. Not all soldiers wear uniforms and salute. I would assume that since this guy is working for an organization with various ranks and a chain of command, that he is a soldier and qualifies.
How do you feel about the American "contractors" in Iraq who wear uniforms, carry weapons, and guard military facilities. Are they soldiers? Or are they mercenaries. Which raises the question are mercenaries soldiers.

Soldiers serve in the military of a country and the different terrorist orgs do not serve in the military of a country thus they are not legitimate soldiers by definition...but if we wanted to give them the status of being a soldier that would mean they would be POW's and could be held without trial for the duration of the "global war on terrorism" and as I stated the end of that war will be when hell freezes over.

Mercenaries...are civilians just as the "terrorists" are civilians...by definition.

Those would be your definitions I am thinking.

You thinking is wrong...educate yourself.

I am educated. What is your point?

You are apparently ignorant as to the legal definition of what constitutes being a soldier. Educate yourself.

Please educate me. Show me. Come on dude, you can do it.

"Dude"...you are a teeny bopper? I do not have the inclination to educate you...so no.

So you mean that I gotcha. Damn that was way too easy dude. You think you are talking to a kid...think again.

they have declared war on us, according to Obama, we're at war with them, so we should treat those that attack us as combatants, not as civilians, not as anything other than they are, Terrorists, soldiers deserve rights, they don't

My meaning was clear...no...I will not educate you. You use the vernacular of a kid so your maturation level is that of a kid...no matter what your actual age is.

Wrong....I gotcha and you are spinning your wheels. You painted yourself into a corner and I am forcing you to pull out your thesaurus and sound like you actually graduated....from high school that is. You are way too transparent and totally out of your depth dude. But, hey you kinda sound like a grown up...barely.

I prefer military tribunal over a civilian trial but if we were to give them POW status we can hold them without trial for the duration of the "global war on terrorism"...which will end when hell freezes over. POW status would seem to simplify the problem.

Kid...I will not debate with the ignorant, the dumb, or trolls...see sig. You are now dismissed.

What a shock. You have just been punked. Perhaps you need a new nick. Wait I have an idea....TheQueen.
Please close the back door on your way out.

I didn't mean to really get info from them. Torture is the WORST way to do that. They will tell you anything to stop the pain. I mean, the guys we catch red handed like this Nigerian prick, torture him for the sake of torturing him.

I don't mean this for anyone the US says is a terrorist. I'm talking about the guys we catch red handed. Someone who is a failed Jihadist. We need to fuck these guys up.

However, there have been cases of "red handed" that weren't so "red handed". That is why we live in civilized countries to have a civilized justice system. It separates us from the riff raff. There is no red handed. I am sure I could concoct a scenario that would vindicate this guy. From the wacky to the reasonable.
Just look at Lee Harvey Oswald. Wasn't it obvious he killed Kennedy?

the US doesn't get to decide what rights people have, people have rights as humans called human rights and they're entitled to those rights

anyways what happened to jesus' forgiveness and turning the other cheek? oh oh

THat would be better, seems we keep letting them go and they go right back to being terrorists

And of course when the enemy does it to OUR troops then it's not ok. We can do it because we are the good guys right? Kind of like saying Brad Pitt is allowed to rape because he's rich, famous and good looking. As country we either have morals or we don't we either practice what we preach or we are fucking hypcocrites. NO ONE respects a hypocrite.

i dont understand why people are sooo surprised by these guys going back to what they did

they were captured - tortured - embaressed - imprisoned - their rights stripped with no legal way of challenging anything

did you guys expect them to leave with a love for the US? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

So should Timothy McViegh, the Unibomber and Erik Rudolph have been tried by military tribunal or denied rights or do we have different rules for home grown terrorists? It seems to me ANY terrorsit is technically "at war" with us and thus should ALL be treated the same.

I agree to a point, I mean what if someone blew up a car because he was pissed at the car dealer, is he a terrorist?

McViegh blew up a FEDERAL building because he was angry at the US government. How is that LESS of an anti-US terrorism act that what underwear boy was trying to do?

Did I say that? No I didn't.

Too drunk to remember what you posted?

of course you should try him and you should try Bush too - the black dude for terrorism and Bush for murdering more than 30 000 people + torture + illegal detention ... or how does it work?