Why are Americans so different from the rest of us Westerners - Page 6

cia · January 15, 2003, 01:57

I actually agree with you Frogger. But unfortunately after a preliminary hearing the government can put you 'on ice' pretty much indefinitely. They did that to a hacker who was a citizen and angered the feds. The little part about a speedy trial seems to have been missed. BTW, what about the language on that hate speech thing?

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2003, 01:57

Quote:

Those captured on the battlefield have a prima facia (sp?) case for being POWs, and need to be given some sort of formal hearing to determine their status.

They were given hearings in front of military tribunals, which determined that they were unlawful combatants, not POWs. The EU and others have expressed their opposition to the decision, but the practice is legal and no one has proven otherwise.

KrazyHorse · January 15, 2003, 02:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Those captured on the battlefield have a prima facia (sp?) case for being POWs, and need to be given some sort of formal hearing to determine their status.

They were given hearings in front of military tribunals, which determined that they were unlawful combatants, not POWs. The EU and others have expressed their opposition to the decision, but the practice is legal and no one has proven otherwise.

As far as I know, each one was not given an individual hearing; those who were classified "Al-Qaeda prisoners" were simply said not to be protected.

KrazyHorse · January 15, 2003, 02:06

Oh, pardon me. I'd forgotten that even "Taleban prisoners" were not afforded POW status. Drake, when were these supposed military tribunals held?

Ramo · January 15, 2003, 02:06

Quote:

Is Ex parte Quirin still valid law?

I'd suppose so. I'm not aware of a more recent case on the Constitutionality of military tribunals. I'm pretty sure that there aren't any cases backing up Ex parte v. Quirin, though.

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2003, 02:11

Quote:

Drake, when were these supposed military tribunals held?

I suppose they've been held at various times over a period of months, but how would I know? The government isn't giving detailed reports of what goes on at Guantanamo every day. The government said they were going to do it, so I think it's been done. I don't see why they wouldn't.

Quote:

I'd forgotten that even "Taleban prisoners" were not afforded POW status.

Read your Geneva Convention again. Even the Taliban didn't meet the requirement for POW status. You have to be a clearly marked member of a state army.

orange · January 15, 2003, 02:13

so they need to wear targets?

Oerdin · January 15, 2003, 02:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Because the US never saw the horrors of war. It never grew up. It never saw the carnage. And you wonder why so many veterans are against going to war? Sheesh... Americans are ignorant, that's why.

*Cough* *Cough* Civil War, Mexican-American War, War of Texas Independence, War of 1812, and the Revolutionary War.

Sure, the wars fought in the U.S. were a long time ago but your assertion of never is even longer.

DinoDoc · January 15, 2003, 02:15

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
so they need to wear targets?

That would be helpful.

cia · January 15, 2003, 02:15

If camoflauge is a target orange, then yes. But they should all look the same. White hats, black hats.

Imran Siddiqui · January 15, 2003, 02:16

Quote:

Is Ex parte Quirin still valid law?

Yes it is.

Quote:

Amendment 5, US Constitution:

"No person...shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

The 5th Amendment is limited (like the 1st and 4th are limited, etc). The Supreme Court has decided (in Ex Parte Quirin) that the 5th and 6th Amendments do not extend the rights to jury trials granted by Article III. Article III is limited by what was triable by jury under the common law when the Article was enacted.

The Court has ruled, therefore, that military tribunals do not violate due process.

So, while illegal immigrants are subject to the laws of the Constitution, those who have 'violated the laws of war as defined by Congress (which basically adopted the Geneva Convention as the laws of war)' can be tried in front of a military tribunal and do not have to have a jury trial.

At the same time, the right to habeas corpus (which is the main thrust of the Constitutional argument against Al Queda who have been captured) is limited by Congression laws. However, recently the court said that even though habeas corpus traditionally did not apply to illegal immigrants the courts can apply it now (In I.N.S. v. St. Cyr).

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2003, 02:17

Quote:

so they need to wear targets?

Uniforms, actually. But don't blame me if you don't like the Geneva Convention; blame the Swiss. You don't get to do that very often, so enjoy it.

orange · January 15, 2003, 02:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

*Cough* *Cough* Civil War, Mexican-American War, War of Texas Independence, War of 1812, and the Revolutionary War.

Sure, the wars fought in the U.S. were a long time ago but your assertion of never is even longer.

Mexican-American War and the War of Texas Independence

Hoo boy, that you would even cite those

War of 1812 is a stretch too. Revolutionary War and Civil War are the best examples for what you're going for...but I don't think the horrors of war is as much a factor on ideology as some people are making it out to be anyway...

Alexander's Horse · January 15, 2003, 02:18

Quote:

Originally posted by cia
Americans are different because we still haven't sold our personal freedoms for safety and health provided by the government (at least not yet).

Ha! We got more freedom than you! So do the Nordics, the Brits, you name it.

The fact is America tries to lead in so many areas and the rest of the Western world is simply not following. Don't you ever ask yourself why that is?

Like, maybe you are wrong or have taken the wrong path on a few things

No, it can't be true - if you are number 1 how can you ever be wrong

It must be awful being top dog.

cia · January 15, 2003, 02:21

Please define your beautiful freedom AH?
And tell me which ones you have and I don't.
Or would that be suspiciously like work

KrazyHorse · January 15, 2003, 02:21

Quote:

Originally posted by cia
I actually agree with you Frogger. But unfortunately after a preliminary hearing the government can put you 'on ice' pretty much indefinitely. They did that to a hacker who was a citizen and angered the feds. The little part about a speedy trial seems to have been missed. BTW, what about the language on that hate speech thing?

There are two sections, 318 and 319

318 bans all speech which calls for genocide. 319(1) bans speech which is likely to end in a breach of the peace and 319(2) bans the wilful promotion of hatred against members of an identifiable group.

I am in favour of 318 and 319(1). 319(2) is too nebulous, and is the part I would suppose most civil libertarians would have problems with.

The other two are fairly concrete and the negative consequences of speech covered by them is tangible. It's illegal for me to tell people to burn Edgar Smith's house at 35 Cherry Lane because he's a no-good liar, so it should be illegal for me to tell people to burn down Jews' houses because they're no-good liars.

KrazyHorse · January 15, 2003, 02:22

Referenced at http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v6n2/banks62.html

KrazyHorse · January 15, 2003, 02:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Drake, when were these supposed military tribunals held?

I suppose they've been held at various times over a period of months, but how would I know? The government isn't giving detailed reports of what goes on at Guantanamo every day. The government said they were going to do it, so I think it's been done. I don't see why they wouldn't.

When did they say they were going to do that? Are the military tribunals given full competence in determining a prisoners' status (as required) or do they simply have the job of determining whether the prisoner was a member of Al-Qaeda or not?

KrazyHorse · January 15, 2003, 02:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Drake, when were these supposed military tribunals held?

I suppose they've been held at various times over a period of months, but how would I know? The government isn't giving detailed reports of what goes on at Guantanamo every day. The government said they were going to do it, so I think it's been done. I don't see why they wouldn't.

Quote:

I'd forgotten that even "Taleban prisoners" were not afforded POW status.

Read your Geneva Convention again. Even the Taliban didn't meet the requirement for POW status. You have to be a clearly marked member of a state army.

No you don't. You read the conditions again.

orange · January 15, 2003, 02:26

Quote:

319(1) bans speech which is likely to end in a breach of the peace

This is a little vague...can you explain?

KrazyHorse · January 15, 2003, 02:29

Quote:

Originally posted by orange

This is a little vague...can you explain?

The example I gave. "It would be a good idea to burn their houses down" "we need to take up arms to protect ourselves against the waves of illegal immigrants" etc.

KrazyHorse · January 15, 2003, 02:30

Anything which does not incite breaches of the peace should not be covered. So, "blacks are dirty rotten scoundrels" should not be banned, in my opinion, but it is, by section 319(2)

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2003, 02:31

Quote:

According to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, a combatant must be part of an identifiable army or militia, wear a "distinctive sign" such as uniforms and insignias, carry arms, and subscribe to the international laws of warfare

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/guantanamo.cfm

The site has a nice chart you can look at and everything...

Jon Miller · January 15, 2003, 02:32

I like Canada (of course, the US is alright (to live in) also)

Jon Miller

cia · January 15, 2003, 02:33

But if I say to someone, "You are a complete *******!" and they hits me, did I just not violate 319(1) due to a breech of the peace?

KrazyHorse · January 15, 2003, 02:33

Drake, the "Taleban prisoners" (i.e. those employed as regular forces of the party governing most of Afghanistan at the time of the US attack) are covered by clause 3 of article 4 of the Geneva Convention respecting treatment of prisoners of war.

The "Al-Qaeda prisoners" should probably be covered by clause 6.

KrazyHorse · January 15, 2003, 02:35

Quote:

Originally posted by cia
But if I say to someone, "You are a complete *******!" and they hits me, did I just not violate 319(1) due to a breech of the peace?

No, you committed a verbal assault, depending on the circumstances. Sorry, 319(1) actually is about "the incitement of hatred where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace"...

Drake Tungsten · January 15, 2003, 02:36

Quote:

Drake, the "Taleban prisoners" (i.e. those employed as regular forces of the party governing most of Afghanistan at the time of the US attack) are covered by clause 3 of article 4 of the Geneva Convention respecting treatment of prisoners of war.

The "Al-Qaeda prisoners" should probably be covered by clause 6.

Source?

I'm sorry, but I don't have a copy of the Geneva Convention with me right now...

Jon Miller · January 15, 2003, 02:37

I must say that I like being able to incite

even though, if it did come time for the need for violent revolution, I would probably not be able to incite

Jon Miller

KrazyHorse · January 15, 2003, 02:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

According to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, a combatant must be part of an identifiable army or militia, wear a "distinctive sign" such as uniforms and insignias, carry arms, and subscribe to the international laws of warfare

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/guantanamo.cfm

The site has a nice chart you can look at and everything...

I suggest you read the actual convention. That chart is inaccurate.

http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm

scroll down to article 4. Read, in particular clauses 3 and 6