POW's

Do you think terrorists who have been captured from terrorists camps should have the right to habeas corpus (basically a trial to prove their innocence)?

 

My personal belief is that if someone isn't an American citizen they don't have the right to anything in our country.

 

That's ignorant. Review what you said. America was build upon immigrants, and your basically saying only those who are already citizens are the only that should have a say.

 

I say they should have a limited trial, as in a trial that isn't public. Let them have half of the jury be American's and half of their fellow country men. Then let the US military show all and any evidence they have to link the individual to a terrorist network and have a lawyer try and prove the mans innocence.

 

True but this country was built upon immigrants wishing to better themselves and their country of living. It's a completely different thing when that outsider has harmful intent to the country.

 

Actually this country was formed to be free from Britians tyranny, unfair ruling, and religious freedom.

The American Dream wasn't real until long after the country was formed. Migration came from people wanting jobs and living a "free" environment.

 

Well Actually the reasoning for this country being formed was the so called "Tyranny" and "unfair ruling" when this really wasn't the case, the colonies were being treated the same as any other area under the control of Britain (minus the representation in parliament) so the main reason for the actual separation was to control the land they felt Britain has loosened it's hold on and Seems to think it controlled in a tyrant fashion.

And religion freedom was a joke to be made into an actual reasoning for the creation of the colonies, the constitution has nowhere in it that says "freedom of religion" or a variation of that term. Although the founding fathers did coin the term "separation of church in state",

So actually freedom of religion is simply a by-product of the actual meaning in the constitution, the wall created by the true reasoning behind "separation of church and state" had created freedom of religion.

 

Short answer, yes, we are a country of equal opportunity.
I will post my long answer if necessary.


Off topic, the truth and justice tattoos from your sig are my next tat's.
I already have the flag and banner from the IRA gun seller. I love the boondock saints.

 

So you think it's okay for any foreigner to be held indefinitely without any charges brought against them? Interesting.

 

Freedom, given to the citizens, allowing the citizens to practice their religion without governmental interference.

The loose hold that Britain had was one of many reasons of their revolution. There were others. Most of the causes dealt with the tyranny the British Parliament put on the Colonies. Multiple taxes, Quartering Act, Closing of the Harbor. They're legislature constricted the colonies trade and new found personal freedom from The Enlightenment.


Back on topic; the army would have the power to indefinitely suspend a persons rights without explanation or difficulty. If the prisoners were not able to use habeas corpus, would you see some possible abuse?

 

The colonist's weren't treated any different that any other controlled area. So tyranny is a term that is being used VERY lightly. Trade from the colonies was already heavily restricted so anything added afterward wasn't as much of a problem as the previous beginning statutes.

Oh obviously, this has already shown itself, now this as a matter of itself is important, but on the record of whether or not they deserve the right of habeas corpus is an entirely different level of contraversity. (Yeah i know not a word XD just really felt like saying it)

 

Deserve? You act as if they have to earn the ability to save their own life. They are accused of terrorist activity. Little to no proof is available for these people. That is the whole reason a person's liberty cannot be taken without a due process of law. It is unjust.

 

They have all the ability and right in the world to try and save their own life, only by if these means they will apply themselves to a U.S. system can we decide whether or not they deserve it, especially in a case in which they are accused of terrorist activity.
Now should the level of evidence and liability be a contributing factor towards how severe this punishment can be administered? Ofcourse, but when we reach a different level towards terrorist cells and not just specific terrorists then they should be inclined to take the damage to the individual.

 

Assuming we are talking about the United States here, the legal writ of habeas corpus is a part of due process, something guaranteed to all people, regardless of citizenship, by the federal government in the fifth amendment, and by the state governments in the 14th amendment. If we, for the moment, assume that the constitution is a legally binding contract, then both the state and national governments are obliged to provide everybody due process of the law (which includes habeas corpus).

From the fifth amendment:

From the fourteenth amendment:

Also, habeas corpus isn't that one is guaranteed a trial- it is that one must be charged with a crime to be held in prison (though both are a part of due process of the law).

 

depends on what you consider terrorism, afghani freedom fighters attacking NATO troops isn't terrorism in my opinion but If they are targeting civililians in the US for example I don't think they deserve a full trial

 

I'm not sure if you understood me. Habeas corpus is giving a person the right of due process. Determining the person's innocence.

 

Coming from a war vet, I have seen both sides of POWs. Say this situation:

Troop is captured by group of insurgents; insurgents beat, starve, torture, sodomize, and decapitate him/her. Troops come in, take over the insurgency, and capture the leader. Does he deserve the same rights as the American he abused and kill? No. Not deserve, but if we deny him his rights, then we show absolutely no advancement in our cause. We are tying to instill the thoughts and views of our fore-fathers into communist countries. Denying terrorists of the rights we are trying to convert them to, would make every Marine/Airmen/Sailor/Troop's sacrifice worthless in a sense of our initial goal.

PS- Its hard as hell to type with those black kids dancing lol.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong, but the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorist, negotiating a penalty to be served, in court, would be some form of negotiation would it not?

I'm not sure on this, but this is what I'm thinking. If your in a terrorist camp, your a terrorist, or your at least working/dealing with them.

 

That's not what I'm saying at all. I don't pay taxes so someone can be held in our prisons. Think of it this way. You're laying in bed at home one night, asleep, and someone breaks into your house. I don't know about you but I see this person as a threat. There is a law named the "Make My Day Law" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine) that allows you to take hostile force against an intruder into your place of residence, and in some states anything you "legally occupy". This is not so different as I think of the United States as my place of residence per-say. This is of course my personal opinion and I'm perfectly okay if you don't agree with me.

-Dud

 

I agree with this only if they are an enemy combatant like the terrorists.