U.S. to Seek Death Penalty for Gitmo Prisoners

[Byrdie714]

so we should execute any suspicious person? or with a weak tie to terrorists such as blogger? Remember McCarthyism, Japanese Camp, and Red Scare? We all know Iraq War is illegal and unsanctioned by Congress and UN.

It's illegal but we are stuck with it.

They should be treated under Geneva Convention. They currently are not.

I don't think Al-Qaeda signed the treaty of the Geneva Convention. So if they haven't signed it, why should we adhere to it?

If they did signed it, then they would've been treated fairly under the Geneva Convention

Executing them will make them martyrs anyway

.

I agree with you on that....

As they say, "Shit Happens. Deal with it!" ( My answers are in red.)

 

[Jiro]

I don't think Al-Qaeda signed the treaty of the Geneva Convention. So if they haven't signed it, why should we adhere to it?

If they did signed it, then they would've been treated fairly under the Geneva Convention

We are United States of America - a civilized nation where we set the example for the world... the concept of "democracy" and laws. Gitmo Camp is a very very poor example of that concept and Bush Administration's reckless action led us to a very very dangerous and difficult position. It's no different from Nazi did. The Gitmo prisoners were not given fair trial nor sufficient legal representations. Should they deserve any lesser rights than our own prisoners? Bush Administration has history of sneaky way with loopholes by labeling them as terrorists of no affiliation to armed forces of a Party. Because the terrorists employed the use of I.E.D. and suicide bomber which do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, they do not qualify POW status under Geneva Convention.

COME ON! Geneva Convention is a BIT outdated since it was enacted in 1946 where the conflicts were fought on open field with soldiers with identification of their parties (nations). This is 21st century - the time has changed. It's not superpower country vs. superpower country anymore like Cold War. It's just some rogue nations with broken government we're fighting against now. Those prisoners are from Afghanistan and Iraq. Obviously they are fighting for their own countries against America. Just because they don't have tanks and fighter jets don't mean the Geneva Convention does not apply to them. They have to fight with any means they can against enemy (which are Americans in their countries).

Do you want our enemy in the future war torturing and executing our American soldiers and citizens on war crime on their own term? Do you want our fellow American citizens to be afraid of where they go in the world with the fear of retaliation?

Bush Administration is an embarrassment to American citizens and the Constitution. They distorted your views on the concept of warfare on terrorism. Truth is - we're fighting against rogue nations, not terrorists. It's still called "war." Geneva Convention applies to all combatants.

 

[Byrdie714]

We are United States of America - a civilized nation where we set the example for the world... the concept of "democracy" and laws. Gitmo Camp is a very very poor example of that concept and Bush Administration's reckless action led us to a very very dangerous and difficult position. It's no different from Nazi did. The Gitmo prisoners were not given fair trial nor sufficient legal representations. Should they deserve any lesser rights than our own prisoners? Bush Administration has history of sneaky way with loopholes by labeling them as terrorists of no affiliation to armed forces of a Party. Because the terrorists employed the use of I.E.D. and suicide bomber which do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, they do not qualify POW status under Geneva Convention.

COME ON! Geneva Convention is a BIT outdated since it was enacted in 1946 where the conflicts were fought on open field with soldiers with identification of their parties (nations). This is 21st century - the time has changed. It's not superpower country vs. superpower country anymore like Cold War. It's just some rogue nations with broken government we're fighting against now. Those prisoners are from Afghanistan and Iraq. Obviously they are fighting for their own countries against America. Just because they don't have tanks and fighter jets don't mean the Geneva Convention does not apply to them. They have to fight with any means they can against enemy (which are Americans in their countries).

Do you want our enemy in the future war torturing and executing our American soldiers and citizens on war crime on their own term? Do you want our fellow American citizens to be afraid of where they go in the world with the fear of retaliation?

Bush Administration is an embarrassment to American citizens and the Constitution. They distorted your views on the concept of warfare on terrorism. Truth is - we're fighting against rogue nations, not terrorists. It's still called "war." Geneva Convention applies to all combatants.

for your opinion.

 

[Jiro]

for your opinion.

NP!

 

[Wokamuka]

Because the terrorists employed the use of I.E.D. and suicide bomber which do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, they do not qualify POW status under Geneva Convention.

COME ON! Geneva Convention is a BIT outdated since it was enacted in 1946 where the conflicts were fought on open field with soldiers with identification of their parties (nations).

Obviously they are fighting for their own countries against America.

Truth is - we're fighting against rogue nations, not terrorists. It's still called "war." Geneva Convention applies to all combatants.

It's the choice of words that'll be your downfall within this forum. The exemption of free-license declaration ("protecting the people") is "reason" enough to chip away at what "freedom" American people have.

Context is not important; a posting's mass reaction is! (Fool, have you not studied and spouted the Bible?)

 

[Jiro]

It's the choice of words that'll be your downfall within this forum. The exemption of free-license declaration ("protecting the people") is "reason" enough to chip away at what "freedom" American people have.

Context is not important; a posting's mass reaction is! (Fool, have you not studied and spouted the Bible?)

I'm..... not sure I follow??? As Ben Franklin said - "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

 

[Wokamuka]

The Geneva Convention is an attempt to set a standard. It is not outdated to me and its ideals are timeless. Those who do not follow it are more than likely scum of the earth and/or cannot be trusted.

You are correct in that terrorists are not soldiers for a nation, which does not come under the specifications set forth by the treaties. I differ in the opinion that one set of standards can be applied while another standard is, also, followed. Having double standards is having no honor.

The better path for any nation is to fight terrorism without debasing oneself to terrorism's level. That challenge is the basis of many debates and, of course, everyone has an opinion/idea.

It would seem that Bush is not a man to lead the United States (nor the world) in fighting terrorism. He employs the same tactics and, not surprisingly, asks for more presidential power while reducing/restricting civilian freedoms. He is not a leader; he is, like he said, "a war president."