Six charged for 9/11

[Deepcrush]

The US has signed the Geneva Conventions

So I see, but 1955 was a long time ago. Is there anything more recent that would clear up Panama or Gulf War?

The Bill of Right is irrelevent

All law in action inside of the US border follow the Bill of Rights which leaves it far from irrelevent.

IIRC the USSC decreed fairly recently that US law does apply to Gitmo.

After 5 years and countless cases applied to inact it which have failed. The UCMJ is still the overall control factor. The matters of Gitmo are also still under review by the Senate oversight as well as the President. Either could block or recount the passing law stating that "Any person under (the word is Protection but that really just doesn't sit right for me) of the U.S.A. or its detachments are to serve and be served by proper law of the Nation." Thats not the USSC ruling but the statement given to the federal government until we get a final ruling.

[Tsukiyumi]

A civilian court, where the rights of the defendant are enshrined in law, remains a far more civilised option than a military court, ven if the civilian process in question has holes in it.

That is true, I was referring to the fact that some of the holes in even our state systems are rather unreasonable, and some clearly go against the Constitution.

I guess this discussion is just a five-man show...

[Captain Seafort]

So I see, but 1955 was a long time ago. Is there anything more recent that would clear up Panama or Gulf War?

It's a treaty signed by the United States. When it was signed is utterly irrelevent as to its legal force. End of story.

All law in action inside of the US border follow the Bill of Rights which leaves it far from irrelevent.

I'm talking WRT the Convention. You, if I understand correctly, were arguing that Gitmo was a free-for-all because it was out of the Bill of Rights' jusidiction. I'm pointing out that that's irrelevent - we're talking about rights under the 3rd Geneva Convention, not the US Constitution.

After 5 years and countless cases applied to inact it which have failed. The UCMJ is still the overall control factor. The matters of Gitmo are also still under review by the Senate oversight as well as the President. Either could block or recount the passing law stating that "Any person under (the word is Protection but that really just doesn't sit right for me) of the U.S.A. or its detachments are to serve and be served by proper law of the Nation." Thats not the USSC ruling but the statement given to the federal government until we get a final ruling.

Did the USSC state that Gtmo falls under US law or did it not? Arguing that the law might be changed in future has no relation whatsoever to the law as it stands.

[Deepcrush]

A republic, last I checked, is a form of government whereby the head of state is directly elected by the people, as opposed to a monarchy or dictatorship. It's still a form of democracy.

Then you checked poorly. You miss the underlined details that make us different. That's ok, most US citizens can't tell the difference how the US functions.

Laws can be changed in any state. You're still bound by the Convention you sighed unless you choose to abrogate it - which you haven't.

"Any state"? That isn't worth a penny in war. In such matters, only federal law applies here, all other matters of court are not counted.

The words "We care not the concerns of nations to which do not suffer our pains....etc" come to mind. The USA is very good at ignoring the laws of ANYONE when we feel like it. Remember when we were told we couldn't invade Iraq or sell arms to Iran or Iraq. Shoot at Serbs in the Kosovo. Torture POWs or terrorists. Bomb no-com targets. Well we do such things often. The mistake is that people think that a piece of paper will stop us if we feel like doing something.

[Deepcrush]

It's a treaty signed by the United States. When it was signed is utterly irrelevent as to its legal force. End of story.

Is that a no?

I'm talking WRT the Convention. You, if I understand correctly, were arguing that Gitmo was a free-for-all because it was out of the Bill of Rights' jusidiction. I'm pointing out that that's irrelevent - we're talking about rights under the 3rd Geneva Convention, not the US Constitution.

I understand your point clearly but the problem is that the convention is not being applied. There for it becomes irrelevent.

Did the USSC state that Gtmo falls under US law or did it not? Arguing that the law might be changed in future has no relation whatsoever to the law as it stands.

It is still under review. As of now the UCMJ still rules until told otherwise. All terrorists will be tried under Military Law and subjected to the rulings there of.

[Graham Kennedy]

Of course that isn't what I would want. Does the geneva convention apply to guerilla fighters, privateers, or mercenaries? I thought that was only between countries, but I can't recall. Besides, they would be held for the rest of their lives anyways were that true. I don't see an end to this war.

They are either soldiers or they are not. If they are soldiers, they need to be treated like soldiers; no interrogations, no trials.

If they are not soldiers, they need to be treated like civilians. Trial by judge and jury, full civil rights.

What you cannot do is have it both ways and give them all the limited civil rights of a soldier whilst refusing to give them a proper trial. That's the kind of treatment that fascist states deal out to people.

I find it so ironic that Geroge Bush said that the terrorists "are attacking our freedoms". No. The terrorists killed individuals, and destroyed property. Bush and the US government are the ones attacking freedom.

[Captain Seafort]

Then you checked poorly. You miss the underlined details that make us different. That's ok, most US citizens can't tell the difference how the US functions.

Then will you please enlighten this foreigner as to the differences.

"Any state"? That isn't worth a penny in war. In such matters, only federal law applies here, all other matters of court are not counted.

I was refering to states in the sense of "nation state", rather than in the US sense of the term. My apologies for the confusion.

The words "We care not the concerns of nations to which do not suffer our pains....etc" come to mind. The USA is very good at ignoring the laws of ANYONE when we feel like it. Remember when we were told we couldn't invade Iraq or sell arms to Iran or Iraq. Shoot at Serbs in the Kosovo. Torture POWs or terrorists. Bomb no-com targets. Well we do such things often. The mistake is that people think that a piece of paper will stop us if we feel like doing something.

Then you have my condoloences for when that attitude comes back to bite you in the arse. If you treat the international system with contempt there will come a time when the international system will treat you with contempt.

[Captain Seafort]

I understand your point clearly but the problem is that the convention is not being applied. There for it becomes irrelevent.

I can see that it isn't being applied. My point is that the US government seems to think that they have the authority to decide when to apply it, which they do not. As Graham so succintly put it, they are either soldiers or they are not.

[Tsukiyumi]

Then you checked poorly. You miss the underlined details that make us different. That's ok, most US citizens can't tell the difference how the US functions.

Then will you please enlighten this foreigner as to the differences.

We individually elect local Representatives into the "Electoral College". They then elect the President based on people's votes (in practice; in reality, they can go against the popular vote - if I recall, that's how Bush got into office the first time).

BRB - thunderstorm rolling through. Got to shut down the comp.

[Captain Seafort]

We individually elect local Representatives into the "Electoral College". They then elect the President based on people's votes (in practice; in reality, they can go against the popular vote - if I recall, that's how Bush got into office the first time).

Ah, so the popular vote is in theory merely advisory. Though I believe the Florida vote wasn't a problem with the electoral college but a question of what counted as a vote - I recall much talk at the time about whether there had to be a hole in the paper, or whether a dent was sufficient. Why can't you just put a tick in the appropriate box?

[Mikey]

Yes, the practical difference between a true democracy (although there never has been a "true" democracy on this planet) and our republic is that there is an intermediary level between the popular vote and the president. Referring to the popular vote as having an advisory capacity was an excellent way to put it.

And, it can be argued that the international community "bit us in the arse" BEFORE we decided to do whatever the hell we wanted... I don't believe that playing "the chicken or the egg" will benefit anyone at this point.