Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mandiejo ok, i've been off for a while and don't have time right now to respond to all arguments, so i'll make it short: they don't deserve POW stat. because under the geneva convention, int.'l law, they don't qualify. second, they are under enemy conbatant status because that is the only thing they do qualify as. |
Is there such a thing as "enemy combatant status" as an ACTUALLY CODIFIED legal status?
Or is it just something America has made up in order to negate them as counting as something else?
What exactly is required for them as an "enemy combatant"?
They don't get "due process". Are we required, under any law or international code, to do ANYTHING for them?
If there is no real answer, and they are in "legal limbo" because of it, I don't see why we should allow them to be classified as such.
It's an excuse. Not a classification.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mandiejo these people are not american citizens, therefore our civil liberties do not apply. they are under our jurisdiction and int.'l law states that in times of conflict people can be detained indefinitely. |
What international law states that?
I find it incredibly hard to believe that any "international law" would say what you describe...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mandiejo now i'm done with debate for the year because i'm not going to districts but i have the affirmative case on it, saying everything you guys say. so i'd like to see some negative arguments because nobody we ran it against could come up with any. i'm not going to argue it anymore because we ran it a lot this year, i'd like to see some other people's takes on it. thanks guys, it's interesting to read. |
hehe.
Personally, not having to argue a side I don't support / believe in is one of the things I do NOT miss about debate.
On another level, I think that the discussion centers too much around what we can get away with and why...
Not why we should do one thing or another...
Or the impact / meaning of doing it one way or the other.
You talked about how we could hold them "indefinitely"?
Does it really make sense for us to hold somebody until they just die of old age in a prison? Without ever granting them a trial?
Or does it make sense for us to say that we ARE ABLE to do that, and pretend that it makes sense?
Due process is based on the fifth amendment, which starts out "No person shall be ..."
Note: Not "No American citizen shall be...", but "No PERSON shall be..."
If the civil liberties we have in the constitution only apply to Americans, and other people are exempt, what does that say about us as Americans?
And how grossly could the situation we are talking about be abused?
If a Mexican man came to this country with a passport, and then was arrested under suspicion of rape, could we just hold him indefinitely and never actually charge or try him with anything?
He's not an American citizen...
This is setting up a dangerous precedent that I don't think people should take lightly.
We shouldn't be looking for excuses for how we can get away with something, but rather for WHAT SHOULD we be doing, as a supposed "leader of the free world", in the first place....