Timothy Heald wrote: > 1. They are not citizens of the United States therefore they have no rights > under US law.
The Bill of Rights does not make the distinction between citizens and non-citizens. > 2. They are not prisoners of war as there was no declared war at the time of > hostilities, or now. So they are just regular detainees. But they are still denied the right of a lawyer. I don't give the US much chance in prosecuting them :) > 3. They are primarily not Afghan citizens. So they have no basis in saying > we are wronging the Afghan people. Bush is not an Afghan citizen. Yet he says the Taliban was wronging the Afghan people. He has no basis :) > 4. The Taliban was only one government of Afghanistan, and was not actually > the recognized government at the time of hostilities. The Northern Alliance > was the recognized government and they invited us in and allowed us to take > the foreign fighters out of their country. They didn't want them. So if we still recognize the English as the official government of the US we just have to ask the English if we can shoot every American we see? :) > Does the US have the right to charge an American citizen of crimes committed > in a different country? > > I would say yes. Within limits. Something like if it's against another > American(s). In this case he was fighting against us. I think the limits should include dual punishability at the least. > In your country you said they don't have treason, you just instantly loose > your citizenship. No. Miltary personel can be charged with treason. Citizens that enlist voluntarily in the military of a foreign nation while that foreign nation is at war with us loose their citizenship. > Guess what? In most cases that means under the Geneva > convention you can be treated as a spy or saboteur (since you usually won't > be in a UNIFORMED service, and Lindh was not in uniform) and you can > summarily execute those people without a trial. Enlisting in the military of a foreign nation is *defined* as being in the uniformed service. > So lets look at the horrible conditions of the detainees in Cuba. They are > fed and clothed, and they have medical care provided to them. They are not > returned tot heir home countries where the treatment would be horrific. I prefer to compare the way one treats people to the best example, not to the worst. > Since there was no uniformed service in Afghanistan at that time are you > aware that we could, under international law, line them all up and shoot > them. That would be legal. It remains doubtfull whether there was no uniformed service in Afghanistan. Uniformed service is not defined as having camouflage suits, it is about being distinguishable from civilians and such things as having a system of ranks and a system of military law. Until a proper process has been held over this issue there is very little we can say about it. > I have always thought it's funny that when people want to criticize the US > they forget all the good we do. Crtiticism is the only form of advise that is free nowadays (well, apart from cf-talk). > Bro, I just see you as having a bit of a twisted world view. Are we > perfect, not by a long shot. We have lots to improve on. But we are the > best thing going so far. It has never occured to you that I might actually have a *reason* to join the green card lottery? Maybe because I like the way things are going here quite a bit less? Jochem ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
