Six charged for 9/11

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:55 pm

Tsukiyumi wrote:I was referring to the wider war that is most certainly between religions. At least, it is in their minds.

The conflict (which I believe is a better term, since "war" implies armed struggle, and this clash goees far beond that) isn't really between Christianity and Islam, but between civilisations. The western democracies, which emphasise individual freedom, free trade, and secularism, versus the middle eastern culture which emphasises authoritarianism and in many cases preeminence of religious law. This is only part of the greater clash of civilisations involving Russia and China in addition the the two whose conflict has been brought to the fore by the events of the last few years.

Either way, they end up dead, but I understand your point about the differences in procedure.

Those differences in proceedure are paramount if western democracy is to survive - if we sacrifice our principles in order to make it easier to dispose of these criminals, then they've suceeded in destroying a key part of our way of life.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:04 pm

Tsukiyumi wrote:Har har, Seafort.

Why the rolling eyes? I simply stated the facts - that soldiers captured operating without uniforms are considered common criminals in international law.

I just was never sure about whether they'd be tried in a military court. I suppose it would depend on the country. Say, another question about the Geneva Convention: does it apply to every country on earth, or only between the ones who signed it?

It applies to the countries that have signed it - the status of the individuals they're fighting is irrelevent. In practice I'm not aware of any country that hasn't signed the convention.

The term "unlawful combatant" used in the US has no basis in international law. Either individuals are combatants, in which case they are to be treated as prisoners of war, or they are criminals, in which case they are to be treated in accordance with the law of the land - which includes haebus corpus, trial by jury, freedom from torture, etc.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:18 pm

I was already aware of the meaning of "black ops", Seafort. No offense intended there.

About the Convention, I was unsure about how many countries haven't signed. I agree that we should hold ourselves to higher standards than these "people" as well. It's a shame that they don't show the same respect when they take our soldiers captive. I understand the need for due process - I was merely questioning the legal status granted to these detainees. I also agree that this is part of a larger struggle between cultural ideals, but stating that it is primarily viewed as a religious imperative by the jihadists.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:23 pm

It applies to the countries that have signed it - the status of the individuals they're fighting is irrelevent. In practice I'm not aware of any country that hasn't signed the convention.

The United States hasn't that I know of. We have signed on as supporters but never signed the convention itself. It caused a big stink for us back in 1991.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:27 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:The term "unlawful combatant" used in the US has no basis in international law.

I certainly don't agree with tossing out valid rules to make things move more hastily, but I will question the involvement of international law in an incident that really is an act of foreign agression on our soil.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:29 pm

Deepcrush wrote:The United States hasn't that I know of. We have signed on as supporters but never signed the convention itself. It caused a big stink for us back in 1991.

Sorry for the double post; just wanted to address this. '91 was a horribly turbulent year for me, so I wasn't aware of this information at all.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:30 pm

Tsukiyumi wrote:I certainly don't agree with tossing out valid rules to make things move more hastily, but I will question the involvement of international law in an incident that really is an act of foreign agression on our soil.

By which country? It was an act of murder, in which case normal US law applies. If you wish to consider it an act of war then all those involved are subject to the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:33 pm

Its been funny since as a terrorist they have no rights under US law but as humans have the rights from the Bill of Rights. That is why they are keeping off of US soil as to allow actions that the BoR wouldn't here at home.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:35 pm

Captain Seafort wrote: By which country? It was an act of murder, in which case normal US law applies. If you wish to consider it an act of war then all those involved are subject to the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Which, as we addressed, would still eventually result in their deaths. I'm wondering if Deep is right, though. I certainly don't agree with torture of prisoners or have anything but a positive opinion of the Convention, but if the US never signed officially, I guess we aren't bound by international law at all here. I do agree that this is a setback for democracy, and sets a terrible precedent in our legal system.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:41 pm

Deepcrush wrote:Its been funny since as a terrorist they have no rights under US law

WHAT?

Source please.

The US has signed the Geneva Conventions (source). The Bill of Right is irrelevent, as the Convention makes no distinction between the sovereign etrritory of a nation and that controlled by a nation. Indeed in addition, IIRC the USSC decreed fairly recently that US law does apply to Gitmo.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:42 pm

You have to remember that the US is not a democracy but a republic. As such, all laws are open to fluid the needs of the state and or people.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:43 pm

Tsukiyumi wrote:Which, as we addressed, would still eventually result in their deaths.

I have no problem with that - my problem is with the method used to secure that sentence, which sinks of banana republic at best.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:45 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:WHAT? Source please.

The US has signed the Geneva Conventions (source). The Bill of Right is irrelevent, as the Convention makes no distinction between the sovereign etrritory of a nation and that controlled by a nation. Indeed in addition, IIRC the USSC decreed fairly recently that US law does apply to Gitmo.

Thanks for the clarification, Seafort. It does still mean that they'd be executed eventually if (or should I say when?) found guilty.

Captain Seafort wrote:I have no problem with that - my problem is with the method used to secure that sentence, which sinks of banana republic at best.

No doubt, the legal process used even by our state courts is mostly a lot of crap, little substance or fairness.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:48 pm

Deepcrush wrote:You have to remember that the US is not a democracy but a republic.

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.

As such, all laws are open to fluid the needs of the state and or people.

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.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:50 pm

Tsukiyumi wrote:
Captain Seafort wrote:I have no problem with that - my problem is with the method used to secure that sentence, which sinks of banana republic at best.
No doubt, the legal process used even by our state courts is mostly a lot of crap, little substance or fairness.

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.