Author Topic: Okay who Voted for this Guy?  (Read 3552 times)

Timothy

  • Guest
Re: Okay who Voted for this Guy?
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2009, 01:57:25 PM »
Use at least 250 gr.  185 gr could bounce off if not properly administered, and that would be considered torture by some liberal nut case  ;)

Ok, fine, it'll cost about nine bucks.....maybe 18...and the cost of a Louisville Slugger, some duct tape and a Big Bertha Driver I ain't using anymore! ;D


Solus

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8666
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Okay who Voted for this Guy?
« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2009, 02:35:14 PM »
I have seen it stated several times on these forums that the Constitution does not grant any rights, it just protects the unalienable rights already possessed by individuals.  That would mean that these folks had those same rights.

However, by becoming terrorists and being captured, they have forfeited those rights but would have whatever rights are enumerated in the Geneva Convention, to which the US subscribes, concerning prisoners of war. 

I am not familiar with the GC, but would think holding the prisoners until the end of the war would be permitted.

I would guess this is a different war than addressed by the GC, and maybe it doesn't qualify as a war under the it, but I would take it's provisions as the "default" rights of prisoners. 

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
—Patrick Henry

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
— Daniel Webster

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Okay who Voted for this Guy?
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2009, 02:21:48 AM »
They would be more appropriately treated as POW's under the Geneva Conventions.(If not shot for not being in uniform) They could NOT be put on trial.
We screamed bloody murder when the North Vietnamese did that to OUR POW's.

1911 Junkie

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
  • aka Mr 4000
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Okay who Voted for this Guy?
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2009, 04:41:30 PM »
My understanding of the Geneva Convention was that it only pertained to those countries that participated in it.  Iraq or Afghanisatn have no obligation to follow it since they did not participate.  More so, if we are at war with a country that did not participate, we have no obligation to follow it either.  Not being part of a country, terrorists assume the role of criminals instead of enemy combatants anyway.

"I'd love to spit some Beechnut in that dudes eye and shoot him with my old .45"  Hank Jr.

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Okay who Voted for this Guy?
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2009, 05:11:15 PM »
Then they should be held in Federal Prisons.

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: Okay who Voted for this Guy?
« Reply #15 on: Today at 04:15:58 PM »

Thanos

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Okay who Voted for this Guy?
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2009, 12:39:45 AM »
My understanding of the Geneva Convention was that it only pertained to those countries that participated in it. 

And soldiers of the military, spies can be shot if they are not in uniform or posing as civilians. Didn't you ever watch Hogan's Heroes?

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk