Need some help on debate topic

[Blarney]

Howdy. Im being forced for school to debate. I am also forced to rave about liberal stuff for a case. Im sorry to ask this, but I am looking for affirmative attributes to say that enemy combatants cannot be detained without all rights deemed in the constitution. Im looking for published articles and proffesional documents. Also, If you can help me find stuff to combat this liberal bs, on stuff helping the enemy combatant case, the Patriot act and our immigration laws, it would be most abliged.

[gaijinsamurai]

The Geneva Convention,to which the US is a signatory, rather than the US Constitution, protects the rights of prisoners in war. Do a Google search on it.

[walford]

Here are a couple of threads here on the subject to give you an idea of what sort of back-and-forth arguments/positions taken to expect:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=33573
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=57229

Here is an excerpt of my argument on the subject:...This is not the Clinton administration. That means that we do not treat terrorism as if it were a criminal matter any longer. This is war. You don't put POWs on trial. You have every right to hold them until the war is over. If their sponsors don't like it, they can always decide to abandon violence and try to have influence via peaceful means. Wanting of that, the war will be considered ongoing indefinitely. Thus, their thugs will remain in custody until the war is over. Too bad. It's called the consequences of choosing evil -- and yes, I'm one of those dinosaurs who holds that there is such a thing...

[Avalanche]

IF these are hypothetical circumstances... then yes the Geneva Convention applies... but if this is in reference to those detained in Afghanistan or Iraq... then it doesn't. These fighters are disqualified under the Geneva convention because they kill civilians and don't fight in uniform. Also, they don't recieve all rights that are in the constitution under the Geneva convention... i.e. the GC says that prisoners do not have to be tried until hostilities cease, so they dont even have the right to a trial under the GC, and they don't even qualify for the GC.

[walford]

...if this is in reference to those detained in Afghanistan or Iraq... then it doesn't. These fighters are disqualified under the Geneva convention because they kill civilians and don't fight in uniform...To expand on the definitions of lawful combatants, check a sourced piece I wrote in an attempt to define terrorism.
http://utopia-unmasked.us/terror.html

[Secret Squirrel]

These fighters are disqualified under the Geneva convention because they kill civilians and don't fight in uniform. Also, they don't recieve all rights that are in the constitution under the Geneva convention... i.e. the GC says that prisoners do not have to be tried until hostilities cease, so they dont even have the right to a trial under the GC, and they don't even qualify for the GC.

Actually, not wearing a uniform doesnt necessarily break the Geneva Conventions.


Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Given the nature of Iraq's insurgency (ie. one of many faces and not just a single enemy) there is room to make arguments against the lack of uniformed fighters.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Given the nature of Iraq's insurgency (ie. one of many faces and not just a single enemy) there is room to make arguments against the lack of uniformed fighters.

As you say - it's open to argument. But, they seem to have little trouble coordinating attacks, gathering the resources to build large bombs, creating weapons caches etc. IMHO they could quite easily devote as much attention to securing uniforms - even something as simple as a hat. But of course that would rob them of their one advantage. Thus, the lack of uniforms is a deliberate strategy, not an omission due to individual circumstances. Shoot, how much does a crate of red berets or something cost when compared to all the other stuff they buy?

[Secret Squirrel]

Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Given the nature of Iraq's insurgency (ie. one of many faces and not just a single enemy) there is room to make arguments against the lack of uniformed fighters.

As you say - it's open to argument. But, they seem to have little trouble coordinating attacks, gathering the resources to build large bombs, creating weapons caches etc. IMHO they could quite easily devote as much attention to securing uniforms - even something as simple as a hat. But of course that would rob them of their one advantage. Thus, the lack of uniforms is a deliberate strategy, not an omission due to individual circumstances. Shoot, how much does a crate of red berets or something cost when compared to all the other stuff they buy?

"Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself..." I fail to see the part where it says the reason for lacking a uniform is because of monetary funds. ;)

[Howitz]

I think their deliberate lack of uniforms would, disqualify them for protection as a combatant. As I can't see how planting an IED then scurrying off back into the civilian population qualifies one as carrying arms openly.

[walford]

The international lawyers need to make a concerted effort to address the status of those who deliberately target civilians. They are not criminals and they are not soldiers either.

Nonetheless, whether the prisoners at Gitmo are lawful combatants or not, they are not entitled to a trial. In fact, if I'm not mistaken it's illegal to put a soldier on trial for following lawful orders. Furthermore, given that al Qaeda has not abandoned its violent quest to expand its way of life worldwide [the eternal War against the Infidel], the detainees are not entitled to be released until the war is over.

[BarkingSquirrel]

CHOOSING not to distinguish oneself and not being able to are completely different things

[divisionbyzero]

Howdy. Im being forced for school to debate. I am also forced to rave about liberal stuff for a case. Im sorry to ask this, but I am looking for affirmative attributes to say that enemy combatants cannot be detained without all rights deemed in the constitution.

You should not only ask whether it is legal for the coalition for to detain enemy combatants, but whether we should. I mean, the only thing that will be achieved is to further justify their fight against the west. There is always a great outcry when a video is released with a soldier being humiliated, when they hear of the situation at guantanomo bay they must feel the same.

You don't win the hearts and minds by behaving just as bad as your enemy.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I think because we are classing the fight against AQ as a war then certain groups especially from the left and the islamic extremist world are saying

"This is a war and all people should be treated as POW"

I think alot of the negative attitudes would not be around if it was handled as a policing matter and not a military matter in the "official" sense even though military action is being performed. IE if it's officially a policing matter then alot of people wouldent be against the operation unlike a war where there is always a large minority if not majority that oppose any and all forms of "military" action.

[BarkingSquirrel]

Policing matter? Yeah, Korea and Vietnam turned out well.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I'm not saying in this instance one is right and the other is wrong.

I'm looking at it objectivly. Well trying to anyway.

[walford]

10-8

You should not only ask whether it is legal for the coalition for to detain enemy combatants, but whether we should. I mean, the only thing that will be achieved is to further justify their fight against the west.Uhh...they killed thousands of us on our own soil BEFORE we held anyone at Gitmo. They hate us because we are not like them. We are the Infidel. Our freedom and prosperity stand as tangible evidence that their way of life is not optimal. Therefore, to the likes of them, our very existence is blasphemy.

They hate those who fight them and despise those who try to appease them.

There is always a great outcry when a video is released with a soldier being humiliated, when they hear of the situation at guantanomo bay they must feel the same.What happened at Abu Gharaib ws aberrational. What they do to us and their own is institutionalized. And yet there was no outcry [neither in the West nor in the Middle East] when they killed and brutalized each other wholesale in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You don't win the hearts and minds by behaving just as bad as your enemy.1. We haven't begun to conduct ourselves anywhere near as badly as they treat EACH OTHER.
2. There is no winning the hearts and minds of fanatics who hold that their will and that of the Almighty are the same. You kill them faster than their mothers can pump them out. Period.

[James]

For what it's worth, there are many different Geneva Conventions spanning about 140 years now.

A list of what has been ratified by the U.S. is here:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebPAYS?OpenView&Start=150&Count=150&Expand=232.1#232.1

it is interesting to compare it with articles that have actually been signed by the U.S.:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebPAYS?OpenView&Start=150&Count=150&Expand=232.2#232.2

[Durandal]

If they are an American Citizen then they receive the full rights of the Constitution.

I'd argue that we should treat everyone in this manner. It makes things a hell of a lot easier and and sets a good example of honor and integrity.

Hard to be a shining example of freedom. democracy, and civil rights when we violate it monthly. ;)

...but that's my opinion,not shared by many on this board.

[divisionbyzero]

10-8

You should not only ask whether it is legal for the coalition for to detain enemy combatants, but whether we should. I mean, the only thing that will be achieved is to further justify their fight against the west.Uhh...they killed thousands of us on our own soil BEFORE we held anyone at Gitmo. They hate us because we are not like them. We are the Infidel. Our freedom and prosperity stand as tangible evidence that their way of life is not optimal. Therefore, to the likes of them, our very existence is blasphemy.


Why did they attack the world trade centers? Most certainly not because of our great 'freedom' or 'prosperity'. The truth is that by performing 9/11 they had much more political motives. If they wanted to attack 'freedom' why didnt they attack sweden or switzerland. But they did not, why? because they have no bases in the middle east.

What percentage of people at guantanomo bay were involved in september 11?



There is always a great outcry when a video is released with a soldier being humiliated, when they hear of the situation at guantanomo bay they must feel the same.What happened at Abu Gharaib ws aberrational. What they do to us and their own is institutionalized. And yet there was no outcry [neither in the West nor in the Middle East] when they killed and brutalized each other wholesale in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You don't win the hearts and minds by behaving just as bad as your enemy.
1. We haven't begun to conduct ourselves anywhere near as badly as they treat EACH OTHER.
2. There is no winning the hearts and minds of fanatics who hold that their will and that of the Almighty are the same. You kill them faster than their mothers can pump them out. Period.[/quote]
How they treat each of is of little significance, if we want to be the epitome of good, we must act like it. Your second statement is very strange. The majority of terrorists were not indoctrinated from birth to kill westerners, maybe to hate us but Islam is against murder. It is the people who follow the train of thought 'too far' that become terrorists, they feel they can justify their actions. If we give the fire no fuel, it will burn out.


If they are an American Citizen then they receive the full rights of the Constitution.

I'd argue that we should treat everyone in this manner. It makes things a hell of a lot easier and and sets a good example of honor and integrity.

Hard to be a shining example of freedom. democracy, and civil rights when we violate it monthly. Wink

...but that's my opinion,not shared by many on this board.
agreed

[walford]

You should not only ask whether it is legal for the coalition for to detain enemy combatants, but whether we should. I mean, the only thing that will be achieved is to further justify their fight against the west.Uhh...they killed thousands of us on our own soil BEFORE we held anyone at Gitmo. They hate us because we are not like them. We are the Infidel. Our freedom and prosperity stand as tangible evidence that their way of life is not optimal. Therefore, to the likes of them, our very existence is blasphemy.Why did they attack the world trade centers? Most certainly not because of our great 'freedom' or 'prosperity'. The truth is that by performing 9/11 they had much more political motives. If they wanted to attack 'freedom' why didnt they attack sweden or switzerland. But they did not, why? because they have no bases in the middle east.The Wahabbis have no intention of leaving the dar-al-harb (http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/History/dar_islam-harb.htm) intact anywhere -- well, perhaps they have no immediate plans for China. Continental Europe is not spared their wrath because of appeasement. Instead, dar-al-Islam is being infused via erosion from within demographically, culturally and politically. In many ways, the effects are even more broad and pervasive than any bombings in the Americas.

What percentage of people at guantanomo bay were involved in september 11?Gitmo was initially used as a base for people in al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan. I have no figures, but it seems likely that members from elsewhere are being concentrated there as well. There has been no announcement that any of them had any direct involvement in 9/11, including OBL himself. What's your point?

They are soldiers in the Eternal War upon the Infidel. They will be released when the war is called off.



There is always a great outcry when a video is released with a soldier being humiliated, when they hear of the situation at guantanomo bay they must feel the same.What happened at Abu Gharaib ws aberrational. What they do to us and their own is institutionalized. And yet there was no outcry [neither in the West nor in the Middle East] when they killed and brutalized each other wholesale in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You don't win the hearts and minds by behaving just as bad as your enemy.
1. We haven't begun to conduct ourselves anywhere near as badly as they treat EACH OTHER.
How they treat each of is of little significance, if we want to be the epitome of good, we must act like it.Your attempt to slither away from your assertion that we are behaving as badly as them has failed. It is an outrageous lie in fact. The reality is, we are treating them far better than they treat each other. To expect us to play 100% squeaky clean when confronted by such brutality, intolerance and evil intentions is beyond unreasonable. We have conducted ourselves 10 times better than we did during WWII [and with far less loss of life] -- and the stakes are no less grave.


2. There is no winning the hearts and minds of fanatics who hold that their will and that of the Almighty are the same. You kill them faster than their mothers can pump them out. Period.Your second statement is very strange.What I meant by that is that once they become fanatics, there is no appeasing them. Nothing short of our complete and utter destruction will satisfy them. That being acccomplished, they will then turn on each other. Why? Because they're assholes. Thus, you kill them.

The majority of terrorists were not indoctrinated from birth to kill westerners, maybe to hate us but Islam is against murder.But then it's a matter of definition. The Wahabbis subscribe to a doctrine best explained by Sayyid Qutb in which the world is divided into the Islamic one and the Other. Moreover (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51560&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=56),...any place wherein Islam is not practiced is by definition a place of “darkness, heresy and tyranny” that must be liberated as it is the realm of man-worship. Thus, true “Muslims are bound to fight such evils and finish them by means of Jihad.” What sort of accommodation or compromise can be made with such a mindset? Is it simply an extremist viewpoint that would not be embraced if not for the fundamental evil of the United States? Far from it. You will find imams today who justify the Islamic conquest of the Balkans, Asia Minor, North Africa, Iberia, etc. as 'defensive.' We have recently heard other imams pay lip service that the London bombings are wrong, but the suicide bombings in Israel are justified. For them, it is a zero-sum game. There is no meeting halfway.
It is the people who follow the train of thought 'too far' that become terrorists, they feel they can justify their actions. If we give the fire no fuel, it will burn out.For the reasons already explained, we fuel the fire by merely existing. There is no living in peace with the likes of them, I'm sorry. They will not sit down and negotiate like good Westerners because we have nothing to offer them. For them, it is all or nothing.


If they are an American Citizen then they receive the full rights of the Constitution. I'd argue that we should treat everyone in this manner. It makes things a hell of a lot easier and and sets a good example of honor and integrity. Hard to be a shining example of freedom. democracy, and civil rights when we violate it monthly. Wink

...but that's my opinion,not shared by many on this board.agreedFor the Amercan al Qaeda, if they join a group vowed to America's destruction, they should be stripped of citizenship and deported. If they take up arms against their country, they should be given a fair trial for treason and if convicted, shot.

As for the foreign-born al Qaeda we capture, as I explained elsewhere, they are not criminals and are not soldiers -- by choice. Given that, they are not entitled to be treated as such. Insofar as the treatment at our hands is concerned, bear in mind that many of them are in much better shape than they were when originally captured.

They will be released when the global War against the Infidel is over. It is completely up to their leaders. They can choose to try and have influence by peaceful means or continue the bloodshed with the result being far more Western influence in their homelands than would have otherwise been the case.