Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's?

[Saint Marcus]

the US can't execute POWs just like that, since it will have to respect the Geneva Convention, and it can only execute POWs after they recieve a trial, or something resembling a trial, and have been found guilty. However, after this has happened the POWs are no longer POWs but warcriminals. So to answer your question, the US shouldn't and can't execute POWs.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Mark L
the US can't execute POWs just like that, since it will have to respect the Geneva Convention, and it can only execute POWs after they recieve a trial, or something resembling a trial, and have been found guilty. However, after this has happened the POWs are no longer POWs but warcriminals. So to answer your question, the US shouldn't and can't execute POWs.

Mark, the Tallies and Bin Laden boys never signed the convention, remember?

It doesn't apply to them, nor does any other leagal convention, because they don't represent a country, but a criminal organization.

I thought you would have picked up on this by now.

[Saint Marcus]

The US signed the convention, and the POWs are in US custody. It doesn't matter if the party of the POWs signed it or not.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mark L
the US can't execute POWs just like that, since it will have to respect the Geneva Convention, and it can only execute POWs after they recieve a trial, or something resembling a trial, and have been found guilty.

Which Military Tribunals will serve the purpose of admirably.

So to answer your question, the US shouldn't and can't execute POWs.

Perhaps you could be persuaded to explain in greater detail than AH has done so far becuase I fail to see how the death penalty is in violation of international law.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Mark L
The US signed the convention, and the POWs are in US custody. It doesn't matter if the party of the POWs signed it or not.

Irrelevant.
The convention only applies to signatories.

Bin Bozo and One eye never signed, therefore, they cannot gain it's protection, they are CRIMINALS, not war prisoners, but your welcome to try again.

[The ANZAC]

Personally, I agree completely with Bush on the matter. These terrorists don't deserve the right to a normal trial, even though this trial has many things that are not so military trial-like. For these terrorists, they should get the death penalty. Why should they enjoy the right to live, when they have removed that from so many others? But preferably, I would like something else done, but it never will be because of the US legal system. I would really like to see them go to forced labor camps, building roads and public works for us. That would make something think twice about committing terrorism. And we wouldn't be wasting money on executing them, but they would be saving us money doing these works.

[Khan Singh]

Having the status of a Prisoner of War does not magically absolve you from any crimes you may have commited, in uniform or out. Nor does it prevent trial for those crimes by the capturing power. Assuming that its court-martial meets the basic standards of civilized justice, then any prisoners who appear to have organized or helped carry out acts of international terror can be justly tried by such courts, and punished. If the crimes are sufficiently severe, and the guilt sufficiently established, the death penalty is a long established punishment to which there is absolutely no legal impediment.

With that said, it would certainly would be impolitic, and probably unjust, to execute large numbers of Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners. Only the ringleaders and those in on the planning or carrying out of actual terror incidents deserve death. But there doesn't seem to be any question that this is exactly what is planned. So what's the complaint?

[Kropotkin]

Personally, I agree completely with Bush on the matter. These terrorists don't deserve the right to a normal trial

Ie; 'you' are no better than 'them'. Convictions without and beforehand a fair trial is just what 'they' did when they flew a couple of planes into centers of economic and military power.

[Immortal Wombat]

Re: Re: Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's?

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If we opperate under Bush's assumption that the 9/11 attacks were an act of war then the use of military tribunals is black letter law internationally.

Originally posted by Chris 62
they are CRIMINALS, not war prisoners, but your welcome to try again.

?

Criminal -> fair open trial
PoW (Geneva) -> Military Tribunal
PoW (non-Geneva) -> Who the hell cares?

yeah?

[Dr. Nick]

This reminds me of the end of the Monty Python and the Holy Grail, when the police break in and arrest both armies on possession of weapons.

First, this is a war, correct? It doesn't matter if the Taliban have not signed the Geneva Convention, the US signed it. The US therefore held human life in high respect. Therefore, why are you going to execute POWs? Secondly, POWs cannot be held before trial. Trial for what? I thought all people were innocent until proved guilty, not the other way around. Most of these men fighting the Americans are privates. Should we then round up all the soldiers in the SS and shoot them for "Aid in the Holocaust"? No, these men were following orders, that's why you only try high officials. Even then, war tribunals can only take place once the war is over, when the men are no longer POWs.

What defense can be offered if your ass was dragged from an Al Quida cave, that you were a tourist?

Why have a phoney trial then if all their death warrants have been signed already?

POWs are prisoners taken from the other side regardless whether they Taliban, Al-Qaeda or anything else. Unless they are caught doing acts deemed of espionage, they have to be held prisoners until the war is over. Once the US pull out, they will have to be returned, unless there's evidence that they are criminals. You can't start executing people after a phoney trial just because they live in a cave, own an AK-47, have a beard and wear a turban.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: Re: Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's?

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
yeah?

What's so confusing about what I said? It's not like we would be able to bring these defendants before an International tribunal as some hear would apparently prefer. The shear number of potential defendants would overwhelm the realistic ability of international courts to handle them. As an example, only 31 individuals have been tried by the Yugoslav tribunal in 8 years, at a cost of $400 million. Imagine the costs of opperating with jurisdiction in this area. There are other faults with international courts but that one is the most glaring.

[faded glory]

If they didnt sign the geneva convention its irrelevant. Look what the Vietnamese Pig **** ers did to our POWS? They didnt sign the Geneva crap...so its irrelevant..


I dont think Talib and Al-Queda should be treated like humans...they never gave anyone under there leadership that privelege.

Without a doubt, they should be put to death, lest the re-corrupt the arab populace with there hatred.

[DinoDoc]

nm

[Hueij]

Originally posted by faded glory
If they didnt sign the geneva convention its irrelevant. Look what the Vietnamese Pig **** ers did to our POWS? They didnt sign the Geneva crap...so its irrelevant..

Good that you bring those Vietnamese Pig****ers up. I seem to remember a certain American Army Captain who was responsible for the execution of a lot of Vietnamese Pig****er woman and children in My Lai. I still remember the photo's in Life magazine at the time. I also seem to remember that said Captain got away with a slap on the wrist. But then again, those people didn't sign the Convention. Serves them right I guess...

I dont think Talib and Al-Queda should be treated like humans...they never gave anyone under there leadership that privelege.

So you are no better than them? They didn't think of the people they killed on 911 and on other occassions as people so you have the moral right to do the same?

Without a doubt, they should be put to death, lest the re-corrupt the arab populace with there hatred.

Maybe, just maybe you should ask yourself where that hatred comes from?

[faded glory]

Good that you bring those Vietnamese Pig****ers up. I seem to remember a certain American Army Captain who was responsible for the execution of a lot of Vietnamese Pig****er woman and children in My Lai. I still remember the photo's in Life magazine at the time. I also seem to remember that said Captain got away with a slap on the wrist. But then again, those people didn't sign the Convention. Serves them right I guess...

So sad to see pathetic people like yourself, think its ok to tie american pilots down, beat them, burn them, and then urinate in there mouths.....Your freakin pathetic...as for the army captain, wasnt that accident? I cannot say the same for the actions of your Pig-**** ing/Goat ramming friends..

So you are no better than them? They didn't think of the people they killed on 911 and on other occassions as people so you have the moral right to do the same?

tsk.....tsk.....to the victor goes the spoils. And look who won? No mercy, weeks before there capture they talked of jihad and genocide against babies and women in buildings...now the irony is they are crying like women and babies.

These people are too dangerous to lock up...besides, who wants to pay for them?

Maybe, just maybe you should ask yourself where that hatred comes from?

So its ok to blow 4,700 people up in buildings?


In case you havent been paying attention to the new lately, the is from a few fringe, disenchanted fanatics of a largely peaceful religon. Oh ya, or are you wanna of those people who thinks "US policy" is too blame. Just because we have supported Israel...Bombed Iraq?? Pa'h.....


We(america) once again, will have the last word. Its only a matter of time before fix some of the issues I mentioned above.