The mere fact that some faiths take a certain position on the issue is not a sensible reason to take the other side. Whatever you think of "Abrahamic Faiths" is irrelevant, as is the fact that it is a so-called "non-issue" in some parts of the world. The Chinese execute political dissidents; In some parts of India, a widow is expected to commit suicide at her husband's funeral; Muslims behead people for printing cartoons they don't like. These behaviors are sick, immoral, and *wrong*, and so are the cultures/religions that support them.
Western Civilization has rightly outlawed those barbaric practices, and we should do the same with the evil of using defenseless children as spare parts for those fortunate enough to have already been born.
Would you please actually read the Geneva Convention! They do not qualify for POW status - but POW status is an extension of rights granted to all citizens in a conflict area, regardless of their status. There is no unlawful enemy combatant classification in the geneva convention - they still get basic rights, which includes (among other things) an actual court to determine that they are, in fact, not POWs, and basic legal protections (including habeas corpus) found in all western legal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant You have read correctly that the Geneva Conventions do not have a classification of "Unlawful Combatant", however you have drawn the wrong conclusion. The Geneva Conventions are a list of positive rights granted to people who meet certain classifications (e.g., POWs, non-combatants). One of the major aims of the Conventions was to encourage classic army conflicts as opposed to guerilla conflicts, on the theory that guerillas are harder to distinguish from civilians and therefore increase the danger to non-combatants around them. Thus the GC's requirements that POWs must be uniformed members of national armies, carrying arms openly, etc.
Guerilla combatants are *specifically*, *intentionally* afforded none of the protections of POWs (they are only afforded those basic human rights such as food, water, etc.). They certainly have no right to any access to the US civilian court system.
The US Constitution overrules the Geneva Conventions. There are provisions for the suspension of Habeas Corpus, but as expected the Bush administration has been unable to justify it.
The US Constitution applies to "We the People of the United States". The protections and rights described therein do not automatically apply to enemies captured on the battlefield, or any non-US-citizen. The prisoners fall under the purview of the president in his role as Commander-in-Chief.
Don't waste our time with such tripe. We imprison them, attempted to hide them and deny access by the Red Cross, and interrogate and torture them. That rules out "fantastically well".
Actually, the Red Cross has had extensive access to the detainees, and there never was any "torture", despite insinuations to the contrary.
The "presumption of innocence" is for people charged with violations of US criminal law. There is no such thing for battlefield detainees. Recall that these are not alleged muggers picked up on the streets of LA, rather they are enemies captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan & Iraq. If they had been uniformed members of a national army, they would be "Prisoners of war". Because they chose not to follow the rules of warfare, they do not qualify even for the protections for POWs in the Geneva Conventions. If you do not understand this last point (as many people, especially on the political Left, apparently do not), please actually *read* the Geneva Conventions. The protections for POWs listed therein are *explicitly denied* to those who fight without being in uniform, specifically to encourage organized armies rather than guerilla fighters. In either case, holding the prisoners captive until the end of the conflict is both reasonable and necessary.
We treat these people in Guantanamo Bay fantastically well, out of the goodness of our hearts and respect for their basic humanity, such as it is. We are not required to do anything more. These people certainly should not have any access whatsoever to US civil or criminal courts.
This already exists: Neverwinter Nights by Bioware has been out for five years, and allows precisely this level of world-building and adventuring. Additionally, NWN2 (from Obsidian) came out last fall, with increased capabilities and graphics, but it's still pretty rough around the edges.
Slashdot Mirror
The mere fact that some faiths take a certain position on the issue is not a sensible reason to take the other side. Whatever you think of "Abrahamic Faiths" is irrelevant, as is the fact that it is a so-called "non-issue" in some parts of the world. The Chinese execute political dissidents; In some parts of India, a widow is expected to commit suicide at her husband's funeral; Muslims behead people for printing cartoons they don't like. These behaviors are sick, immoral, and *wrong*, and so are the cultures/religions that support them.
Western Civilization has rightly outlawed those barbaric practices, and we should do the same with the evil of using defenseless children as spare parts for those fortunate enough to have already been born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant You have read correctly that the Geneva Conventions do not have a classification of "Unlawful Combatant", however you have drawn the wrong conclusion. The Geneva Conventions are a list of positive rights granted to people who meet certain classifications (e.g., POWs, non-combatants). One of the major aims of the Conventions was to encourage classic army conflicts as opposed to guerilla conflicts, on the theory that guerillas are harder to distinguish from civilians and therefore increase the danger to non-combatants around them. Thus the GC's requirements that POWs must be uniformed members of national armies, carrying arms openly, etc.
Guerilla combatants are *specifically*, *intentionally* afforded none of the protections of POWs (they are only afforded those basic human rights such as food, water, etc.). They certainly have no right to any access to the US civilian court system.
The US Constitution overrules the Geneva Conventions. There are provisions for the suspension of Habeas Corpus, but as expected the Bush administration has been unable to justify it.
The US Constitution applies to "We the People of the United States". The protections and rights described therein do not automatically apply to enemies captured on the battlefield, or any non-US-citizen. The prisoners fall under the purview of the president in his role as Commander-in-Chief.Don't waste our time with such tripe. We imprison them, attempted to hide them and deny access by the Red Cross, and interrogate and torture them. That rules out "fantastically well".
Actually, the Red Cross has had extensive access to the detainees, and there never was any "torture", despite insinuations to the contrary.-Ian
The "presumption of innocence" is for people charged with violations of US criminal law. There is no such thing for battlefield detainees. Recall that these are not alleged muggers picked up on the streets of LA, rather they are enemies captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan & Iraq. If they had been uniformed members of a national army, they would be "Prisoners of war". Because they chose not to follow the rules of warfare, they do not qualify even for the protections for POWs in the Geneva Conventions. If you do not understand this last point (as many people, especially on the political Left, apparently do not), please actually *read* the Geneva Conventions. The protections for POWs listed therein are *explicitly denied* to those who fight without being in uniform, specifically to encourage organized armies rather than guerilla fighters. In either case, holding the prisoners captive until the end of the conflict is both reasonable and necessary.
We treat these people in Guantanamo Bay fantastically well, out of the goodness of our hearts and respect for their basic humanity, such as it is. We are not required to do anything more. These people certainly should not have any access whatsoever to US civil or criminal courts.
This already exists: Neverwinter Nights by Bioware has been out for five years, and allows precisely this level of world-building and adventuring. Additionally, NWN2 (from Obsidian) came out last fall, with increased capabilities and graphics, but it's still pretty rough around the edges.
-Ian