Family Demands U.S. Rights for Prisoner

AP | 7/04/03

[kattracks]

What makes an American? - Michelle Malkin

[petuniasevan]

The media is STILL angling for a sob story on Talibunnies like this guy. Like I'm supposed to feel sorry for a jihadi who got caught and gets 3 squares a day, medical care, and a mat and a sign pointing to Mecca.

How many articles do you read about the continuing gaping holes in Lower Manhattan; in the victims' families' lives? How many news outlets mention the pain and anger of relatives and friends of MURDERED INNOCENT CIVILIANS?

I guess 9/11 is just not news anymore.

P.S. To the parents: We haven't heard ONE WORD of apology from you, just complaints. Stuff it.

[noutopia]

Feed him bread and water till he tells all he knows.

[DoughtyOne]

Sorry but this guy is lucky not to be pushing up daisies already.

[noutopia]

Happy 4th everyone~~~~~~~

[Lion Den Dan]

This guy is caught as a prisoner of war, bearing arms against the US and a U.S Citizen. In WW I or WW II he would not be with us now.

[angkor]

In January, a U.S. court of appeals reviewing Hamdi's case ruled that U.S. citizens captured overseas could be treated as enemy combatants without concern for the rights normally afforded in criminal cases.

Case closed.

[Vigilanteman]

Feed him bread and water till he tells all he knows.

In Saudi Arabia, families of the prisoners are expected to provide the bread and water.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..in January, a U.S. court of appeals reviewing Hamdi's case ruled that U.S. citizens captured overseas could be treated as enemy combatants...

Then why aren't the Gitmo prisoners being afforded the rights of an enemy combatant?

[Brian Allen]

<< Then why aren't the Gitmo prisoners being afforded the rights of enemy combatants? >>

They are.

With the emphasis on enemy.

They are not, however, prisoners of war and are thus not entitled to any of the "rights" granted by the geneva convention. They are the captured enemies of the United States of America and are subject to United States' Law.

Almost 100% of those who have been released, by the way, have been extremely generous in their reports of how well they were treated whilst being held by the United States of America.

[Guillermo]

If the prisoners at Gitmo were treated under the Geneva Conventions, they would have been executed long ago.

They were fighting against US forces, but were not wearing a military uniform nor did they possess identification confirming they were military regulars. Under the Geneva Connvention, they are considered sabateurs, and can be executed ON THE SPOT. These rat bastards are lucky to be alive, and are only alive due to the benevolence of the USA.


So take your terrorist sympathies elsewhere, punk.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..under the Geneva Connvention, they are considered sabateurs, and can be executed ON THE SPOT...

What utter nonsense. The Geneva convention says no such thing and a US court has found they're enemy combatants. PS save the hot air for someone who cares

[Byron_the_Aussie]

G'day Bri,

in a huge rush so can't elaborate at length but my view is we should not surrender, in our rage, to the temptation to use the enemy's tactics- be it with the treatment of prisoners, or anything else. I reckon if we stick to the rule book it draws a clearer delineation between them, and us. Treat POWs justly and the enemy is more likely to surrender, than fight it out. Back in a week, happy 4th July, By

[1rudeboy]

Without reading the opinion itself, this article suggests that the appeals court decision concerned U.S. citizens, and not foreign nationals. The case you need to read is that WW2-era one concerning the Nazi saboteurs.

[Skywalk]

Remember that this guy was taken after the prison uprising. If a POW surrenders only as a gambit to buy time, he can be executed after re-capture.

So this is another point on which you're wrong.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

Bri, one idea that might resonate with you especially, a God-fearing man- have you read of Cromwell's campaign, in Ireland? He would arrive with his army outside a walled castle, where the defenders were prepared for a siege, and a battle to the death. Instead of attacking, Cromwell would in many cases reason with them; saying, basically, that his military success proved God was on his side, and that were his men to attack, their castle would fall like so many others. Being inspired, by the example of his merciful God, he would instead offer terms for surrender. Would that argument work with Arabs, given their Old Testament sensibilities?

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..if a POW surrenders only as a gambit to buy time, he can be executed after re-capture....

Prisoners cannot be summarily executed under any circumstances, Skywalk. Wake up to yourself, on Independence Day of all days. Conduct yourself according to the principles on which your country was founded and which has made her great. We will hold the high ground by acting in accordance with the rules of war, not by carrying on like the SS in the Ukraine. Cheers, By

[Phsstpok]

What utter nonsense. The Geneva convention says no such thing

Actually, it does

and a US court has found they're enemy combatants.

The legal phrase being used is "illegal enemy combatants," which is the phrase in the papers surrounding the Geneva Conventions (there are many) referring to someone who doesn't comply with the requirements for a "legal combatant." The main distinction being the uniform and papers referenced by the earlier poster. The difference in the treatment of the two groups is that "legal combatants" are subject to the legal protections of the conventions and "illegal combatants" (spys, sabeteurs, etc.) are not thus protected. By definition the military forces involved can do as they see fit with illegal combatants, which almost always means summary execution.

this is distinct from the obligations of a military for non-combatants. It's therefore very important that they have been identified as combatants. The significance is that they can't say "I was in the wrong place at the wrong time," as these folks are trying to say about their son. The only benefit they'll get out of claming that their son is an American citzen (he was born here while his Saudi parents were in town) is that he can therefore be charged with the only crime enumerated in the constitution, Treason. The big requirement of that crime is that there are at least two witnesses to the treasonous act. I think he qualifies. That's the part of the Constitution that specifically allows capital punishment, you know.

[mtbopfuyn]

A wife? Isn't Miss Piggy available?