• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

Here's your misreading j. I'm having a conversation as to why Obama isn't treated completely like Bush. I didn't bring up Bush, as you indicate (a misreading on your part), but merely answer the question to explain the differences. Nothing is being shifted. Nor is any excuse being made as I have noted that I believe Obama is wrong, should not still be continuing with rendition.

So you see, your response is not directed at the actual conversation, but what I can best term a misreading.


Ok, thank you. That I don't have a response for because I didn't read anything before the post I responded to, and I was mistaken in doing such.
 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

It's nice to hear you admit that you believe there are people who have no rights, though.

Ah, so you haven't read the GC.
 
Ah, so you haven't read the GC.

If they aren't POW's then the GC doesn't apply. However then they should be subject to the civilian legal system and under that they do have some rights afforded to them under the constitution.

What we have now is a sham. People who are treated as POWs for the purpose of a detention and trial because it is convenient for the government but are not afforded the rights of POWs because they aren't really POWs yet they are also not afforded the rights civilians are under the constitution because they're being held by the military.

I don't like terrorists as much as the next guy but this isn't justice and we are better than this.
 
If they aren't POW's then the GC doesn't apply. However then they should be subject to the civilian legal system and under that they do have some rights afforded to them under the constitution.

Not at all. They are illegal combatants, and the GC allows summary execution for them. Although there is no reason they cannot be questioned first...
 
Not at all. They are illegal combatants, and the GC allows summary execution for them. Although there is no reason they cannot be questioned first...

No, that doesn't quite cover it. We're not really at war with any nation. Hence, such a reading would not apply.
 
Not at all. They are illegal combatants, and the GC allows summary execution for them. Although there is no reason they cannot be questioned first...

Illegal combatants implies the existence of legal ones which requires a state of war to exist.
Failing that they are at worst simply criminal suspects.
 
I oppose torture, murder (AKA extrajudicial killings), renditions and imprisonment without legitimate due process per the Constitution or Geneva conventions whether its a Democrat or Republican doing it. I felt forced to vote for Obama anyways, because there was no reason to think that Romney would end these practices, and good reason to believe he would expand them.
 
I oppose torture, murder (AKA extrajudicial killings), renditions and imprisonment without legitimate due process per the Constitution or Geneva conventions whether its a Democrat or Republican doing it. I felt forced to vote for Obama anyways, because there was no reason to think that Romney would end these practices, and good reason to believe he would expand them.

However, Obama has continued them....So you based your vote on what you thought Romney may or may not have done, but you have a person that you voted for that has continued what you don't like and you voted for him anyway....Sorry, that is kind of messed up.
 
I oppose torture, murder (AKA extrajudicial killings), renditions and imprisonment without legitimate due process per the Constitution or Geneva conventions whether its a Democrat or Republican doing it. I felt forced to vote for Obama anyways, because there was no reason to think that Romney would end these practices, and good reason to believe he would expand them.

Maybe you should have voted for Gary Johnson. He's against the War On Terror and its torture and rendition.

You would still have voted for a loser, but at least you would not feel guilty about it. ;)
 
However, Obama has continued them....So you based your vote on what you thought Romney may or may not have done, but you have a person that you voted for that has continued what you don't like and you voted for him anyway....Sorry, that is kind of messed up.

Romney made clear he support all of Obama's foreign policies. So, another issue had to divide them.
 
Perhaps the more important part is how that decision was made, who was being killed, and why. I was not at all pleased with the decision to assassinate an American citizen without judicial oversight.
I agree very much on this. :(
However, I do have some qualms about increased used of drones in warfare. I think it dehumanizes the process. Let's say some day we can replace ground combat troops with robots too. Now we have a scenario where we can fight with zero casualties for us. So what's the big deal about going to war? Let's invade everybody! All the while forgetting that there is a serious and terrible human cost to warfare. As awful as it sounds to say, casualties on our side serve a very necessary purpose of reminding us that war is an absolutely horrific process that we should be avoiding at all cost.
I dislike slippery slope reasoning. I dislike being tossed about by emotion driven arguments, that somehow a particular tool doing the task makes a moral difference.

But I really have not found it in myself to disagree that the distance we put between our decision and the outcome carries a huge risk of our society/country losing sight of the weight of that outcome. There is far too much in our nature that drives us to sweep those outcomes under the rug and out of mind, even non-government agents ( Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes | Danger Room | Wired.com ). So ultimately I share these deep qualms about this use of the drones, certainly as we presently handle them and talk about them. That the short-term benefit, and there is no denying that it exists, will come with so very unpleasant longterm ramifications.

Obama is young enough, too, that he just might live to see in-person the reaping of the ill crop from what his administration is sowing here.
 
Last edited:
Do you understand that these people do no qualify for treatment as prisoners of war? That they have no rights? Have you read the Geneva Conventions?

So which category of humans is it that has no rights?

Under which legal document do you find this rather bizarre doctrine?
 
No, that doesn't quite cover it. We're not really at war with any nation. Hence, such a reading would not apply.

Precisely!

In fact, we have been committing 'military aggression' for AT LEAST 11 years now, and that is illegal under international law.
 
So which category of humans is it that has no rights?

Under which legal document do you find this rather bizarre doctrine?

Get back to me after you have read the GC.
 
Not at all. They are illegal combatants, and the GC allows summary execution for them. Although there is no reason they cannot be questioned first...

"While the concept of an unlawful combatant is included in the Third Geneva Convention, the phrase itself does not appear in the document.[1] Article 4 of Third Geneva Convention does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status; and there are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children. In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of this term and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant under United States law. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgment quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[4] because in the opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".[1][5]".Wikipedia

"Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations." About.com

Note the phrase "directly participate in hostilities." This suggests that if someone is attacking you, you can shoot back. It does not suggest that someone who is not actively engaged in hostilities can be murdered or imprisoned without POW status or a trial for their crimes. The USA's Military Commissions Act of 2006 may contradict my understanding of international law and human decency, but that doesn't make it right. Morals, if not the law, require a fair criminal trial to determine whether someone was "directly participate in hostilities" when it is not an obvious situation such a gunfight.
 
Last edited:
Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns - The Washington Post



The Administration has resisted putting any more terrorists in Gitmo, so the alternatives become killing them outright, as in drone attacks, or rendition. Congress has resisted the administration's plan to detain these people in civilian jails and prisons and try them in civilian courts. There is no Senator who welcomes such prisoners in his or her state's courts and prisons.

The other aspect of this particular case is the fact that the three men in question have never had anything to do with the US and were not planning to come to the US or attack the US. They are being prosecuted under a doctrine of universal jurisdiction -- the idea that the US can prosecute criminals that commit crimes anywhere in the world even if they have nothing to do with the US.

Article One of the Constitution allows for prosecution of criminals anywhere in the world who commit crimes recognized as "offenses against the law of nations." What these men are alleged to have done does not fall into that rubric. They were merely participating in a foreign civil war.

Talk about pre 911 thinking. You actually believe that these terrorist groups do not plot against and try to kill US citizens?
 
So... you conservative lot are now against renditions but under Bush you were for them?

And for the record... I passionately believe it is a crime what the US is doing and have been doing. Obama and his administration should be ashamed .. but then again they are just using the tools that the Bush administration put in place.

I don't really care what happens to these Sharia lunatic terrorists - string them up right now and get it over with.

As far as "their rights" they have none as far as I'm concerned.

The truth is I don't think people realize how much these Islamic extremists actually hate us (and all non-Muslims in general). It's only a matter of time before Egypt, Libya and Iran team up to attack Israel or the US. They wouldn't care if their lands were destroyed in the process because dying to them in the name of Islam is an honor, so they could care less if they get erased by a counterstrike.

IMO, it is certainly a means of defense to keep these lunatics from growing and conspiring.

As for the terrorists in GETMO - like I said - string them up.
 
Note the phrase "directly participate in hostilities." This suggests that if someone is attacking you, you can shoot back. It does not suggest that someone who is not actively engaged in hostilities can be murdered or imprisoned without POW status or a trial for their crimes. The USA's Military Commissions Act of 2006 may contradict my understanding of international law and human decency, but that doesn't make it right. Morals, if not the law, require a fair criminal trial to determine whether someone was "directly participate in hostilities" when it is not an obvious situation such a gunfight.

Do I have to wait for him to shoot first? Do I have to wait until the IED goes off, or the plane hits the building? Does "due process" on the battlefield necessarily require judicial process? If the bastard is firing on my mates (and not directly at me, yet) do I really have to go to court for authorization to shoot the s.o.b. or is my direct observation enough to convict him of "directly participating in hostilities" and justify my blowing him away?

There actually was a case like this near the end of WWII. It involved house-to-house fighting, a German soldier threw a grenade into the street at the Allied forces and as soon as the shrapnel settled he ran out with his hands up trying to surrender. The GIs executed the unarmed man on the spot and were court martialed for it. They were acquitted, although the court did not precisely define the length of time that should have passed in order to consider him a noncombatant entitled to judicial process.

"Moral behavior" sometimes requires that you eliminate the scum without benefit of judicial review.
 
I don't really care what happens to these Sharia lunatic terrorists - string them up right now and get it over with.

As far as "their rights" they have none as far as I'm concerned.

The truth is I don't think people realize how much these Islamic extremists actually hate us (and all non-Muslims in general). It's only a matter of time before Egypt, Libya and Iran team up to attack Israel or the US. They wouldn't care if their lands were destroyed in the process because dying to them in the name of Islam is an honor, so they could care less if they get erased by a counterstrike.

IMO, it is certainly a means of defense to keep these lunatics from growing and conspiring.

As for the terrorists in GETMO - like I said - string them up.

Agreed. After thousands of years of domestication, there is still only one way to deal with a mad dog. Although if you can get him to tell you where the rest of the pack is, so much the better.
 
Agreed. After thousands of years of domestication, there is still only one way to deal with a mad dog. Although if you can get him to tell you where the rest of the pack is, so much the better.

I've always thought we should a) microchip them and have them lead us to their "camps" or b) just string them up.

The microchipping route seems to be the most logical.
 
I've always thought we should a) microchip them and have them lead us to their "camps" or b) just string them up.

The microchipping route seems to be the most logical.

That's a good thought.

One of the more entertaining ideas I heard when the Afghan war started: Capture Mullah Omar, transport him to a carrier, give him a quick operation and shoot him up with the necessary hormones, then send him back to live under Taliban rule as a woman.
 
Get back to me after you have read the GC.

Please note post #65 by Hard Truth.

Keep in mind sir, please, that we are committing military aggression in Asia. That is WE ARE NOT engaged in a legitimate declared war. We ARE engaged in international criminal actions.
 
Talk about pre 911 thinking. You actually believe that these terrorist groups do not plot against and try to kill US citizens?

Not at all. Quite the opposite. But US prosecutors are not even alledging that these men were going to attack the US.

Just one more way that the Obama administration is expanding executive powers. If Bush were doing this civil libertarians, the press, and the Democrats would be screaming bloody murder.
 
Please note post #65 by Hard Truth.

Keep in mind sir, please, that we are committing military aggression in Asia. That is WE ARE NOT engaged in a legitimate declared war. We ARE engaged in international criminal actions.

It is true that we are not engaged in a war against a recognized government, which would require a declaration of war. We are employing our military forces to find and kill those who have committed heinous crimes against our people. I suggest you read The Savage Wars Of Peace by Max Boot to improve your historical perspective on this type of action.
 
Please note post #65 by Hard Truth.

Keep in mind sir, please, that we are committing military aggression in Asia. That is WE ARE NOT engaged in a legitimate declared war. We ARE engaged in international criminal actions.


"The Authorization for Use of Military Force [1] is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001."


Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom