|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 8:35:48 AM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Habeas Corpus wouldn't set them free. It would just give them the ability to challenge their imprisonment, most likely before a military tribunal.
It's like you folks still aren't getting it - this has nothing to do with military tribunals. The court granted them civil rights to be administered in a federal district court.
*Bangs head on the desk*
Like talking to a brick wall.
All the ruling did was reinstate habeas corpus. Legal experts, like Dan Abrams, have talked about this nearly constantly since the ruling went down.
They always had the right of habeas corpus, the court was just acknowledging that. The country isn't going to go up in a mushroom cloud just because the Gitmo prisoners can challenge their imprisonment. It does not grant them carte blanche access to our secrets or anything like that.
Why not have faith that God will see us through this? It would more productive than hand wringing about what might be.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 9:23:26 AM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 2069
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
I keep hearing about this "loving our enemy" stuff, yet the ones trumpeting that conveniently overlook the fact that God does make provision for war when it is necessary, including self defense of one's nation or loved ones.
So I'll ask a fourth time....whre's the same level of outrage over combatants shot and killed in battle? Were they not given due process?
Brick wall, indeed....
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 10:03:42 AM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11506
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
quote:
So I'll ask a fourth time....whre's the same level of outrage over combatants shot and killed in battle? Were they not given due process?
The bolded part is your answer.
_____________________________
Tricia
"There's a fine line between being open-minded and empty-headed." ~Michael Coren
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 10:24:20 AM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 2069
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
So combatants killed in battle without "due process" is okay, but combatants captured in battle without "due process" is not.
Oooookay...
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 10:35:56 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 754
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
So combatants killed in battle without "due process" is okay, but combatants captured in battle without "due process" is not.
takfam, battles have nothing to do with due process. Battle is fighting, while justice involves due process. It involves little details like, you know, making sure you have the right guy and all . . .
The Gitmo detainees were not captured in battle. They are not POWs. Many are incarcerated without charge, and interrogated by unregulated measures. This isn't battle, nor is it justice. It is man's inhumanity to man. It is oppression in its ugliest form.
It is another inquisition, pure, plain, and simple.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 6/19/2008 10:43:06 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 11:01:17 AM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 794
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
It is another inquisition, pure, plain, and simple.
 In what way?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 11:33:21 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
*Bangs head on the desk*
Like talking to a brick wall.
All the ruling did was reinstate habeas corpus. Legal experts, like Dan Abrams, have talked about this nearly constantly since the ruling went down.
They always had the right of habeas corpus, the court was just acknowledging that. The country isn't going to go up in a mushroom cloud just because the Gitmo prisoners can challenge their imprisonment. It does not grant them carte blanche access to our secrets or anything like that.
I could care less what tv personality Dan Abrams said, I read the decision and know what the justices said.
Foreign combatants have never had habeas corpus rights in a civil court in the US, so there were no such rights to ‘reinstate’. The majority completely ignored precedent on this – read Johnson v. Eisentrager – that was the operating precedent, the precedent the President and congress acted on.
quote:
Why not have faith that God will see us through this? It would more productive than hand wringing about what might be.
I have no doubt God’s will won’t be thwarted by any act of man, but that is no basis for sticking one’s head in the sand and being ignorant of the Constitution.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 11:35:07 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
The Gitmo detainees were not captured in battle. They are not POWs. Many are incarcerated without charge, and interrogated by unregulated measures. This isn't battle, nor is it justice. It is man's inhumanity to man. It is oppression in its ugliest form.
It is another inquisition, pure, plain, and simple.
What charge were 425,000 German, Italian, and Japanese detainees incarcerated on during WWII? Was that an 'inquisition'?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 11:38:52 AM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
The Gitmo detainees were not captured in battle. They are not POWs. Many are incarcerated without charge, and interrogated by unregulated measures. This isn't battle, nor is it justice. It is man's inhumanity to man. It is oppression in its ugliest form.
It is another inquisition, pure, plain, and simple.
What charge were 425,000 German, Italian, and Japanese detainees incarcerated on during WWII? Was that an 'inquisition'?
Ask the several thousand Japanese born American citizens who were rounded up without charge and put into detention camps. I think they might have an opinion on that one.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 11:44:31 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Ask the several thousand Japanese born American citizens who were rounded up without charge and put into detention camps. I think they might have an opinion on that one.
I agree whole heartedly on this - and it shows that liberals, who didn't criticize FDR at all on this, are a bit hypocritical on this issue. Were the detainees in Gitmo American citizens, I would be first in line to say full Constitutional rights apply.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 12:02:55 PM
|
|
|
OneJohn410
Posts: 1250
Joined: 6/1/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
So combatants killed in battle without "due process" is okay, but combatants captured in battle without "due process" is not.
takfam, battles have nothing to do with due process. Battle is fighting, while justice involves due process. It involves little details like, you know, making sure you have the right guy and all . . .
The Gitmo detainees were not captured in battle. They are not POWs. Many are incarcerated without charge, and interrogated by unregulated measures. This isn't battle, nor is it justice. It is man's inhumanity to man. It is oppression in its ugliest form.
It is another inquisition, pure, plain, and simple.
That's an incredible piece of knowledge, to claim you know so much about all the detainees and where they were captured- what label they've all been given, and under what conditions. All the U.S. in required to do at this point is say, why- you are being held here because of suspicion of aiding and abetting actions of terror against the world? That's why this is not a terrible thing? Because after that- then suspicious person meekly goes back to their inprisonment and waits to die or is just fine with their current living conditions? Is that enough to satisfy loving each other as wishing to be loved? No. It won't stop there. Why, they should all be given DNA tests to see if there's any traces of 'terroristic gene couplings' that ultimately would prove whether they are terrorists or not, and freed if there's no sign of that. What evidence can be collected and be presented by any kind of prosecution effort in a court of law? Here's suspect #21 in this photo, lighting that fuse there? See that dead family? And who's that over on the edge of the photo there? Yep, it's suspect #21 with that portable missile launcher still smoking. Look, there's a whole group of them with arms raised in some sort of celebratory act like they've scored a touchdown. Making sure you have the right guy? That's not too logical there. The right guy... well, that's great- and what was his mindset at the time, does he claim. Innocent by claim of insanity? He was high on crack cocaine at the time and didn't remember pulling that trigger? Lighting that fuse? How can someone whose life has not been ended in a field of battle, who is likely related to locale, situations, and instances related to the reasons such battle exists- how can civil laws apply to such a person? 21, you are being held here at Gitmo for suspected crimes against the U.S., a nation trying to ensure the world doesn't have car bombs blowing things up all over the place? Who wants to bring people known to do such things to justice under the rules of war against actions such as that.
I can see people standing around following a total bloodbath of innocents, proudly proclaiming yes, I was one of the five here who caused this, and I demand my rights! Don't even think about taking me in to jail if you don't have any proof. Place that in a location in which there is political and military unrest. Is an armed and identifiable soldier of a country going to lovingly lead a nondescript bearer of a semi-automatic weapon, or even something that looks like a weapon, away from the field of battle without explaining to them why they can't hang out with their friends anymore, and why they are not being shot at that time? Really, if the people in isolation settings during a war claim they have no clue as to why they are where they are, then for their own SAFETY, its a good thing their life has been spared, and they be given an opportunity to do some good with it, because someone had a really good reason under the rules of war to help them find safety. I have no idea what the punishments are for breaking rules of war- they probably make civil punishment look inviting. Assuming Gitmo detainees are brainless, clueless as to why they are being held- I'm sorry. That doesn't fly. And it's not worth throwing around state names in this great nation about either in any form of respect or disrespect.
God has placed all leaders in positions of authority here on earth. I have no problem with someone reminding someone else why they are in 'jail' and that they are being held for their own benefit and for the benefit of the world's nations trying to rid others of the desire to do harm to non-combatants (civilians). Don't go off the deep end and extend to them the warm hand of fellow citizenship, and the rights of citizenship of a country not their own. Don't listen to them claim they have no country, and that they want others country to cease to exist. Don't create conditions that allow for others to argue that this should be the case in a country not their own. Don't backstab your own contry's military efforts in keeping the country safe. Don't create laws that would enter into the arena of warfare and tell soldiers their own rules, which are closely watched reviewed, are to be revised to also provide civil liberties, no matter the risk to the soldier.
OneJohn410
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 3:31:13 PM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 450
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
The Gitmo detainees were not captured in battle. They are not POWs. Many are incarcerated without charge, and interrogated by unregulated measures. This isn't battle, nor is it justice. It is man's inhumanity to man. It is oppression in its ugliest form.
It is another inquisition, pure, plain, and simple.
What charge were 425,000 German, Italian, and Japanese detainees incarcerated on during WWII? Was that an 'inquisition'?
We had declared war on Germany, Italy and Japan. The detainees named in the OP action are all citizens of countries that we are not at war with. A different situation, to say the least.
There are significant differences between the current case and Eisenträger, which is pointed out in the current case. For one thing, the Eisenträger petitioners had received trial by military tribunal. Another is the historical context...WWII v. the potentially unending GWOT.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 4:20:31 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2200
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
What happened at Abu Ghraib was regrettable, but hardly indicative of our entire military establishment.
So when are they going to be repatriated? If it will occur after the Afghanistan war remember we're talking 100 years for Iraq and Afghanistan is treated as a minor conflict of two already minor conflicts. We hardly went into Iraq with the men and material we should have which would have been pretty major which is why I made that comment.
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 5:25:16 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2537
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
The military has a justice system that they would use to try "enemy combatants" so why have they just detained people for years when they have the mechanism to try, convict and punish these individuals for their "crimes".
They lack the evidence methinks. Otherwise, they would at least charge these people!!
All this does is show people that as Americans we are the most arrogant, hypocritical and selfish of any nation and that human rights only apply to Americans. (Except when we want to invade another country! Then they matter a whole bunch!)
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 5:27:16 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1981
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Ask the several thousand Japanese born American citizens who were rounded up without charge and put into detention camps. I think they might have an opinion on that one.
I agree whole heartedly on this - and it shows that liberals, who didn't criticize FDR at all on this, are a bit hypocritical on this issue. Were the detainees in Gitmo American citizens, I would be first in line to say full Constitutional rights apply.
quote:
I agree whole heartedly on this - and it shows that liberals, who didn't criticize FDR at all on this, are a bit hypocritical on this issue. Were the detainees in Gitmo American citizens, I would be first in line to say full Constitutional rights apply.
I already criticized him on this.
And I think that liberals, who voted to pay these people reparations back in the '80s, did the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 10:22:05 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
Then we've lost the moral highground and we're no better than the enemy. If that's truly the only way to win we've forgotten the first rule of the fanatic: "When you become obsessed with the enemy you become the enemy."
Strange that was considered one of Patton's strong points and the reason he was a very good field commander...
quote:
I refuse to believe that we have to allow our honored soldiers become monsters to win this war. It seems to be more about revenge than justice at that point and God is very clear that vengence is His and His alone.
There has been and always will parts of the military that operate above, around and over the law...
quote:
I'll close with some words from G.K. Chesterton:
"The true soldier fights, not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
If we fight with hatred in our hearts for what is before us, we have lost before we've even begun.
David fought with hate for his enemies... Perfected hatred... Are you going to say he was wrong?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 11:06:12 PM
|
|
|
PhunkD
Posts: 217
Joined: 2/17/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
There has been and always will parts of the military that operate above, around and over the law...
so? There's always been a lot of things. That doesn't mean that they are good.
quote:
David fought with hate for his enemies... Perfected hatred... Are you going to say he was wrong?
John
I will. God did not want him to build the Temple because of his violence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 11:27:28 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3951
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
1) I'm not a pacifist.
2) The viable alternative: quit dragging our feet and bring the Gitmo detainees to trial. Acquit or convict, then carry out the punishment. But quit leaving everything in limbo.
In all due respect, this would be a horrible precedent to set.
At the end of WWII we had over 425,000 POWs in the US. Not single one expected, or got, a regular civil trial. For us to suddenly start giving such trials would establish a precedent that all prisoners of war should be extended American civil liberties - and as Chief Justice Roberts rightly asked, what is the limit?
Nuremberg trials were an international collaberation and did not take six years and running. The POW's in the US were repatriated unless evidence existed to prosecute for war crimes. Again, WWII is not a good comparison to the GWOT.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 11:28:56 PM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
1) I'm not a pacifist.
2) The viable alternative: quit dragging our feet and bring the Gitmo detainees to trial. Acquit or convict, then carry out the punishment. But quit leaving everything in limbo.
In all due respect, this would be a horrible precedent to set.
At the end of WWII we had over 425,000 POWs in the US. Not single one expected, or got, a regular civil trial. For us to suddenly start giving such trials would establish a precedent that all prisoners of war should be extended American civil liberties - and as Chief Justice Roberts rightly asked, what is the limit?
Nuremberg trials were an international collaberation and did not take six years and running. The POW's in the US were repatriated unless evidence existed to prosecute for war crimes. Again, WWII is not a good comparison to the GWOT.
The comparison was only in the context of the actual trials. Nothing else.
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 11:31:37 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PhunkD
so? There's always been a lot of things. That doesn't mean that they are good.
I responded because there seems to be a disconnect from reality regarding the subject in that it's something new under the sun... I have been on the forum along time and never seen much outrage on the subject till now...
quote:
I will. God did not want him to build the Temple because of his violence.
David was commanded of the Lord to fight those wars. But God not allowing David to build the temple because of this, was not a punishment. God allowed David to recapture the city of Jerusalem. God allowed David to bring in all the materials Solomon would need to build the temple. But the responsibility was Solomon to build it, not Davids. I believe it is is as simple as that. David was chosen to make all things ready to build, and Solomon was chosen to build. There was peace for Solomon because David obeyed the Lord. A reading of Pslams can't escape that fact that God and King David spoke of hate for their enemies and there was no rebuke of it...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/19/2008 11:41:15 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 794
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
1) I'm not a pacifist.
2) The viable alternative: quit dragging our feet and bring the Gitmo detainees to trial. Acquit or convict, then carry out the punishment. But quit leaving everything in limbo.
In all due respect, this would be a horrible precedent to set.
At the end of WWII we had over 425,000 POWs in the US. Not single one expected, or got, a regular civil trial. For us to suddenly start giving such trials would establish a precedent that all prisoners of war should be extended American civil liberties - and as Chief Justice Roberts rightly asked, what is the limit?
Nuremberg trials were an international collaberation and did not take six years and running. The POW's in the US were repatriated unless evidence existed to prosecute for war crimes. Again, WWII is not a good comparison to the GWOT.
The comparison was only in the context of the actual trials. Nothing else.
Okay, but then if you don't mind my asking what did you mean by saying we wouldn't want to have a double standard?
(Oops! I think we're in the wrong thread here for this one, maybe you could answer this in the right one?  )
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/20/2008 12:13:06 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2200
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
If you don't think any of these rights should be extended to our enemies, on what basis do you claim to base the right that they should have a 'trial', and how do they have a trial in an American civil court when no other legal rights have been extended?
No one seems to have thought the logic of this through, particularly the majority on the court.
This is a question I ask myself and I really don't know. Then again no one knows because of this ruling. While I am not a big fan of the SCOTUS deciding something like this it would have been much simpler and probably much better had the SCOTUS made this choice to go with this ruling. They chose not to and that makes this ruling not good.
Perhaps slowly I am starting to see you and Scalia were more right than I thought.
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/20/2008 1:41:13 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 387
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
How 'bout completing that quote. "They're unlawful combatants, and the very definition of evil."
quote:
How about you not skipping the quote, "But the fact is that many of the detainees have never even been charged with anything." If they are "unlawful combatants," then why are no charges brought against them?
Again, because they don't HAVE the right of habeus corpus. I'll ask again, do you know what an unlawful combatant is? You argue as if this classification doesn't exist. It shows the weakness in your logic.
quote:
The Magna Carta gave rights to unlawful combatants and terrorista???!!
The Magna Carta is the basis for habeus corpus and due process. Without these, justice is no more than vigilantism punishing as many innocent victims as truly guilty offenders.
The Magna Carta applied to British subjects only, not to all citizens of the world. That was the point the SC dissenters made, and they're right. No society has ever given rights to non-citizens of their country.
quote:
But even the guilty should not be subject to torture and human abasement.
Do you believe that human life is sacrosanct, or do you not?
Again, what torture? Just because the hysterical left and the media repeat something a million times, that doesn't mean it's true. We're NOT torturing them. I'll quote myself and stick by itquote:
Any other government or people, at any other time in history, would summarily execute these people and anyone who remotely supported them. By treating them with the degree of humaness they're receiving at Gitmo (there's no torture, for God's sake!) our CIC and military leaders are on a moral high road that the rest of the non-western world can't even comprehend.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/20/2008 5:52:55 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2537
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
No society has ever given rights to non-citizens of their country.
You are very wrong here my friend. Rights of non-citizens are protected via treaties with other countries which usually affords them the same (sometimes better) rights as their own countries. If not covered by treaty theirs that little thing called international law that has set a precedent as to how we act with citizens of a foreign nation. At the very least they are afforded access to embassy personnel from their own country.
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/20/2008 6:43:03 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2200
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
No society has ever given rights to non-citizens of their country.
You have the right if you are arrested in almost every country in the world to contact your consulate.
quote:
CONSULAR ACCESS TO PRISONERS: Article 36(a) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, 21 UST 77, TIAS 6820, 596 UNST 261, a multilateral treaty to which many, but not all, countries are party provides that consular officers shall be free to communicate with their nationals and to have access to them. However, Article 36(b) provides that the foreign authorities shall inform the consular officer or the arrest of a national "without delay" (no time frame specified), if the national requests such notification . Bilateral Consular Conventions between the United States and individual countries are more specific, requiring notification, regardless of whether the arrested person requests it, and generally specifying the time period in which such notification is to be made. When there is no treaty in force, notification and access are based on comity and largely dependent on whether the two countries have diplomatic relations.
An addendum to the first, second and fourth Geneva Conventions gives military men AND civilians the right to medical care when in a foreign territory.
quote:
For the purposes of this Protocol:
a) "Wounded" and "sick" mean persons, whether military or civilian, who, because of trauma, disease or other physical or mental disorder or disability, are in need of medical assistance or care and who refrain from any act of hostility. These terms also cover maternity cases, new-born babies and other persons who may be in need of immediate medical assistance or care, such as the infirm or expectant mothers, and who refrain from any act of hostility;
Which includes all of those illegals who come in and definately used to come in to have their babies so that they would get superior care to what they would recieve at home and we'd have to pay for it.
I believe in some countries it is against the law to extradite a person for crimes in their own country if they can fact the death penalty. That is another "right" you can get under some foreign governments.
< Message edited by rlj -- 6/20/2008 6:53:10 PM >
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
