Reply to Charging the Boston bomber(s) as enemy combatants.

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Charging the Boston bomber(s) as enemy combatants. "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The desire to try them as enemy combatants means that they do not have to observe certain rights granted to citizens.  Enemy combatants are not granted protections that were established by the Geneva Convention and are not guaranteed certain rights, such as the right to due process, the right to a speedy trail, etc.  This status gives the government far wider leeway in handling, questioning/interrogating, and otherwise abusing rights that are guaranteed to citizens.

It is highly questionable whether US citizens  can be denied their rights of citizenship based on their participation in a foreign terrorist group.  The Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that such captives could not be denied their access to the US Federal Court system, and the Obama administration has abandoned the  use of the term enemy combatant, but there are still those who want to bypass these Constitutional rights.  This was the point in not reading Dzokhat Tsarnaev his Miranda rights when they arrested him.  They hoped that they could get him declared an enemy combatant before the courts opened up on Monday, but when the courts opened on Monday, they were required to charge him with a crime and read him his Miranda rights.   Very shady authoritarian rule here.  He's a citizen and should be entitled to his Constitutional rights.  [/quote]

Enemy combatants don't get protection under the Geneva Convention?  Have you never watched a war movie???[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics