With the Stroke of a Pen...

[CassandraNova]

"Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked. All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order. . . .

"From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government . . . may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation . . . issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009. . . .

"Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States. . . .

"Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3 . Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes."

[Oniya]

Thank goodness - although it might take a year or more to actually shut the place down.

[Zeitgeist]

Totally breaking my own unwritten rule here, but hey, its my rule.

There are those who take great glee in the belief that those detained in Gitmo are having the screws put to them daily and that government spooks are torturing them out of some sort of order by Cheney and Bush. We'll there is no proof of that, no evidence. Yes, there is one there we water boarded, among a small handful of others. But to think Gitmo is some sort of torture complex is not being realistic. Not that anyone in this thread or here said such, but there are many that like to believe the very worse of our government and country.

Also, this order, as it is presented does not speak specifically to Gitmo detainees. Though that mat be the assumed interpretation.

More important and to my point of replying. Why give your enemy the benefit of knowing what we are willing and not willing to do when if comes to interrogations? Personally I think that is foolish. Regardless of what you may or may not believe is right and wrong, why give that information away?

You might say perception is reality and that the idea we might harm people in our custody does our country damage. We'll to be honest, I'll take a bad reputation over the events of 9/11 happening again in heart beat.

But still, why not let people believe what they might, it only matters what we really do, and there are back channels to let our allies know what we really are or are not doing to any detainees, so as to calm any concerns. So whether you torture or water board or not, why even say? I think its foolish, and naive personally.

[CassandraNova]

There are those who take great glee in the belief that those detained in Gitmo are having the screws put to them daily and that government spooks are torturing them out of some sort of order by Cheney and Bush. We'll there is no proof of that, no evidence. Yes, there is one there we water boarded, among a small handful of others.

There are two points on which I must respectfully disagree with you.  First of all, waterboarding is torture.  According to Judge Wallach in the Columbia Journal of International Law Review, within the past century:

• Members of the Japanese military were prosecuted for their treatment of Americans during World War II. Seitara Hata was just one Japanese soldier charged with a war crime for waterboarding; Hatara was sentenced to 25 years hard labor.
• A Sheriff of San Jacinto County was convicted for waterboarding Americans suspected of crimes in order to obtain confessions. The judge in the case said upon sentencing the Sheriff that “the operation down there would embarrass the dictator of a country.”
• U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel William Harrison came home from the Korean War, and his treatment by waterboarding was showcased as an example of the immorality of his North Korean captors. His experience of waterboarding was characterized as torture.
• Army investigations of the treatment of Vietnamese detainees at the hands of American soldiers uncovered waterboarding — and specifically termed it torture.

But to think Gitmo is some sort of torture complex is not being realistic. Not that anyone in this thread or here said such, but there are many that like to believe the very worse of our government and country.

Including such people as Susan Crawford?  Judge Crawford is not a person I would think that believes the worst of her government and country, as she was the convening authority of the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. Before that gig, she served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general.

And yet Ms. Crawford gave an interview to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, in which she stated without equivocation that the treatment of alleged 20th Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed al-Qahtani at Guantanamo Bay was "torture."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html?hpid=topnews

Tortured.  Not, "subjected him to enhanced interrogation techniques."  Not subjected to advanced interview regimes, not abused or mistreated.  Tortured.  And because of this, Ms. Crawford would not allow the tribunal case against al-Qahtani to proceed.

[Ket]

Gitmo is not the only detainee camp the US has.  There have been issues with abuse at other places, though the news coverage has not been as wide spread.

And while people will probably hate me for saying this, I'm saying it anyways.  While I agree that even detainees should be treated as humanely as possible, they don't always treat our soldiers and sailors that way.  There are times when brute force is the only option.  While it is not allowed to degrade detainees, even just with words, they are allowed to degrade our service members with more than just words.  As the system is now, those service members just have to buck up and take it. 

An overhaul of the prison camps has been ongoing for the past 3 years.  However, no law passed will end the torture, the abuse, the things that go on behind the scenes until there are no longer prison camps.  One can only hope that the soldiers, sailors and airmen who must do their duty at these places hold themselves to the codes of honor the military has in place and do the right thing. 

[Oniya]

Okay, I'll give you the whole 'keep them guessing' advantage, but let me pose another scenario:

In Massachusetts right now, there is a trial going on where the defendant has been awaiting trial for ten years.  For those ten years, she has been housed in a full-fledged prison, since there is no women's jail.  She is also illiterate, and has an IQ below 75 (I've heard 70 and 71).  As a result, she may have a) confessed falsely to protect the actual criminal (her son was under investigation at the time), b) been manipulated into confessing falsely, and/or c) not been able to comprehend her Miranda rights or waiving them.  

Those ten years have been spent going up and down the appeals courts to ascertain the admissibility of her statements to police - which weren't recorded, by the way.  Despite the length of time that she's been in prison, and her right to a speedy trial, her appeals were not expedited.

Are you appalled?

Now, is this any different from the people that are being held at Gitmo without access to lawyers on the basis of even less evidence?  If the government thinks they're guilty, try them.  Put out the evidence, and do it right.  If they're just going to warehouse them, call it a gulag and be honest about it.

[Zeitgeist]

Cass - I'm not going to quibble over what constitutes torture. More to my point is, why give our enemy the benefit of knowing what we will or wont do when our allies can be quietly assured we are not doing anything that would be of concern.

Additionally, I do believe we took out one of the more prolific and modern torturers and sadists in one Saddam Hussein. What did the Iraqi people do with him? They strung him up on a rope. I understand he flopped about too, before his end was met.

No, I'm not going to debate the wisdom or righteousness of taking out Saddam, I'm just saying, this country does not have anything to be ashamed of, in my opinion. The rest of the world is far ahead of us when it comes to torturous activities.

[Zeitgeist]

Okay, I'll give you the whole 'keep them guessing' advantage, but let me pose another scenario:

In Massachusetts right now, there is a trial going on where the defendant has been awaiting trial for ten years.  For those ten years, she has been housed in a full-fledged prison, since there is no women's jail.  She is also illiterate, and has an IQ below 75 (I've heard 70 and 71).  As a result, she may have a) confessed falsely to protect the actual criminal (her son was under investigation at the time), b) been manipulated into confessing falsely, and/or c) not been able to comprehend her Miranda rights or waiving them.  

Those ten years have been spent going up and down the appeals courts to ascertain the admissibility of her statements to police - which weren't recorded, by the way.  Despite the length of time that she's been in prison, and her right to a speedy trial, her appeals were not expedited.

Are you appalled?

Now, is this any different from the people that are being held at Gitmo without access to lawyers on the basis of even less evidence?  If the government thinks they're guilty, try them.  Put out the evidence, and do it right.  If they're just going to warehouse them, call it a gulag and be honest about it.

I agree, that is appalling. However, we don't fashion laws to fit exceptions, we pass them to fit the likely scenario and adjust accordingly. In other words, appalling as it is, and deserving of attention the situation might be, this is an exception rather than the rule and doesn't wash away all the things that do go right.

I don't disagree with you about calling Gitmo what it is, indeed, call it what it is. The legalities are quite messy indeed, but Obama is faced with all the same issues the past administration was. Perhaps a better solution will be found, but I don't see it.

[Valerian]

No, I'm not going to debate the wisdom or righteousness of taking out Saddam, I'm just saying, this country does not have anything to be ashamed of, in my opinion. The rest of the world is far ahead of us when it comes to torturous activities.

Simply being less terrible than certain other countries doesn't give the US anything to be proud of, either.

Part of what has given the US such a terrible international reputation lately (aside from Junior, may he never darken Washington with his presence again) is the fact the we're seen as putting ourselves above the usual restrictions of law and sometimes even common decency, thanks to places like Gitmo.  It's entirely possible that this public downstepping of those activities, whatever name you want to give them, may actually begin to lessen the need for such measures.  Of course that won't happen anytime soon, but it has to start somewhere.

[PhantomPistoleer]

Cass - I'm not going to quibble over what constitutes torture. More to my point is, why give our enemy the benefit of knowing what we will or wont do when our allies can be quietly assured we are not doing anything that would be of concern.

Additionally, I do believe we took out one of the more prolific and modern torturers and sadists in one Saddam Hussein. What did the Iraqi people do with him? They strung him up on a rope. I understand he flopped about too, before his end was met.

No, I'm not going to debate the wisdom or righteousness of taking out Saddam, I'm just saying, this country does not have anything to be ashamed of, in my opinion. The rest of the world is far ahead of us when it comes to torturous activities.

You are justifying immoral and unlawful conduct by rationalizing that it's not as bad as the immoral and unlawful conduct of other nations.  This is a sublimely stupid rationalization for two reasons: it reasons that as long as we act in a manner that is less grievous than other nations, we're doing okay; it allows and actualizes immoral and unlawful behavior.

[Oniya]

We should lead by example, is all I'm saying.  Treat the prisoners as prisoners.  Providing access to lawyers and setting timely trial dates is something that we've done for 'the worst of the worst' under our laws.  If Timothy McVeigh could be given that, there's no reason to actively withhold it from the 'detainees' like they have.

[Zakharra]

We should lead by example, is all I'm saying.  Treat the prisoners as prisoners.  Providing access to lawyers and setting timely trial dates is something that we've done for 'the worst of the worst' under our laws.  If Timothy McVeigh could be given that, there's no reason to actively withhold it from the 'detainees' like they have.

There lies the problem. The people in Git mo are prisoners of war. not criminals caught in the US. that means they fall under a different set of rules and access to the US justice system is not part of it. Timothy McVeigh was apprehended in a criminal investogation, not captured on the battlefield in a time of war. People also forget the US does not subscribe to all of the Geneva Convention, but only parts and where we and the world run into problems is the interpretation of of those rules. The US saw it one way, Europe saw it another, yet by their interpretation, both were right/wrong. How would that be resolved?

[CassandraNova]

Oddly enough, I was under the impression that it took an act of Congress to declare war.

[Oniya]

Timothy McVeigh was apprehended in a criminal investogation, not captured on the battlefield in a time of war.

To my recollection, the people at Gitmo weren't captured on a battlefield any more than the Japanese-Americans were captured during WWII.  Apparently the government wasn't as embarrassed by that incident as I thought.

People also forget the US does not subscribe to all of the Geneva Convention, but only parts and where we and the world run into problems is the interpretation of of those rules. The US saw it one way, Europe saw it another, yet by their interpretation, both were right/wrong. How would that be resolved?

I'd have to have a list of what the US subscribes to and what they don't to debate this effectively.  I do believe that 'humane treatment of prisoners' was one of the ones that was kept.

[Trieste]

I have to admit to a certain visceral urge to lay one of the people we have in custody out and kick them repeatedly until they cry. It's the same visceral reaction to hearing about a heinous crime - and I am against the death penalty, and certainly opposed to holding pens like GB. People are not against places like GB because they feel that the 'other side' deserves better, per se, but because we, as a country, should be held to a higher standard. It's the self-righteousness and the judgmental attitude that gets us in trouble in international cases - for right or for wrong, depending on if you are a relativist or a universalist.

But it doesn't mean I don't cringe for family members and friends who are still in the service and, like Ket, hope that they're being treated okay.

[Valerian]

The US has ratified all of the Geneva conventions except the first as far as I know, and the provisions of the first were included in the second.

The text of the third Geneva Convention (regarding the treatment of prisoners of war) can be found here.  Articles 17 through 20 are the most relevant.  They don't allow for anything remotely like torture.

Whether or not the prisoners at Gitmo or any similar facility are actually prisoners of war is, as Cassandra implied, another question, however, and the root of many of the problems.

[CassandraNova]

Interestingly enough, Dr. Wikipedia says on the qualifications for prisoners of war:

To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, "terrorists", saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify.

[Trieste]

So you're pointing out that the folks in these detention facilities are not actually protected under the regulations re: POWs regardless of whether a war has been declared by Congress, because unless they are uniformed, enlisted, and saying "Sir", they don't count. It seems to make this post ...

Oddly enough, I was under the impression that it took an act of Congress to declare war.

... irrelevant.

It probably would be good to reiterate a point if you're trying to make one, unless you want to be misunderstood, and understandably so.

[Zakharra]

Oddly enough, I was under the impression that it took an act of Congress to declare war.

It did. There is no set formula in the Constitution that is definate for a declaration of war. The Congress did give the President authority to go after the terrorists in the manner he thoiught best. That is in essance, a declaration of war.

To my recollection, the people at Gitmo weren't captured on a battlefield any more than the Japanese-Americans were captured during WWII.  Apparently the government wasn't as embarrassed by that incident as I thought.

Caught overseas in the battlefield with a gun in their hand or evidence they were fighting US forces. Essentually, the enemy.

The US has ratified all of the Geneva conventions except the first as far as I know, and the provisions of the first were included in the second.

The text of the third Geneva Convention (regarding the treatment of prisoners of war) can be found here.  Articles 17 through 20 are the most relevant.  They don't allow for anything remotely like torture.

Whether or not the prisoners at Gitmo or any similar facility are actually prisoners of war is, as Cassandra implied, another question, however, and the root of many of the problems.

No. It's only ratified some parts, not all. That much I do know. Also the Geneva convention only applies to uniformed enemy fighters. The terrorists fall into a gray area. As far as the US is concerned, it is 1; war and the terrorists are 2; prisoners of war, that do not fall under the regulations of the Geneva Convention.

Interestingly enough, Dr. Wikipedia says on the qualifications for prisoners of war:

That's interesting it too mentions 'Lawful' uniformed combatants. Not a terrorist.

[Zakharra]

1So you're pointing out that the folks in these detention facilities are not actually protected under the regulations re: POWs regardless of whether a war has been declared by Congress, because unless they are uniformed, enlisted, and saying "Sir", they don't count. It seems to make this post ...

2... irrelevant.

It probably would be good to reiterate a point if you're trying to make one, unless you want to be misunderstood, and understandably so.

1The Geneva Convention is for war between nations, not ideologies, which by their nature, ignore man's rules since they are working for a higher purpose and the ends justify the means.


2: It is relevant. He asked, twice, for the authority to  go to war, to take the fight to those that had attacked out counry and those that supported it.

[Trieste]

... but we didn't go to war. Whether or not a war has been declared is irrelevant to the treatment of freedom fighters, terrorists, backyard bombers, or whatever else you want to call them. They don't count as POWs by the definition posted by Cass.

[Oniya]

To my recollection, the people at Gitmo weren't captured on a battlefield any more than the Japanese-Americans were captured during WWII.  Apparently the government wasn't as embarrassed by that incident as I thought.

Caught overseas in the battlefield with a gun in their hand or evidence they were fighting US forces. Essentually, the enemy.

I was actually referring to this incident.  There is a disturbing number of Gitmo 'detainees' who were picked up reasons no better than these people.

[Zakharra]

... but we didn't go to war. Whether or not a war has been declared is irrelevant to the treatment of freedom fighters, terrorists, backyard bombers, or whatever else you want to call them. They don't count as POWs by the definition posted by Cass.

??  The US did go to war.

[Trieste]

Apologies, that wasn't clear.

Zakharra, I'm referring to this post. I was also asking CassandraNova to clarify her point; yours are understandable.

The 'war on terror' ... thing... is not an officially declared war unless I missed a press release somewhere (god, I hope not) so, much like with Vietnam (and possibly Korea; I don't recall if the Korean war was actually declared or not but I think it was), we find ourselves having to try and find a code of conduct for people captured under conflict, people who are considered enemies, but people for whom there is no official protection or designation save for under humanitarian laws.

Does that clear it up a little?

[Zakharra]

Caught overseas in the battlefield with a gun in their hand or evidence they were fighting US forces. Essentually, the enemy.


I was actually referring to this incident.  There is a disturbing number of Gitmo 'detainees' who were picked up reasons no better than these people.

Wome have been undoubtably captured  mistakenly and I do think they should have been processed much faster than they were. So they can be released.

[Zakharra]

Apologies, that wasn't clear.

Zakharra, I'm referring to this post. I was also asking CassandraNova to clarify her point; yours are understandable.

The 'war on terror' ... thing... is not an officially declared war unless I missed a press release somewhere (god, I hope not) so, much like with Vietnam (and possibly Korea; I don't recall if the Korean war was actually declared or not but I think it was), we find ourselves having to try and find a code of conduct for people captured under conflict, people who are considered enemies, but people for whom there is no official protection or designation save for under humanitarian laws.

Does that clear it up a little?

Oops. misunderstod you then. My apoligies.  :)

The Korean 'War' was a police action, not a war persay. This current war is, as some argue, not legally a war, but it can be argued strongly that it is legally a war. There is no set way in the Consitution for war to be delared, except by Congress authorizing it. Which they essentually did with two (2) authorizations.

Technically, Korean is still a hot action, the fighting is just stopped under a cease-fire that can be terminated by either side for any reason at any time.

[Valerian]

No. It's only ratified some parts, not all. That much I do know. Also the Geneva convention only applies to uniformed enemy fighters. The terrorists fall into a gray area. As far as the US is concerned, it is 1; war and the terrorists are 2; prisoners of war, that do not fall under the regulations of the Geneva Convention.

The US did not ratify the two added protocols of 1977, if that's what you mean.  Those protocols deal with the protection of victims in international conflicts -- that is, civilians.  So if you take the position that the detainees in places like Gitmo are in fact prisoners of war, those protocols don't come into play.

Really, though, it's as Trieste said -- most terrorists don't quite fit that definition anyway, so technically, the GC as a whole doesn't matter in this context, even aside from the question of whether war has legally been declared.  If the conventions were to be updated at this point in time, however, I suspect the definition of a POW might become noticeably different.

[Zeitgeist]

You are justifying immoral and unlawful conduct by rationalizing that it's not as bad as the immoral and unlawful conduct of other nations.  This is a sublimely stupid rationalization for two reasons: it reasons that as long as we act in a manner that is less grievous than other nations, we're doing okay; it allows and actualizes immoral and unlawful behavior.

I'm only saying, when people wring their hands, worry and eschew over the reputation of America abroad, they seem to conviently forget that there are far, far worse things going on around the world than overfeeding terrorists in Gitmo.

To justify stealing because murder is worse, yes, that would be 'sublimely stupid'. But then I'm not here to play name calling games.

Oh and unsubscribe.

[Zakharra]

The US did not ratify the two added protocols of 1977, if that's what you mean.  Those protocols deal with the protection of victims in international conflicts -- that is, civilians.  So if you take the position that the detainees in places like Gitmo are in fact prisoners of war, those protocols don't come into play.

Really, though, it's as Trieste said -- most terrorists don't quite fit that definition anyway, so technically, the GC as a whole doesn't matter in this context, even aside from the question of whether war has legally been declared.  If the conventions were to be updated at this point in time, however, I suspect the definition of a POW might become noticeably different.

*nods*  That's true  Unfortunately most of the world is arguing that the detainees in Gitmo do fall under the Geneva Convention and that because they -do- apply, they should be given the same rights as a uniformed soldier.

[PhantomPistoleer]

*nods*  That's true  Unfortunately most of the world is arguing that the detainees in Gitmo do fall under the Geneva Convention and that because they -do- apply, they should be given the same rights as a uniformed soldier.

Regularly, detainees are not considered to fall under the Geneva Conventions.  Any enemy combatant caught in civilian clothing can be summarily executed.  Period.  (LET ME EDIT THIS TO CLARIFY:  What I mean to say here is, that an individual who is caught fighting without any military identification can be summarily executed;  the individual does fall under the Geneva Conventions, but the Prisoner of War rules clearly indicate that the "jailer" can choose to execute the individual.  A prisoner of war is naturally assumed to be a prisoner of war, but is entitled to a war tribunal to change his classification.  To deny a prisoner of combat a war tribunal breaches the third Geneva Convention.  (FURTHER MODIFICATION):  "Military identification" is not quite right, I think.  Perhaps "identification of opposition" or "identification with the opposition" is a bit more correct.

However.

U.S. law dictates that any individual who commits a war crime can be imprisoned for life, and if death results to the victim, "shall also be subject to the penalty of death."  War crimes can be defined as:

"(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians."

Common types of violations include: torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, performing biological experiments, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, sexual assault or abuse and taking hostages.

Torture is specifically defined as an act "intended to inflict severe physical OR MENTAL PAIN OR SUFFERING" for the purposes of "obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind."

There seems to be a degree of severity when it comes to war crimes and the degrees are from lesser to greater: the plan of action, the threat of action, and the action.

The law dictates that ANY INDIVIDUAL IN THE CUSTODY of the United States or the signatories of the Geneva Convention apply; the law does not in any way classify a difference between an enemy combatant, an enemy detainee, a prisoner of war, or other.  The law is not narrow, and as such, cannot be disputed.

I'm only saying, when people wring their hands, worry and eschew over the reputation of America abroad, they seem to conviently forget that there are far, far worse things going on around the world than overfeeding terrorists in Gitmo.

To justify stealing because murder is worse, yes, that would be 'sublimely stupid'. But then I'm not here to play name calling games.

Oh and unsubscribe.

1.  Eschew does not mean what you think it means.
2.  You are rationalizing again (albeit differently).  Any crime is worthy of justice.  That a crime should be committed by the fiercest proponent of justice and then ignored by the world community seems initially ridiculous.  The fact that the United States is feeding prisoners, and they ARE considered only prisoners of war by American Law/Geneva Convention--not terrorists-- does not in any way rationalize away the fact that some of these men have been sexually abused and tortured.  If a murderer pays the family of his victim a million dollars, he should still be charged with murder.

Really, though, it's as Trieste said -- most terrorists don't quite fit that definition anyway, so technically, the GC as a whole doesn't matter in this context, even aside from the question of whether war has legally been declared.  If the conventions were to be updated at this point in time, however, I suspect the definition of a POW might become noticeably different.

You are wrong.

Terrorists must be PROVEN to be terrorists, otherwise they are considered merely enemy combatants and/or prisoners.  An enemy caught fighting American soldiers in Iraq CANNOT be considered a terrorist unless he is caught, or is proven to be partly responsible for, the attack or destruction of an American CIVILIAN interests abroad (companies, embassies, etc).  But an individual's affiliation cannot demark him automatically as a terrorist.

Let me give you an example:

The Ku Klux Klan.  If I am a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and a fellow klansmen kills an ethnic minority, I cannot be charged for conspiring to kill that ethnic minority simply because I share the same affiliation.  However, if I conspired to kill that particular ethnic minority, or I conspire to kill anyone for that matter, I can be charged in a criminal court for it.

Another note:

Confinement is illegal (POWs can't be held in prison cells unless it is for their own protection), but internment is allowed -- they may be kept within certain boundaries. However, their location must be as far from the fighting as possible. Besides being held in a special "camp," prisoners of war are supposed to be granted all of the rights and privileges that their captor grants to its own armed forces, at least in terms of food, water, shelter, clothing, exercise, correspondence, religious practice and other basic human needs. They are supposed to be informed of their exact location -- supplied with their mailing address, in fact -- so that their relatives may send them letters and packages.

[Trieste]

Terrorists must be PROVEN to be terrorists, otherwise they are considered merely enemy combatants and/or prisoners.  An enemy caught fighting American soldiers in Iraq CANNOT be considered a terrorist unless he is caught, or is proven to be partly responsible for, the attack or destruction of an American CIVILIAN interests abroad (companies, embassies, etc).  But an individual's affiliation cannot demark him automatically as a terrorist.

I think one of the sticking points has been what constitutes proof. Can it be circumstantial? How solid does it have to be? Whose accounts and testimonies are trustworthy? Who judges this? Is it the US unless someone calls for an oversight to look into it? Who has the authority to call in oversight? Who picks the oversight? Does it change depending on country?

All of these are valid questions that don't seem to have been worked out yet, not to the satisfaction of most people involved.

[PhantomPistoleer]

I think one of the sticking points has been what constitutes proof. Can it be circumstantial? How solid does it have to be? Whose accounts and testimonies are trustworthy? Who judges this? Is it the US unless someone calls for an oversight to look into it? Who has the authority to call in oversight? Who picks the oversight? Does it change depending on country?

All of these are valid questions that don't seem to have been worked out yet, not to the satisfaction of most people involved.

All military tribunals are treated on a case-by-case basis.  Guilt must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Proof should be solid--meaning a defending attorney should not be able to find a way to have it tossed out.  Who judges it?  Naturally, an American military tribunal judge.  As a prisoner of war, the prisoner is under the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America.  No one can call for an oversight on the US on how it handles its military tribunals, unless if the United States DENIES the due process of those military tribunals.  This makes your next question moot.  And, it makes your next question moot as well.

Unless the articles of the Geneva Convention are somehow amended, a third party is not legally entitled to overseeing the tribunals of prisoners of war because, it quite clearly states, a prisoner of war must follow the rules and regulations of the capturing country.

EDIT:  I should clarify my point.  I said that "the prisoner is under the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America," but in reality, it is "under the legal jurisdiction of the capturing country, in this case, the United States of America."  :l

[Zakharra]

All military tribunals are treated on a case-by-case basis.  Guilt must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Proof should be solid--meaning a defending attorney should not be able to find a way to have it tossed out.  Who judges it?  Naturally, an American military tribunal judge.  As a prisoner of war, the prisoner is under the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America.  No one can call for an oversight on the US on how it handles its military tribunals, unless if the United States DENIES the due process of those military tribunals.  This makes your next question moot.  And, it makes your next question moot as well.

Unless the articles of the Geneva Convention are somehow amended, a third party is not legally entitled to overseeing the tribunals of prisoners of war because, it quite clearly states, a prisoner of war must follow the rules and regulations of the capturing country.

  In a civilian court, not in a military one. Also because they are taken by the military, they are not subject or needed to go through the civilian judicial system.  The problem is, the rest of the world is saying that the Geneva Convention does cover the detainees. ie, that they be treated as uniformed soldiers.   

Torture is specifically defined as an act "intended to inflict severe physical OR MENTAL PAIN OR SUFFERING" for the purposes of "obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind."

My problem with that is the part in bold.  What constitutes mental pain or suffering? What you and I would consider  mental pain or suffering is different than what they would consider mental pain or suffering. That one condition is extremely vague and can cover anything. Personally, unless the person is physically tortured, most anything I'd allow.  A lot of interrogation is making sure that you break the enemy mentally. Which means you wear them down in ways that any good liberal lawyer can call torture.

[PhantomPistoleer]

In a civilian court, not in a military one. Also because they are taken by the military, they are not subject or needed to go through the civilian judicial system.  The problem is, the rest of the world is saying that the Geneva Convention does cover the detainees. ie, that they be treated as uniformed soldiers.

Wait a minute, you've misunderstood my position.  The way it works in the military is this: an enemy combatant is captured and he is automatically perceived as a prisoner of war.  This is automatic.  They don't have to be uniformed soldiers to be prisoners of war; the laws dictate that they can be executed for not being uniformed (more specifically, to be in civilian clothes), but that does not actually remove their designation.  I should add that there are a number of cases where an individual that is NOT uniformed can still be identified as an enemy combatant.

All prisoners of war are entitled to a military tribunal to CHANGE their designation.  My point was to stress that a prisoner of war cannot be charged as being a terrorist without the process of law.

My problem with that is the part in bold.  What constitutes mental pain or suffering? What you and I would consider  mental pain or suffering is different than what they would consider mental pain or suffering. That one condition is extremely vague and can cover anything. Personally, unless the person is physically tortured, most anything I'd allow.  A lot of interrogation is making sure that you break the enemy mentally. Which means you wear them down in ways that any good liberal lawyer can call torture.

No, that condition is not vague.  It's broad.  Mental pain or suffering is covered in detail in American Law.  The Geneva Convention treats mental pain or suffering as being any situation in which an individual's dignity is not preserved.

You said that, "A lot of interrogation is making sure that you break the enemy mentally.  Which means you wear them down in ways that any good liberal lawyer can call torture."

This statement is misguided and I take a bit of offense to it.  If a psychopath kills a woman in cold blood and I am appointed to defend him, I must perform my job and defend him.  Simply because I defend a psychopath doesn't mean that I must be a psychopath.  A lawyer appointed to defend a client must do the best he can, despite his political inclinations.

Furthermore, interrogation is not about breaking anyone mentally.  In fact, breaking someone mentally typically gives you false information.

[Valerian]

U.S. law dictates that any individual who commits a war crime can be imprisoned for life, and if death results to the victim, "shall also be subject to the penalty of death."

This allows for imprisonment and execution of such war criminals, not torture, which is what we're discussing here.

The law dictates that ANY INDIVIDUAL IN THE CUSTODY of the United States or the signatories of the Geneva Convention apply; the law does not in any way classify a difference between an enemy combatant, an enemy detainee, a prisoner of war, or other.  The law is not narrow, and as such, cannot be disputed.

There apparently is a legal difference between a detainee and a POW.  The issue of when to grant a detainee POW status (which dramatically alters their rights under international law) has been debated by the president, the armed forces, the Red Cross, everybody.  (And laws can always be disputed, but that's another discussion entirely.)

You are wrong.

Terrorists must be PROVEN to be terrorists, otherwise they are considered merely enemy combatants and/or prisoners.  An enemy caught fighting American soldiers in Iraq CANNOT be considered a terrorist unless he is caught, or is proven to be partly responsible for, the attack or destruction of an American CIVILIAN interests abroad (companies, embassies, etc).  But an individual's affiliation cannot demark him automatically as a terrorist.

I'm... not quite sure where you're calling me wrong.  My original statement:

Really, though, it's as Trieste said -- most terrorists don't quite fit that definition anyway, so technically, the GC as a whole doesn't matter in this context, even aside from the question of whether war has legally been declared.

I used the term terrorists very deliberately, to refer to people who are being held with some justification rather than simply having been caught up in a sweep -- that is, people who already do fit most definitions of a terrorist through their own actions.  Not proven in a court of law, perhaps, since by definition that doesn't happen in places like Gitmo, but those who can be reasonably believed to have been engaged in terrorist activities.

[PhantomPistoleer]

This allows for imprisonment and execution of such war criminals, not torture, which is what we're discussing here.

Em, I was treating the American armed forces as being the perpetrator of war crimes, not Afghan and Iraqui enemy combatants.  However, I'm not aware that these enemy participants can be held accountable for war crimes; I'm not sure if Afghanistan or Iraq are signatories of the Geneva Convention, and I'm not sure whether or not a set of people who are not represented by their government also fall in.  This is in no way a defense against their actions: the spirit of the law must be upheld as well.  However, the Geneva Convention clearly states that an individual must be formally charged and prosecuted for committing war crimes.

There apparently is a legal difference between a detainee and a POW.  The issue of when to grant a detainee POW status (which dramatically alters their rights under international law) has been debated by the president, the armed forces, the Red Cross, everybody.  (And laws can always be disputed, but that's another discussion entirely.)

There are two designations for detainees:  prisoners of war or spies.  There is no third option for 'detainee.'  While the subject is a hotly debated one, the laws are explicit and specific.  Conventions dictate that an individual is automatically granted POW status once captured by an enemy.

I used the term terrorists very deliberately, to refer to people who are being held with some justification rather than simply having been caught up in a sweep -- that is, people who already do fit most definitions of a terrorist through their own actions.  Not proven in a court of law, perhaps, since by definition that doesn't happen in places like Gitmo, but those who can be reasonably believed to have been engaged in terrorist activities.

Listen, the act of detaining an individual without giving him recourse for a trial is ILLEGAL internationally and in the United States of America.  It breaches our own constitution.  Look at this sentence:  "people who already do fit most definitions of a terrorist through their own actions."  Now, replace some words with equally offending ones:  "people who already do fit most definitions of a mass murderer through their own actions," "people who already do fit most definitions of a repeat-offender child rapist through their own actions," etc.  These people would face trial. 

I don't know what you mean by saying that by definition, a court of law doesn't happen in places like Gitmo.  Guantanamo is a U.S. military base, and like the armed forces, is subject to American law.  When you say "military law," you make it sound like there's another system of law.  Military Law is ADDITIONAL to American Law, since American Law doesn't cover observation of rank, mutiny and sedition, contempt against officials, etc.  However, I should add that the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes unlawful detention illegal unless the detainer believes that the detainee has probable cause to create harm.

[Valerian]

There are two designations for detainees:  prisoners of war or spies.  There is no third option for 'detainee.'  While the subject is a hotly debated one, the laws are explicit and specific.  Conventions dictate that an individual is automatically granted POW status once captured by an enemy.

From Wikipedia: The word [detainee] came into common usage during and after the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), as the U.S. government's term of choice to describe members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda captured in that war, which has generated considerable debate around the globe.  The U.S. government classifies captured enemy combatants as "detainees" because there is no consensus about whether the combatants are "prisoners of war" under the definition found in the Geneva Convention. The controversy arises because the Geneva Convention protects "prisoners of war" but says nothing about "detainees."

Listen, the act of detaining an individual without giving him recourse for a trial is ILLEGAL internationally and in the United States of America.  It breaches our own constitution.  Look at this sentence:  "people who already do fit most definitions of a terrorist through their own actions."  Now, replace some words with equally offending ones:  "people who already do fit most definitions of a mass murderer through their own actions," "people who already do fit most definitions of a repeat-offender child rapist through their own actions," etc.  These people would face trial.

I know it's illegal.  That's why I'm glad that Gitmo is being shut down.  It IS offensive, and I don't like what's happening there.  Whatever process is used to deal with the detainees, it has to be more transparent.

I don't know what you mean by saying that by definition, a court of law doesn't happen in places like Gitmo.  Guantanamo is a U.S. military base, and like the armed forces, is subject to American law.  When you say "military law," you make it sound like there's another system of law.  Military Law is ADDITIONAL to American Law, since American Law doesn't cover observation of rank, mutiny and sedition, contempt against officials, etc.  However, I should add that the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes unlawful detention illegal unless the detainer believes that the detainee has probable cause to create harm.

I don't believe I've yet used the phrase 'military law' myself.  Frankly, I don't know enough about the differences between military and US law.  All I was trying to say is that none of these detainee camps are exactly noted for giving speedy and fair trials... but I may have been a little too sarcastic about it at two-thirty in the morning.  I should really never stay up that late.

[PhantomPistoleer]

Oh.  We actually agree, Valerian.  I just think that you're taking a less idealistic, more current event approach; while I'm taking a more idealistic, less current event approach (typical "how it is vs. how it's supposed to be" argument).  :)

[Zakharra]

No, that condition is not vague.  It's broad.  Mental pain or suffering is covered in detail in American Law.  The Geneva Convention treats mental pain or suffering as being any situation in which an individual's dignity is not preserved.

You said that, "A lot of interrogation is making sure that you break the enemy mentally.  Which means you wear them down in ways that any good liberal lawyer can call torture."

This statement is misguided and I take a bit of offense to it.  If a psychopath kills a woman in cold blood and I am appointed to defend him, I must perform my job and defend him.  Simply because I defend a psychopath doesn't mean that I must be a psychopath.  A lawyer appointed to defend a client must do the best he can, despite his political inclinations.

Furthermore, interrogation is not about breaking anyone mentally.  In fact, breaking someone mentally typically gives you false information.

What constitutes mental pain and suffering is vague. ANYTHING can be called mental pain and suffering. You are also not understanding how interrogation works. To get the informnation the person has to be broken or worn down mentally. By either wearing them down with drugs, sleep deprivation or other mind wearing tactics that take time, or by other harder means which can mean (and isn't necessarily the right thing to do) physical persuasion. Not all information gotten in the last methods is reliable, but some -can- be. If comfirmed.

The Geneva Convention treats mental pain or suffering as being any situation in which an individual's dignity is not preserved./quote]

That specifically. That can cover anything, including being held captive.

I'm not talking about psychopath criminal, but someone caught on the battlefield and is being interrogated.

Part of the problem the US has is we do not consider them as falling under the Geneva Convention while others do.

Listen, the act of detaining an individual without giving him recourse for a trial is ILLEGAL internationally and in the United States of America.  It breaches our own constitution.

The Military does not follow the Consitution. When you join it, you voluntarily give up many rights a civilian has, in order to protect it.

I do  agree the detainees in Gitmo should have been processed faster than they were. Within a month of the first arriving they should've started processing them.

[PhantomPistoleer]

The U.S. military does not follow the Constitution?  Okay.

[RubySlippers]

The Geneva Conventions apply to prisoners of war and armed partisans of a legitimate government, how does that standard apply to insurgents and terrorists?

[Zakharra]

The U.S. military does not follow the Constitution?  Okay.

The US military does not follow or allow some rights in the Constotution. While you are a member of the military, you voluntarily give up some rights. One of them is the justice system. The military does not use the Judicial system, but uses it's own. As folowed by the UCMJ.

The Geneva Conventions apply to prisoners of war and armed partisans of a legitimate government, how does that standard apply to insurgents and terrorists?

  Many opposed to the war and many European governments want to give the detainees the protection a uniformed POW would get. They insist that the Geneva Convention -does- cover them.

[RubySlippers]

As far as I can tell insurgents uniformed or not as a partisan force would have to represent a recognized government. Iran has given papers to all their trained non-military citizens stating they are acting for the Iranian government so that I can understand. But we are signees to the Geneva Accords I do feel strongly following previous case law it was applied such as the French Resistance in WWII ,which had a legitimate Government-in-Exile supporting it that the Allies recognized, the Europeans are drawing at straws here making a new class of protected persons. They are criminals I do support them getting treated fairly as criminals, but that is a lower standard than a POW.

[Apple of Eris]

First off, the United States of America has ratified all the Geneva Conventions - with reservations, and exempting the two 1977 protocols.
Here's a quick source I found in two minutes: http://ask.yahoo.com/20020212.html

Second whether or not we here disagree whether 'insurgents' or 'enemy combatants' or whatever other label the previous administration decided to slap on prisoners in order to try and circumvent laws prohibiting torture, in July 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in its Hamdan decision that this article does indeed apply to top terror suspects detained in CIA-run prisons as well as at Guantanamo Bay.

The Supreme Court has said by virtue of this decision, that detainees at ANY facility run by the US must be treated as prisoners of war.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another line, I saw earlier someone said "Only Congress has the power to declare war." and someone replied that well this essentially was a war since congress authorized Bush to act however he wanted. Well you can't have it both ways. If it's not a war, then we aren't supposed to be there doing this in the first place, if it IS a war, then we need to abide by the rules we've adopted, not only when it's convienent.

And Military Courts that US soldiers face justice in are NOT like the military Tribunal system the prior administration attempted to create and which was deemed unconstitutional by our Supreme Court. Military Courts allow defendents to face their accusers, just like in a civilian court, they do not allow hearsay, or evidence gained illegally (read: via torture). The Tribunal system offered NONE of those protections, undermining the rule of law, the very founding prinicple on which the United States was founded.

This 'shadow court' in which people can be convicted and executed or imprisoned for life because 'Mr A heard Mrs. B talking to Mr. C about the defendant' is in no way a valid court system. It deprives the defendants, guilty or not of even the most basic protections of law. And if the only way to protect our society is to undermine the very fabric upon which it is created, are we really protecting it?

[Zakharra]

On another line, I saw earlier someone said "Only Congress has the power to declare war." and someone replied that well this essentially was a war since congress authorized Bush to act however he wanted. Well you can't have it both ways. If it's not a war, then we aren't supposed to be there doing this in the first place, if it IS a war, then we need to abide by the rules we've adopted, not only when it's convienent.

This is the first war we've been in that is not against a nation. The enemy does not abide by the Geneva Convention or decency in any way. The way they fight and the fact they do not fight for a nation makes their status not covered in the Geneva Cconvention.

And Military Courts that US soldiers face justice in are NOT like the military Tribunal system the prior administration attempted to create and which was deemed unconstitutional by our Supreme Court. Military Courts allow defendents to face their accusers, just like in a civilian court, they do not allow hearsay, or evidence gained illegally (read: via torture). The Tribunal system offered NONE of those protections, undermining the rule of law, the very founding prinicple on which the United States was founded.

This 'shadow court' in which people can be convicted and executed or imprisoned for life because 'Mr A heard Mrs. B talking to Mr. C about the defendant' is in no way a valid court system. It deprives the defendants, guilty or not of even the most basic protections of law. And if the only way to protect our society is to undermine the very fabric upon which it is created, are we really protecting it?

That sounds like the US civil judicial system to me.

[Apple of Eris]

This is the first war we've been in that is not against a nation. The enemy does not abide by the Geneva Convention or decency in any way. The way they fight and the fact they do not fight for a nation makes their status not covered in the Geneva Convention.

The SCOTUSA disagrees with you. And their words carry a slight bit more weight than yours or mine.

  That sounds like the US civil judicial system to me.

Civil court is where I spend most of my time. And while hearsay rules -are- relaxed, they still exist. Civilian Criminal and Military courts have many similar rules, Civil law is a whole different bear because you're not necessarily debating whether someone broke the law. Usually you're there simply to redress grievances (contract violations, someone's dog pooped on your lawn and the grass turned brown, etc). So unless you're planning on suing Al-Quaeda in civil court for damages to NY (which would be interesting if it could be done) Civil law doesn't apply.

Oh, interesting tidbit, well interesting to me since I'm involved with law and well, this is my post so :P
Civil suits were how some branches of the KKK were forced to disband. They were brought to trial in civil court, sued for damages and lost all their assets. Kind of cool. Too bad the criminal courts and the justice system in general couldn't always pull through.

[Ket]

The US military does not follow or allow some rights in the Constitution. While you are a member of the military, you voluntarily give up some rights. One of them is the justice system. The military does not use the Judicial system, but uses it's own. As folowed by the UCMJ.

Sorry to derail, but I feel I must set something straight.  The US Military does follow the Constitution.  And yes, there is the UCMJ, however the military judicial system is very similar to the civilian judicial system.  However, there are extra articles that we can be charged with, things that civilians wouldn't encounter, such as disobeying direct and lawful orders. 

[Zakharra]

Sorry to derail, but I feel I must set something straight.  The US Military does follow the Constitution.  And yes, there is the UCMJ, however the military judicial system is very similar to the civilian judicial system.  However, there are extra articles that we can be charged with, things that civilians wouldn't encounter, such as disobeying direct and lawful orders. 

  Not quite. Military people give up some rights when they join the military. That's the way it was explained to me. In order to protect the Constitution, we give up being protected by it for a simpler judicial form of justice outside of the normal judicial system.

[Ket]

Ummm, then why would I swear to support and defend something that denied me certain rights?!  There are things that military members aren't allowed to do, however they are not rights granted by the Constitution.  As for the justice system, while not exactly the same as the civilian judicial system, it works in pretty much the same way.  And it's not really any simpler. 

[RubySlippers]

Our nation could could fix this we just need to amend the signature to leave the United States exempt from any provisions that grant status of soldier to any party not either a uniformed soldier or legitimate partisan connected to a legitimate government. One act of Congress could do that its not an issue. And since the High Court clearly is being so irrational on this they should do exactly that. Since the only grounds is the treaty we are bound to just correct that problem. Bush should have done this at the onset of such problems in the court, I would have pushed for it.

And people wonder why I don't ever like our government signing international treaties without giving us serious "escape" provisions with our signatures on them.

[The American Patriot]

Actually, the Geneva Convention tells us what to do to unlawful combatants... even partisans. Non-uniformed fighters are seen as unlawful combatants, and when i was in the service... we where told to kil them. not capture them. because they are not protected by the rules of warfare. technically, our guys where suppose to take them out back and put a bullet in the backs of their heads when we catch them.

thus the reason why 'Volkstrum' units during the end of the second world war would wear uniforms that had been outlawed by the Nazi party (and it became a death sentice to wear them), so they wouldn't be seen as unlawful non-uniformed combatants by the allied forces. And it's also the reason so many of the Volkstrum battalions surrendered enmass when encountered.

[RubySlippers]

But I for one think we can take the high ground granting any partisans properly documented in the field as being acting for a government that is recognized as being so protected. Such as written documents or dog tags with recognizable meaning. That would still allow us to deal with terrorists and insurgents as not said protected and give the benefit of the status to suitable parties. Just amend the signature on the treaties to make this correction by Act of Congress.

[overfiend87]

I guess I'm rarther immature with my belief, but I'd perfer there to be torture on those who commit crimes. For one thing if it's broadcasted, more people will not break the law, especially if they know the type of punishment they would be delt with, but that's my belief. A pacifist way of just locking someone up and away won't work in my opinion. Rehabilitation doesn't appear to work atall.

[Oniya]

For one thing if it's broadcasted, more people will not break the law, especially if they know the type of punishment they would be delt with, but that's my belief.

In many jurisdictions, committing murder makes you eligible for the death penalty, something that makes the US look bad in many European's view.  Despite this clearly broadcast punishment, people still commit murder.  There are mandatory minimums for certain drug-related crimes (possession, distribution, etc.), but people still buy and sell drugs.

I won't deny that there are times when harsh punishments are warranted, but knowing the punishments doesn't seem to stop people who are really determined to take a course of action.

[LaCroix]

It does not, however, mean that the punishment is not justified. As far as I am concerned, if you see fit to end the life of another person (unless it should happen as a means of self preservation, a defense of your own life) then you deserve to put under the death penalty. If you claim another life out of malic or greed or what have you, then as far as I am concerned you have through that act relinquished all right to your own right to continue living.

In my mind, not putting a murderer (one has as I said before, killed out of malic, greed, or any other reason other than self defense of their own life or a loved ones through some direct threat) then you devalue the life of the victim. It is, as far as I am concered, the same as saying that the life of a murderer is more valued than the life of the victim.

Some people will openly disagree with that standpoint and I can respect that, but it is my own personal opinion on the matter. I'll also add here that I agree with Ket, however, I am of an even firmer opinion. Some people cannot be reasoned with. Some people refuse to negotiate and some people or factions are only going to back down if they recognize that statements made to the point of 'This and this will not be tolerated' are going to be back up by threat of force.

Having said that, I do not believe we need to be war mongering, or looking under rocks for the next threat, but when and if the next threat presents itself, I personally feel safer knowing said threat might be a little bit more cautious to poke its head up if it knows that when it takes some action against this country or its citizens that it might get that head blown off if the situation warrents such a reaction.

[Oniya]

It does not, however, mean that the punishment is not justified. As far as I am concerned, if you see fit to end the life of another person (unless it should happen as a means of self preservation, a defense of your own life) then you deserve to put under the death penalty. If you claim another life out of malic or greed or what have you, then as far as I am concerned you have through that act relinquished all right to your own right to continue living.

In my mind, not putting a murderer (one has as I said before, killed out of malic, greed, or any other reason other than self defense of their own life or a loved ones through some direct threat) then you devalue the life of the victim. It is, as far as I am concered, the same as saying that the life of a murderer is more valued than the life of the victim.

Some people will openly disagree with that standpoint and I can respect that, but it is my own personal opinion on the matter. I'll also add here that I agree with Ket, however, I am of an even firmer opinion. Some people cannot be reasoned with. Some people refuse to negotiate and some people or factions are only going to back down if they recognize that statements made to the point of 'This and this will not be tolerated' are going to be back up by threat of force.

Having said that, I do not believe we need to be war mongering, or looking under rocks for the next threat, but when and if the next threat presents itself, I personally feel safer knowing said threat might be a little bit more cautious to poke its head up if it knows that when it takes some action against this country or its citizens that it might get that head blown off if the situation warrents such a reaction.

Actually, we don't disagree that much.  I just think that when the punishment has been justified (by examining actual evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt), it should be dispensed with swiftly and cleanly.