Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pacifier
The US tries again to use its newly created term "illegal combantant" to violate human right. But I'm not surprised.
|
First off Pacifier again you couldn't be more wrong, the term illegal combatant has merit dating back over 100 years to the treaty at Hague. Secondly as far as America and it's usage goes has precedents dating back to the 40's in dealing with Nazi spies.
Pan.
1) Slaves were considered property, most of the time it was by consent of their master that they were able to be put on trial. Dred Scott???
2) All men may have the right to a fair trial, doesn't mean they are allowed Habeas Corpus or trial by peers or jury, if they are illegal combatants or legal combatants they are subject to Executive/military power.
And comparing Gitmo to Hitler's Germany, nice. Again no one has showed me any evidence of an average American citizen who was not determined to be an illegal combatant that has been detained indefinitly.
And lastly Host I assert that this is or was a time of war in that Congress gave approval to President Bush, Commander-in-Chief of the Military of the United States, to wage military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.