Death Penalty for Treason

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

SpudmanWP RE:The Brits in Guantanimo - Rule 3/18/2004 1:32:58 PM

>>I don't agree with what the Americans are doing at Guantanamo Bay. There is no proof thatb these people did wrong<< They were shooting at us?. I still think that?s ?wrong?. >>yet they are being held as prisoners in appalling conditions without being given a fair trial.<< As opposed to the Iraqi justice system? >>BUT, when the American was caught fighting for the taliban, the Americans didn't lock him up into Guantanamo Ba. Oh no. They took him back to the US and gave him a FAIR TRIAL.<< When they setup GBay, they explicityly excempted American citizens because our constitution only applys to people living in the US and citizens living abroad. GBay is not in the US for a reason. >>Any non-Americans, even those from American allied countries, are locked in Guantanamo Bay and are not given free trials.<< Take a look at the 1993 attack on the Twin Towers and how the Clinton administration handled the bad guys. By using the court system, all the evidence given (in the grand jury) was secret and could not be shared with our Intel people. This is why we no longer use the court system in pursuing an end to terrorist activity against the US. As for citizens of allied countries being held in GBay, their status is being negotiated on a case-by-case basis. >>The Americans are breaking the Geneva Convention on Human Rights<< The GC has to do with war between political entities, not human rights in general. When the GC was enacted, nobody could have dreamt of global terrorism. And as a side note, the Iraqi forces ignored the GC on several occasions that were caught on tape? Remember them reinforcing their positions using ambulances?

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:The Brits in Guantanimo - Spudman 3/18/2004 3:03:42 PM

While I sympathise with your sentiments (I'd hang em all) the people in Guantanamo were fighting for the Taliban, the recognized givernment of Afghanistan. To say the Geneva Convention doesn't apply is like saying German POW's had no rights after the Nazis collapsed. The people in Guantanamo are entitled to Geneva protection (and we are in violation) just as surely as they should be executed by their home nations for treason (taking up arms for a foreign nation against your own.) We don;t accord the legal protection they deserve because we don't want to - period. The problem I have with this is that the purpose of terrorism is to make us destroy our country and our beliefs by overreacting; in Guantanamo, they've succeeded and the bad press it gets us cannot be offset by whatever information they may still have, if any. Hang em, try em or free em; you can't just cage em.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:The Law 3/18/2004 3:06:39 PM

"When you have chased evil throughout the land and cut down all the laws so it has no place to hide, then, on the day Satan himself turns on you, where will you hide?" Thomas Moore.

Quote Reply

ChdNorm RE:The Brits in Guantanimo - Spudman 3/18/2004 4:51:09 PM

Well said Worcester

Quote Reply

TXAggie93 RE:The Brits in Guantanimo - Spudman 3/18/2004 7:31:17 PM

I have no problem with what we are doing at Gitmo. I do wish that we would have excuted the American Taliban! This war is not over so no release. Keep them locked up.

Quote Reply

SpudmanWP RE:Death Penalty for Treason 3/19/2004 11:46:31 AM

Oh mercy where do I start?. >>The people in Guantanamo haven't even been charged with a crime<< >>They haven't even been told WHY they are in there<< um? now who?s assuming. >>then why were the British prisoners released and are now free to go about their normal lives?<< They were returned to the British government for prosecution, not to be freed. >>Also, could you explain why the American prisoner was given a fair trial but no-one else was given one<< I will say it again, he was covered by the rules setup when GBay was started, ie no American citizens at GBay. He is protected by the American Constitution wherever he goes in the world. As to being fair, I guarantee that the military tribunal that some may face at GBay is fairer than any trial they would face in the old Afghanistan or Iraq. >> Americans also keep CHILDREN younger than 16 at Guantanamo Bay-<< If they are old enough to fight their old enough to do the time. There are examples worldwide of teenagers committing heinous crimes. Hitler used teenagers extensively in the last days of his power. In the middle east haven?t you noticed that all the suicide bombers are young adults and teenagers. They can be manipulated very easily and twisted to the whims of the adults around them. >> US officials have refused access to Canadian officials.<< What rights do any foreign official have to our prisoners? >> They have not been charged or allowed access to lawyers. << Again, now who is assuming they do not have charges against them. That 16 year old killed a US soldier and by rights should have died, but we saved his life. Before the tribunals start, the legal rights of the detainees will be established. Remember, they are not covered under the constitution. You know, for someone who hates us so much, you sure want our protections when it suits you.

Quote Reply

Heorot RE:Death Penalty for Treason - Spudman 3/19/2004 11:59:30 AM

"They were returned to the British government for prosecution, not to be freed." You are flat wrong. All 5 have been released without charge. I am just waiting now for them to try to prosecute the US government for wrongful imprisonment.

Quote Reply

Heorot RE:Death Penalty for Treason 3/19/2004 12:02:06 PM

"Again, now who is assuming they do not have charges against them. That 16 year old killed a US soldier and by rights should have died" Assuming he was a soldier fighting for the legitimate government of Afghanistan, then he had as much right to kill an American soldier as the American had to shoot him. It's called fighting a war.

Quote Reply

SpudmanWP RE:5 Brits 3/19/2004 12:03:07 PM

>>You are flat wrong. All 5 have been released without charge.<< Not that you are wrong, but what are your sources? I would like to do some more research. Do we know the circumstances of their capture? >>I am just waiting now for them to try to prosecute the US government for wrongful imprisonment<< Under what legal system would they bring the charges? It was outside of US jurisdiction.

Quote Reply

SpudmanWP RE:16 year old 3/19/2004 12:07:08 PM

>>Assuming he was a soldier fighting for the legitimate government of Afghanistan, then he had as much right to kill an American soldier as the American had to shoot him. It's called fighting a war<< He as al-Qaida and not a member of the Taliban. ?because his father has been identified as a senior financial leader of al-Qaida.?

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:Spudman 3/19/2004 4:00:58 PM

Legality: they were captured during armed action; the appropriate law, which we are obliged to follow is really simple - under Civil Law: we bring them to the US and try them; Martial Law: we treat them as prisoners of war, give them access to the Red Cross; we are OBLIGED by our signature to the Geneva Convention to release them at the cessation of hostilities OR to try them for war crimes. We don't dare bring them to the US because they will claim that they are enemy combatants fighting for the Taliban government of Afghanistan(which they are) and our courts will uphold this and refuse to try them. We have a real problem with the Military Tribunal because I doubt anyone can prove war crimes or crimes against humanity. Did they run death camps? No. Did they murder American prisoners of war? No evidence I've heard. Did they shoot at us? Yes, that's what enemy combatants do. This is why it's taking so damn long - because the President doesn't know what to do and doesn't want to release them before the election because people will say he has made another mistake. The damage it is doing to our reputation is serious; we claim to uphold law and order and yet we appear to be doing our enemies work for them. I pity the head of the Military Tribunal - if he fails, "W" will jump on him and if he convicts, it may well turn into the biggest show trial since the McCarthy era. We cannot have the law flouted and our reputation tarnished simply to avoid embarrassing the President.

Quote Reply

TXAggie93 RE:Spudman 3/19/2004 4:30:19 PM

The War on Terror continues Keep them locked up until the war is over!!!!!!! They made their choice.

Quote Reply

mpc1980 RE:Treason Laws in the UK 3/29/2004 4:41:44 AM

Treason laws are of great interest to me. Sad, I know, but true. In the UK, there is no longer any distinction between "high treason" and "petty treason". There is only one form of treason, and that is treason. The death penalty was abolished for treason in 1998 so Britain could accede to the European Convention of Human Rights Anti-Death Penalty Protocol. In the UK, there are numerous acts considered treason by statute law and by case law: 1/ conspiring or intending the physical or political death of a King, or a Queen Regnant, or the Prince of Wales; 2/ levying war against the Queen in her realm; 3/ being adherent to the Queen's enemies (ie, states in open hostility with the Queen, whether war is declared or not) in her realm or elsewhere by giving to them aid and comfort in her realm or elsewhere; 4/ slaying a judge sitting on the bench in the exercise of his duties; 5/ having sex with a Queen Regnant, a Queen Consort, a Princess of Wales or the monarch's eldest daughter unmarried, whether she consents or not; 6/ conspiring or intending to deprive or depose the Queen from the crown of the United Kingdom, even by peaceful and democratic means; 7/ levying war to intimidate or overawe Parliament, or to compel a change of government; 8/ inciting a foreigner to invade the UK with force; 9/ in Scotland, counterfeiting the Great Seal of Scotland; and 10/ aiming or firing any gun at the Queen, or throwing anything at her (see Treason Act 1842, which can be charged as treason). Two witnesses are needed to one or other acts of treason for a conviction. Punishment is life imprisonment. In the US, "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States [ie, US citizens anywhere in the world or foreigners domiciled in the US], levies war against them or adheres to their enemies [ie, subjects of a foreign Power in a state of open hostility with them (see US v Greathouse 1863; Stephan v US 1943)], giving them aid and comfort, within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason..." The Rosenbergs were executed for espionage (under the Espionage Act 1917) not for treason; treason requires a foreign enemy, and espionage requires passing of state secrets to a non-enemy foreign country that might harm the US, which the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. For adherence to the enemy, there must be an intent to betray the US. The death penalty still exists for treason against the United States, but is not mandatory. Incidentally, not all American or British citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are liable for treason. Those who joined enemy forces by fighting with them or alongside them are traitors, if not by adhering to the enemy then by levying war. But the status of "enemy combatant" is not related to treason - nowhere is it mentioned in the US Constitution. It is a term coined in 1944 by US judges in the US v Quirin case. Lawful combatants are those who are caught on the battlefield with uniform and arms; unlawful combatants are those who are caught not on the battlefield with arms but no uniform. Enemy combatants can also be citizens, but enemies cannot. This is a reason, it seems, why the US formulated the "enemy combatant" formula, which is unknown to international law.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - November 23, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us