In my opinion, this is not a liberal vs conservative issue, rather an issue of right vs wrong.maddog said:But if left to the number of liberals in our own system ... noone would ever be convicted of terrorism acts such as 9/11 due to some stupid loophole or technicality that could cause picture perfect evidence to be ruled as nonadmissable.
Should they expect to be tried by U.S. standards when they don't believe that any of our laws pertain to them?
Nonuniformed combatants operating in theater should be thankful they are not simply lined up against a wall and shot.Gunstar1 said:Ok, first let me say that a us citizen in the us should keep habeas corpas with open trials. On the other hand, if you are from a foreign country we invaded and in one of our many camps, you have no right to it.
It is not only within the scope of war, but it protects civilians. That is why the Geneva Conventions applied only to uniformed combatants. People operating out of uniform, as Al-Queda does, endanger civilians with their operations (as if they care).Rammstein said:
Wow! :shock: Is there any historical evidence against it? Nathan Hale, obviously, but probably tens of thousands of others we cannot name. It was the practice up until Vietnam.Rammstein said:
Not really. The serious question here is whether on not Habis corpis applies. Frankly I don't see it in this case, except you brought up Padilla IIRC the courts ruled in his favor. Non US citizens caught on a battlefield bearing arms against the US don't have a right to HC. Non uniformed combatants don't have a right to protections under the Geneva and Hauge conventions.Rammstein said:There is a difference between non-public and secret.