That's the rub - what do you do in the face of terrorism that disregards the ideals of the constitution? But the answer can't be that you dilute the constitution to match the threat. There has to be another way to counter terrorism and the reasons for its success.

I once tried to make an argument using Albert Bandura's social cognitive theory about learned behaviour to promote the idea that the best way to stop terrorism is education. It wasn't a very thought out approach, and I haven't really studied Bandura besides knowing some broad information about his theory. We learned about him in University in regards to pedagogics and teaching methods. But there has to be something to stop the manipulation of children which are easily molded and grow up to be fanatic followers. Well, it was just a stupid idea and has no chance of success - I know that.

Prisoners of war generally weren't locked up because they were suspected of committing a crime, hence there was no reason for a trial. If they committed a crime inside the camp, they had the right to a trial (or so I think). And they were generally released after the war was over. Im referring to those prisoners Nitro mentioned earlier.

Nations came up with the Geneva convention because there had to be a common ground on how to treat prisoners or war.

I am not sure which principle you are referring to.

Taltamir, one cannot make exceptions for certain people that deny them basic rights because even if they are vicious criminals, they are still persons, and a person has inherent moral rights. It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence and goes back centuries. You can not just ignore it. Those countries that do ignore it on a routine basis are all countries that I never want to go to. It does pose a problem on what to do, but the direction you find acceptable is not going to make things better.

Here you go again calling them "criminals" and saying that they are not enemy combatants. That is the rub, you insist that they are not an orginized enemy force that attacks us, but a group of criminals which should be arrested and persecuted in criminal courts.

You said you are not sure what principle I am referring to? well here it is, a nation cannot survive if it "arrests" enemy combatants and "tries" every POW under civilian courts for their blatant disregard for international laws of engagement.

Even if you call them enemy combatants, they are still persons with undeniable rights. They can disregard international rules of engangement, it doesn't change that fact.

What international laws of engagement do you mean anyway?

No single country on earth gives an undeniable right to a civil trial to POWs, they get a military tribunal. And those "undeniable rights to life freedom and the persuit of happiness" are certainly waiveable since some actions get you the death penalty.

You never actually answered this (only said it doesn't matter):

But those detainees are not recognized as POW's. There is either POW - military - or civilian. Each status comes with rights for the persons so designated. What happened in Gitmo was to circumvent that by saying they are neither and have no rights - which was unconstitutional.

I can't actually see a question in that quote. What didn't I answer?

Really confused by this - I never said that they were not left leaning or lift wing - just that you need to demonstrate that they paraded in support of al-quiada when accusing them of it.

Who and were?  Yes I know that people in the UK support Hamas and there is a section in the left who support them for the reasons you say but the only people who uspport al-qaida are muslim fundmentals.

Supporting hamas does not mean you support al-qaida

Ok, let's waste some space on clarifications, shall we? Here is my entire statement with My mention of Hollywood in bold, otherwise unedited:

"Oh right wait, that is exactly what happened in Guantanamo bay - a loophole exploited to make a concentration camp legal. And hello surprise - alot of people held there were in fact innocent.
The flip side of this statement is true as well.  A lot of guilty individuals were captured. A lot of guilty ones were set free and actually returned to attacking the U.S.

The enemy which has been discussed here: Al-Qaida, does not play by the rules that the West has set up. 

 

My point is I don't get why people are putting to so much effort to condemning what the States is doing and not condemning what they are doing.  In fact, a lot of left leaning people have parades for them (at least in Hollywood)."

Now WHERE EXACTLY did I say that that Hollywood is having parades for Al Quida? You are aware what a "new" paragraph represents? If you read the sentence prior to the one you chose to dwell on, you'd understand the paragraph was about what the US is doing...them being the people condeming actions of the US. The only mention of Al Quida, is in the previous paragraph, stating they don't play by the rules.

(New thought, hence a new paragraph) Does that clear it up for you, now? 

The general problem is the consequence if you change the rules in regard to a specific group, make an exception for them. You can not justify making exceptions just in regard to Al-Quaida and not to other groups as well that might be deemed a threat. It  potentially opens a floodgate - there will be people who will demand exceptions for whomever they deem a threat or morally inconsequential as well (illegal aliens, homosexuals, sex offenders etc.). If the precedent has been set, you can not really deny that demand. It would change the legal system and the nature of the state.

You would let an outside terrorist organization alter the very essence of government and nullify the constitution because that would be the consequence of classifying terrorists nonpersons.  Are you really willing to go there?

Well OBVIOUSLY, once you allow the waterboarding of foreign terrorists then the next thing to follow would be the evil conservatives using this as precedence to do the same to homosexuals; and next thing you know, all gays are sent to concentration camps! [/sarcasm]

Don't be thick. What I said has nothing to do with conservative or liberal ideology or evil this and that. If you allow it to be legal to disregard human dignity and human rights for whatever reason - however legitimate it might be in that particular case - it sets a precedent. And even murderers and terrorists are persons and have rights as such. Equality encompasses them too - which has nothing to do with sympathizing for them or excusing their behaviour in any way - it is not liberal or understanding or whatever you like to call it.

Laws and rights don't come with a class system. They are either valid or they aren't - everybody is regarded equally in that system.  You don't have certain groups that have more rights than other groups that have no rights. If you allow those rights to be ignored for terrorists, the legal system would basically turn it into a class system - which would makes it possible to demand other exceptions to be possible as well. If you allow it once, you can not NOT allow it another time.

If you are unable to get past the notion that I seemingly want to protect and coddle  terrorists - the apparent reason for your ridiculous sarcasm - you clearly have not grasped how the legal system shapes society and how those principles protect and make freedom and democracy possible in the first place. You are quite eager to get rid of those principles instead. Countries without those principles are all places where the people have no rights in general - it opens the door to an opressive regime and state terror. Not that you want such a system - but if you start diluting the constitutional rights of terrorists you start eroding the foundation of free deomcracy (sorry for the pathos).

I am not being "thick", that is exactly what you said.

Everyone is equally executed if they murder a bunch of people, everyone is equally interrogated if they are a terrorist, everyone is equally incarcerated if the commit a crime.

For there to be any justice you have to separate the innocent from the guilty. Your laws don't become invalid if you punish the guilty and spare the innocent. It does become invalid if you treat innocents and guilty alike (in which case you have no real law; since there is no punishment for any action).

You keep on saying again and again and again the same thing "they might be terrorists/criminals by they still have human rights"

1. Yes we get it, that is your point. You haven't been able to define any terms like justice, or explain why incarceration or the death penalty are ok to apply to a terrorist but not certain interrogation techniques; but ok, that is your point.

2. You assume that waterboarding is torture.

3. You keep on using strawman arguments such as

My ridicule is always specific and not about "coddling terrorists" on the last point was obviously that the suggestion that allowing terrorists to be waterboarded "opens the flood gates" and means allowing homosexuals to be waterboarded (for being homosexual)

4. You also assert that terrorism is a just response to an evil USA as I have shown in detail.

5. You assert that they are "criminals" and not "enemy combatants".

6. You demand they be given rights that exceed international laws (example: try them in civil courts. Their conditions and treatment already exceeds the requirements of the geneva convention).

So far the only backing you have made for any of your ludicrous claims is repeating ad nasium the saying "they are still people with inalienable human rights". You have to do better than that.

pff. You're just stupid if you ignore the basics. I don't care about the terrorists or how they are treated. I care about how making certain things legal would change the legal system, the constitution and thus the state. That is what is at thr heart of the whole matter.

To 2) Yes. I assume that forcing your mind to think that you are about to die a horrible and wet death is torture.

to 3) Obviously, you are not very well versed in the use of sarcasm and irony.

to 4) I made no statement about the reason for terrorism or about the nature about the US.I never called the US evil either.

to 5) I specifically did not use the word criminal as you react allergic to it. Enemy combatants have rights. There can be no such thing as a person without rights. That is unconstitutional.

6) I wasn't that specific actually. military or civilian court both allow the defendant access to legal councel and grants certain rights as the right to defend oneself and the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.

My "ludicous claims" as you like to call it are only the basis of the constitution. I don't think I have to do better than that.

No - go read a book or several books  on the nature of justice and study philosophy and law if you want to get an answer that comes close. It's not a question that can be answered in a few sentences. There are different schools of thought for one. Incarceration - being detained without a trial for years,  without being sued or access to legal counsel, is not allowed in any democratic nation I know. I already told you the reasons for my reservations about the deathpenalty, but it is always the result of a trial and not just decreed by an tribunal.

A murderer has a trial and if found guilty will recieve a sentence by the judge - death penalty is not the forgone conclusion.

How do you know someone is a terrorist in the first place - there is quite a legal grey area there which is part of the general problem

If a person commits a crime he is arrested and goes to jail and then the court will arrain that person and decide if bail can be posted and how high that should be. Then there is the trial and afterwards, if that person is found guilty, does that person go to prison. Of course, I have never been arrested so i don't really know, and things in the US might be different than from Germany in that regard.

Equal to 2 of 3 is the trial. Everybodyh as the right to a trial and their dayin court. I am not really sure what else you intended to say?