Originally posted by PVS
if formally charged and allowed legal representation?
what kind of question is that?
being arrested and being charged aren't the same thing though are they?
so once again...is the police arresting someone in the street and taking them away against their will an act of kidnapping?
Originally posted by Bardock42
For no reason and without evidence...certainly.
so your saying the people in guantanamo were all taken there for absolutely no reason whatsoever...in other words you assume they're all completely innocent of any wrong doing?
as for the police arresting people without evidence...they do it all the time...they arrest people for admitting to crimes and then go and find evidence that either supports or refutes their admission...depending on what is found they will either let them go or formally charge them
the question of direct evidence is always problematic also...take the apparent lack of evidence that shows Hitler was responsible for the order to kill the European jews during ww2
there is evidence for the order to kill Russian jews but not European...
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Hilberg051275.html
as seen in the letters linked to above (which is also relevant to the David Irving thread)
Originally posted by jaden101
being arrested and being charged aren't the same thing though are they?
no, you can be charged but not arrested. lets say for not speeding. however you can not be arrested without being charged. "we are arresting you because...and your court date will be...and you have the right to an attorney...etc" not "GET IN THAT CAGE AND STAY THERE!!!"
Originally posted by jaden101
so once again...is the police arresting someone in the street and taking them away against their will an act of kidnapping?
and once again, i already answered you.
Originally posted by jaden101
so your saying the people in guantanamo were all taken there for absolutely no reason whatsoever...in other words you assume they're all completely innocent of any wrong doing?as for the police arresting people without evidence...they do it all the time...they arrest people for admitting to crimes and then go and find evidence that either supports or refutes their admission...depending on what is found they will either let them go or formally charge them
the question of direct evidence is always problematic also...take the apparent lack of evidence that shows Hitler was responsible for the order to kill the European jews during ww2
there is evidence for the order to kill Russian jews but not European...
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Hilberg051275.html
as seen in the letters linked to above (which is also relevant to the David Irving thread)
I am not saying that I believe they are all innocent, but I might assume you could or could not be guilty of a crime, to be on the safe side I'd rather imprison you, and of course torture you a bit because you might...or might not be guilty.
Oh and in my opinion (and I might be wrong) admiting to have commited a crime is pretty solid evidence.
Originally posted by PVS
no, you can be charged but not arrested. lets say for not speeding. however you can not be arrested without being charged. "we are arresting you because...and your court date will be...and you have the right to an attorney...etc" not "GET IN THAT CAGE AND STAY THERE!!!"and once again, i already answered you.
sorry...you were saying
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4732361.stm
and the answer "what kind of question is that?" isn't really an answer
Originally posted by jaden101
sorry...you were sayinghttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4732361.stm
and the answer "what kind of question is that?" isn't really an answer
so you pick out a handful of names of people who were formally charged and now you win? is that it?
and where may i ask are they being held?
Originally posted by Fishy
The thing is when you arrest somebody its either for a very limited time, and always with a good reason. You can't stay in jail for a long period of time without getting formally charged with something.Seeing as the US government fails to do that, they are indeed taking hostages...
not if they are considered prisoners of war...as i've already said...prisoners of war are held until the end of the war and then released...the question is when is the end of the war...and more pertinently...are they considered prisoners of war?
if they are then it falls under the geneva convention and the treatment of the detainees(notice the term "prisoners of war" is almost never used) comes into question
this is why i've been saying that the US has been extremely evasive and crafty in avoiding a classification of the people at guantanamo bay
you class then as POW's and you can hold them for a long time without charge...dont class them as POW's and you can get around certain aspects of the geneva convention that relate to torture and treatment of prisoners
oh...and hostages now is it?...so whats the demands of the US...thats usually why hostages are taken is it not?
Originally posted by PVS
so you pick out a handful of names of people who were formally charged and now you win? is that it?and where may i ask are they being held?
no...i'm showing the law...all of the people mentioned were arrested...and some were charged and others released...because thats the way the law works...you get arrested and then you get charged or released...not the other way around as you suggested
as for where those people are being held...i think it's Belmarsh prison but i'm not entirely sure
Originally posted by jaden101
not if they are considered prisoners of war...as i've already said...prisoners of war are held until the end of the war and then released...the question is when is the end of the war...and more pertinently...are they considered prisoners of war?if they are then it falls under the geneva convention and the treatment of the detainees(notice the term "prisoners of war" is almost never used) comes into question
this is why i've been saying that the US has been extremely evasive and crafty in avoiding a classification of the people at guantanamo bay
you class then as POW's and you can hold them for a long time without charge...dont class them as POW's and you can get around certain aspects of the geneva convention that relate to torture and treatment of prisoners
Well thats the problem the US is refusing to do any of that, it also refuses to make any statement on what is really going on. The entire thing is just wrong. If you call POW's, terrorist, criminals it doesn't matter one way or another the US is breaking laws and doing things wrong, and it should be stopped.
Originally posted by Fishy
Well thats the problem the US is refusing to do any of that, it also refuses to make any statement on what is really going on. The entire thing is just wrong. If you call POW's, terrorist, criminals it doesn't matter one way or another the US is breaking laws and doing things wrong, and it should be stopped.
thats what i've been saying...and i'm pointing out how they are doing it in reality rather than just throwing around accusations
i've asked what laws apply to the detainees...the geneva convention?...US criminal law?...international law?...thats the US is managing to get around the issues about the detainees...by blurring the lines and moving in grey areas that the laws to cover properly...
Originally posted by jaden101
no...i'm showing the law...all of the people mentioned were arrested...and some were charged and others released...because thats the way the law works...you get arrested and then you get charged or released...not the other way around as you suggested
you are 100% W-R-O-N-G
in america, you MUST BE CHARGED in order for an officer to arrest you. they cant put you in cuffs on a whim. if you are released, then the charges have been dropped, as they say.
and you have shown a handful of terror suspects who were properly charged and given a date for trial, and probably allowed legal representation. this however proves NOTHING. you picked a fresh apple from a rotten barrell, congratulations.
but what kind of absolute proof do you believe you have?
Originally posted by PVS
you are 100% W-R-O-N-Gin america, you MUST BE CHARGED in order for an officer to arrest you. they cant put you in cuffs on a whim. if you are released, then the charges have been dropped, as they say.
and you have shown a handful of terror suspects who were properly charged and given a date for trial, and probably allowed legal representation. this however proves NOTHING. you picked a fresh apple from a rotten barrell, congratulations.
but what kind of absolute proof do you believe you have?
100% wrong am i?...dont think so somehow
man arrested and subsequently charged
arrested and held without charge
both examples of US law that are not related to guantanamo...
but what kind of absolute proof do you believe you have?
i dont understand what you're asking for proof about...
i'm not the one throwing around allegations of kidnapping and torture that are so far confined to people being interviewed in the mainstream media...
Originally posted by jaden101
100% wrong am i?...dont think so somehowman arrested and subsequently charged
arrested and held without charge
both examples of US law that are not related to guantanamo...
wtf is wrong with you?
its a decision by the supreme court which forsakes the constitutional right of a u.s. citizen, which goes against the law of the land. thus the motion and approval and thus the article you posted.
thank you for proving me right, although i could have simply quoted the constitution.
criminal procedure in the US
the 4th 5th and 6th ammendments
Originally posted by jaden101
criminal procedure in the USthe 4th 5th and 6th ammendments
basically it says arrest is covered by the 4th amendment...the issue of non warrent arrests etc
the 5th ammendment is the stage where a suspect is held and then formally charged which then triggers the 6th ammendment rights
oops....meant to edit rather than quote...my mistake
wtf is wrong with you?
what are you starting to get ratty for?...i'm only showing examples of your own laws...
i also notice you completely ignored the first example
Originally posted by PVS
from your linked source of translation:"...the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from detaining pedestrians and conducting any kind of search of their clothing without first possessing a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the pedestrians are engaged in criminal activity"
also from my link
The Fourth Amendment also expresses a preference for arrests to be based on a warrant. But warrantless arrests can be made when the circumstances make it reasonable to do so.
and
The Supreme Court has said that probable cause exists when the facts within an officer's knowledge provide a reasonably trustworthy basis for a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed or is about to be committed
more pertinent to guantanamo bay detainees/prisoners
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the MILITIA, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
after arrest
Once a suspect has been arrested or taken into CUSTODY, the rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are triggered.
then comes the famous rights as mentioned
(1) the right to remain silent; (2) the right to consult an attorney before being questioned by the police; (3) the right to have an attorney present during police questioning; (4) the right to a court appointed attorney if the defendant cannot afford to hire a private attorney; and (5) the right to be informed that any statements they do make can and will be used against them at trial.
Prior to the point of formal accusation, the government is under no constitutional or STATUTORY obligation to discover or investigate criminal activity or accuse or PROSECUTE suspected criminals within a particular amount of time. Nor is the Speedy Trial Clause implicated after the government has dropped criminal charges, even if the government refiles those charges at a much later date.
its only after the point of charging is made that this comes into effect
The point at which defendants are formally charged also triggers the Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature and cause of every accusation against them.
then comes arraignment
Once a defendant has been formally charged by the prosecution in writing, the defendant will be arraigned before a court. At the arraignment the court generally reads the written charges to the defendant and attempts to determine if the defendant understands the charges or needs further explanation. Defendants are also provided with the opportunity to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty at the arraignment.
but this is all pretty irrelevant given that we dont know if the people in guantanamo are being held under US law anyway...and even if they did...the link i gave earlier shows the supreme court granting indefinite detention without charge anyway
the law doesn't remain constant and unchanging in any country, not even the US...