Originally posted by PVS
an officer still has to present the charges.
"you are under arrest for..."
then they read you your rights, among which is the right to legal representation etc...
indeed...but thats the arrest proceedure...it's once in custody that the formal charging or release without charge occurs...
Originally posted by jaden101
indeed...but thats the arrest proceedure...it's once in custody that the formal charging or release without charge occurs...
no.
the arresting officer has to be able to present the charge UPON ARREST.
should i throw an egg at a cop and film the ensuing events to prove this?
or will you just buy the obvious?
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.
I take it you haven't watched too many episdodes of COPS. 😛
I have seen friends of mine be cuffed and held just after being pulled over.
What did they do? Nothing. Just pulled over on the street for being Mexican homeboys. Cuffed, and held. The cops check tattoo's, records, the car, everthing.
Trying to find any old warrants, if the car is stolen, any dope, ...whatever.
I'm not talking about the Guantanamo stuff, I just wanted to point this out.
Cops have pulled me over for walking the street and looking like a punk-ass whiteboy who was up to no good. (3 seperate times when I was in high school 😛 ), and cuffed me and thrown me in the back of a car.
If you argue or yell about your civil rights, ... hey, you just broke a law.
Obstruction of Justice(delaying an officer in the process of doing his job), and you will go to jail.
It's set up for them. They can always find some law to screw you with.
It works that way so that they can check what you're up to without reason.
Being a few years older now, I actually support it.
Just shut your mouth and let them check on you. If you aren't doing anything wrong,... then what the f*ck is your problem?
Oh, Guantanamo..... I voted "let them rot". 😄
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I take it you haven't watched too many episdodes of COPS. 😛I have seen friends of mine be cuffed and held just after being pulled over.
What did they do? Nothing. Just pulled over on the street for being Mexican homeboys. Cuffed, and held. The cops check tattoo's, records, the car, everthing.
Trying to find any old warrants, if the car is stolen, any dope, ...whatever.
not that i condone their actions, but the cop did not arrest them did he? from what you just told me...nope.
Originally posted by PVS
no.the arresting officer has to be able to present the charge UPON ARREST.
should i throw an egg at a cop and film the ensuing events to prove this?
or will you just buy the obvious?
😆 ...please do
another example of arrest without charge in the US
The FBI arrests a Cuban born terrorist for illegal possession of firearms and violation of the Law of Neutrality. He is released without charges.
from
http://www.granma.cu/miami5/ingles/043.htm
this site with free legal advice doesn't give a single mention of formal charging during the arrest proceedure
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/arrests_and_searches/
there is also the legally defined "voided arrests" in the US in which is defined as the release of an arrested person without the filing of formal charges
fact is that US and UK are very similar...i've been arrested several times...and charged once...
during arrest i had my rights told to me(very similar to US rights)...but only once i was in custody was i formally charged...the other times i was released without charge
i've posted the links to the US law...they're quite clear...i guess there isn't much point in discussing it further
Originally posted by jaden101
but the torture hasn't been proven at guantanamo...and even the pictures from abu ghraib are open to legal arguments about whether they are torture...as for the use of "self evident" as an argument...it isn't relevant really is it?
Actually, the UN has condemed the torture that takes place there. The term 'self-evident' is used when something is so obvious it doesn't need to be explained further. Taking people by stealth from other countries without any sort of extradition order = kidnapping.
Originally posted by jaden101
as for the kidnapping...do you consider the police arresting someone in the street to be kidnapping also?
Oh, dear. Arresting someone on suspicion, then either charging them or releasing them is a little different from incarceration for 3 years+.
i haven't read all the replies, so i appologize if this has been brought up...
technically the prissoners of guantanamo are p.o.w.s which means they can be heald for the duration of the "war". its legal in every sense of the matter.
as far as human rights violations go, so long as they are fed and sheltered there aren't any violations
Your first sentence is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read. Why join a discussion if you're not willing to acknowledge it first?
The rest of your post is equally useless. The US government has never stated that the detainees are POWs, so they cannot be treated as such. Finally, your definition of what constitutes a human-rights violation is lacking in so many ways. Basically, you've just stated that you can torture a human as much as you want as long as you continue to feed them and give them shelter! Pff, you're a joke.
apart from torture, which is horrible, let me explain the really frightening issue. we are holding 5 chinese nationals at gitmo without charge. They are innocent of everything except being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
that's an act of war
China, with it's massive army and nuclear weapons now has the legal grounds to legitimately attack and/or invade the united states. peachy, isn't it?
here's my solution-process everyone at guantanamo bay, release those that are innocent with severance, put those that are suspect in regular jails with regularly scheduled trials. relocate camp x-ray to siberia. toss bush and anyone associated with PNAC in there.
The US government has never stated that the detainees are POWs, so they cannot be treated as such. Finally,
thats what i've been getting at
but its all legal definition
it turns out the citizens and soldiers of nations that haven't signed the geneva convention aren't legally protected by it
it also only binds nations that have signed it...which while the latest verions, the 4th geneva convention...the US did sign in 1949...there were 2 amendments in 1977 that covered civilian treatment that the US did not sign or ratify through the senate
which is here
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
however to be a POW you must be as follows
n principle to be entitled to prisoner of war status the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly
note that the US hasn't just made up the term "unlawful combatant" in order to get around the geneva convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant
An unlawful combatant (also enemy combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent) is a person who is accorded neither the rights a soldier would normally have under the laws of war, nor the civil rights a common criminal would normally have.
murky waters indeed
Yeah, the invention of that term - and its application - is totally '1984'. Orwell is no doubt muttering "I told you so" in his grave.
The situation with the Chinese detainees is unlikely to result in that outcome. Neither countries want to engage the other in a war that would ruin their prosperous economies.
sorry, but they are considered pows by the us government.
there are no consistent deffinition of what a "human right" is. not in the geneva convention nor in any rules of engagement. nothing. i didn't say torture or other specific misstreatments are right or wrong but specific things are detailed in different international treaties which are often ignored or forgotten by everyone. the problem arguing about them is that no one can really agree on what a "human right" is so just throwing the term around gets confusing. heance, food and shelter, what more can you hope for as a pow?
excuse me for not reading 4 pages of usless drivel....