What's conservative about torturing detainees, and limiting trial rights?
820101
Good question!!!  Weren't we always taught that it was the radical dictatorships where people got tortured and had no rights?
98420
This was neither Conservative nor Liberal, it was Constitutional based relative to the VI Article of the Bill of Rights\n\nFacts of the Case \nGideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.\nQuestion Presented \nDid the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?\nConclusion \nIn a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."\n\n************  \n\nTo the individual suggesting to boycott this question because it seems to be a homework question.  \n\nThat may or may not be true, but it is immaterial to the function of the Yahoo Question and Answer system.  People ask questions and others answer.  The motivation of asking (or answering) the questions aren’t important.  If someone is trying to do their homework through this system, they are the ultimate loser because they don’t do their own research.  It is their problem, not ours.
1026426
i dont know exactly but i do know we are to soft on theswe pervets and the only law we should have to worry about is a life sentence or the death penalty,,\nwe are to forgiving for this type of offender and they should not be tollerated in any civillised community
530830
I don't think we need torture, I think we need to bring back 'rifles at dawn'. Execution sounds harsh, but the purpose of it is to collectively remove people from society who've decided to turn on innocents. I think that lethal injection is too soft, it's too much kindness shown toward people who've raped, murdered, etc. Laws don't mean anything without some kind of tangible negative consequence for the lawbreakers.  Torture's kind of pointless, a way for sick cops to get their jollies...
251122
A law and order advocate....in the way you have it worded....is likely a conservative in approach to American standards of due process.  A law and order advocate wants fewer rights for suspects, and less restraint on police power.  A law and order advocate would probably be in favor of loser regulations on search and seizures, interogations, etc.  A human rights advocate is paying more attention to protection of individual rights.  He'd probably be in favor of more requirements for search and seizures, warrants, etc.  He'd seek to protect the rights of the individual.....a good example might be opposing what's happening in Guantanamo bay.
1165556
I'm not weighing in on all the pros and cons of the Gitmo camp, nor am I evaluating whether or not the constitution applies to the Gitmo detainees or the permissions granted to Homeland Security to bypass certain parts of the constitution.\n\nI just want to make a couple of remarks.\n\nThe detainees in Gitmo who are true combatants and/or are members of al Qaida, and/or are Talibani, and who are not American citizens have no protection under the US constitution.  If they hold US citizenship, but were captured as combatants, they forsook that citizenship and are legally considered traitors as well as enemy combatants.   If there are US citizens detained at Gitmo and they are not al Qaida or Talibani, and were not enemy combatants, and were not captured in war zones of Afghanistan and/or Iraq, then they may have recourse to due process under constitutional law .\n\nHowever -- under Homeland Security and all the powers we granted to the department, constitutional due process is allowed to be suspended so long as it can be shown that a detainee does or did present a threat through action or conspiracy.\n\nIn short, we the people have said that in order to pursue the "war on terror," we will allow certain suspensions of and allowances or leeway in interpretations and applications of constitutional law including due process, habeas corpus, and much, much more.\n\nNow, as I said, I am not saying anything about what is right or wrong about anything involved in these issues, in terms of the constitutionality of many things done in the name of Homeland Security and the war on terror.\n\n\n\nI see it as unfortunate if Gauntanamo detainees chose suicide as an alternative to despair over their situation; however, only in so much as I feel regret over any needless death.  Furthermore, if their despair was due to their being frustrated terrorists or captured combatants in any ongoing war, I feel no sympathy whatsoever for their despair in that case.\n\nIf any or all sought to garner attention for their cause as detainees, I regret their choice of method.\n\nHowever, if any or all sought to muster support for their agendas as terrorists or combatants, then I hold them in the same contempt as I do their brethren, the suicide bombers who used their deaths to try to further their campaign of terrorism.\n\nLast, and I know this sounds cold,  but I feel much better knowing that a suicide died alone rather than taking others with him, like bombers are doing every day.\n\nP.S.  In times of war, it is customary to hold prisoners so long as hostilities continue, therefore it is entirely arguable that as so long as hostilities continue in Afghanistan and Iraq, then repatriation may be denied.  By extension, in the case of al Qaida members, as a group who declared war on the US and as a group without a nation, they present a special case wherein "repatriation" and "end of hostilities" are indeterminable by previous or traditional means and practices.  \n\nDo you want to return avowed enemies of the US to a status of active combat against us?
724943
The right to freedom to practice your religion.  You can practice any religion you like, as long as you are not a Muslim.  (Recent news article showed that a person suspected of terrorism was set a parole so that he could not travel more than 1 mile from home - therefore could not go to mosque).\n\nA right to speedy trial by jury and to face your accusers. (How many terror suspects do the American currently have in a certain prison, who have not - so far - been allowed the usual legal right that everybody else takes for granted?)\n\nWho recons you haven't given up any rights or freedoms?  How long before another, equally vallid reason is found to segregate another part of our society?  How long before we can no longer enjoy the freedoms and rights that we are supposed to fight for?
654087
What this country needs is for YOU to read the Constitution.\n\nNearly everything you are babbling about is not accurate.  Even the courts screw it up sometimes.  Roe vs. Wade was decided based on a right to "privacy".  Go find the word in the Constitution, and while you are at it find the word "torture".\n\nI seldom come to this section just because of people like you who know so little about this country and what it is based on.  \n\nI will leave now, and go somewhere else where the average IQ of questioners is a positive number.
693471
They are enemy combatants taken from the battlefeild.  They are being treated in accordance to the Geneva convention rules.  They are not american citizens and do not have access to the American bill of rights.  They need to be tried in a military court of law and not a public court of law.  Why should we give militants, who defended the philosphies of the Taliban regime, and were soundedly defeated on the battlefeild the same rights that you & I have as American citzens?  This is a PRIME exapmle of how warped LIBERAL thinking is.\n\nAnd that's my 2 cents!
906603
There are two problems with torture.\n1. People will say anything you want, true or false to get you to stop torturing them so any information that is rendered from a torture victim is not even close to being reliable information.\n\n2. When we stoop to the level of torturing people, we are no better than the terrorists and as such become the thing that we are trying to fight.
750746
The liberals were squacking over panties on the head,dogs barking at them,and humiliation which is not torture.Hell my brothers did things worse to me than what the prisoners at guantanamo and gitmo went through.They are all for the rights of the enemy and all for strengthening their cause.Its a disgusting shame..,ask the soldiers what they feel about the libs and they make no bones in telling you that they are feeding the enemy.Its even more disgusting that they dont care.
86570
Comparative sufferring is beside the point.  Torture was reprehensible but NOT UNEXPECTED from the likes of Saddam Hussein.  Torturous abuse at Abu Ghraib was reprehensible and NOT TO BE EXPECTED from the beacon of human rights, dignity, and respect that is my beloved United States of America.
1096839
Before you go off on rants you should really read the decision. The court left open the possibility of congress enacting new law allowing tribunals.\n\nI also feel the need to point out that these are not American citizens, and as such are not subject to the same rights as American citizens. They are also not true enemy combatants which does not make them subject to the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court has once again over stepped it bounds, and in essence have just ratified a treaty with terrorists which is completely outside their juristiction.\n\nDon't misunderstand I am not trying to slap you down, or denigrate your opinion, just trying to give clarification. I do not believe this decision is a good one for anyone involved. For Americans it puts our safety in jeopardy yet again. It also places the lives of the same people it is designed to help in jeopardy. Consider this, when faced with the reality that we cannot safely detain enemy non- combatants what will the result be on the battlefield? I can tell it isn't going to be altruistic in nature.\n\nDeeJay I don't remember the rights of Americans ever being an issue in this case. In fact in cases where American Citizens have been accused of the same acts they have been tried in American criminal courts with full constitutional protection.
1141115
I expect the opposing side to name call on this one, or downplay the sactioning of torture. or that my side is sympathic to terrorist.\n\nThey will argue they have no rights as enemy combatants.\n\nThis is all garbage, it is dangerous the president can declare anyone an enemy without proof or trial......\nWe are not Iraq we are suppose to do justice by our nations princples.\n\nWe are letting people out of those prisons quietly, why would we do that if they were guilty.\n\n\nRumfeld and the Prez ok torture and blamed on 3 or 4 MPS.  It all stinks, \n\nThe way we detained many was by paying warlords for Tali Ban. War lords were paid by the head, many of these were people with no connection to Al Quedia or enemies of the war lords,  farmers.... you think a war lord cares........but who cares right?
890765
The Constitution provides protection for people, even criminals in that there should be no "cruel and unsusual form of punishment." \n\nI believe in this wholeheartedly. It is in accordance with my Christian beliefs. Let us not become monsters ourselves when we deal with monsters.
412193
The punishment should fit the crime.  Our justice system is too lax.  Prisoners complain their rights are being violated.  What about the rights of others they violated when they committed their crime?  Prisoners should have no rights.  \n\nIt's pathetic that prisoners eat better and have health care at their fingertips when law abiding citizens and their families can't afford 3 meals per day or health care.  Doesn't sound like punishment to me.
834572
Please keep in mind that what some criminals do to their victims is much worse than the death penalty.  Many victims who were tortured and raped repeatedly for years while being held captive in makeshift dungeons would have welcomed a swift death rather than what they experienced.  Many people think that the death penalty is too good for some of those criminals.  They would prefer subjecting them to the same torture they perpetrated on their victims.  But doing that would be inhumane, and, in essence, they would be lowering themselves to the level of the criminals.  So, they try to show some compassion by providing them with a more humane penalty--a quick death rather than a slow one involving torture.  Although I'm not a religious person, I think it's interesting that the Bible recommends an eye for an eye.  Maybe that's why church and state are separate.  If the church were running the justice system, I fear penalties would become worse than the crimes.  If you don't think so, look at the Middle East where  women are stoned to death for committing adultery or having sex out of wedlock.  So, when you look at the death penalty from that perspective, it doesn't seem so bad--well, unless you're the one on death row, I guess.  My opinion is that the people justly receiving the death penalty probably deserve worse, and should consider themselves fortunate.  \n\nYes, my country, USA, has the death penalty (in many states).\n\nYes. In my opionion, Sadam Hussein deserves what he got (and worse).