HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
 By Jack Lepiarz Sept. 11, 2006 Many conservatives have said that terrorists are not subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention because they are not actually soldiers--they are terrorists. They use this as a way to justify some of the more brutal treatment that many captured terrorists inevitably undergo. But what's strange is that those same people are the ones that say that terrorists do not deserve a trial for their actions, and that they should be held without any charges against them in Guantanamo Bay, or any similar prison. Now, logic would tell you that if someone isn't a soldier, then they're a civilian, and have the same basic rights of any civilian--namely the right to a fast and speedy trial. On the other hand, logic would also tell you that if someone isn't a civilian, then they're a soldier, and therefore have the same basic rights of any soldier under the Geneva Convention. But there's the inconsistency. Conservatives don't want to have to deal with trying terrorists the same way that Timothy McVeigh was. At the same time, they don't consider terrorists to be soldiers. In a sense, they consider terrorists to be almost sub-human. Terrorists have no basic human rights. Now, I don't want anyone to get the false impression that I'm trying to be sympathetic towards terrorists, but I do believe that our government needs to clarify how we classify terrorists. If we're going to call them enemy combatants, then we need to treat them as such, and they need to be held under the provisions of the Geneva Convention. At the same time, if we're going to say that they aren't soldiers, and aren't protected by the Geneva Convention, then we need to treat them like criminals. Timothy McVeigh was arrested and tried for the Oklahoma City bombing, what makes this new generation of terrorists different? If America wants to call itself the "land of the free", then it needs to deliver on its promises. We cannot have our government locking up people and throwing away the key on the suspicion that they might have been planning to carry out a terrorist attack. That goes against one of the fundamental principles in our Constitution. Unfortunately, few people seem to have noticed that. How about this: terrorists captured in Iraq can be treated as prisoners of war, and suspected terrorists arrested in the United States and its territories can be charged with terrorism. That's a fair compromise , right? After all, put yourself in the shoes of someone who has been accused of terrorism, yet had no plans to carry out any acts of terrorism. Not only have you been wrongfully accused, but there is no chance of you ever proving your innocence because the government refuses to allow you to go to trial. How is that American? It's a shame that that makes sense, because it's unlikely that any bureaucratic government like our own will ever adopt it as a working system because of that very reason. Sadly, our government has dropped the ball on terrorism yet again, and continues to show that our self-proclaimed title of "Defender of the Free World" is false. ------------ About the author: Jack Lepiarz is an 18-year-old college student at Emerson College in Boston. He also co-hosts the Katherine and Jack Show on UthTV.com and has been performing various circus talents for the past several years. Though often described as stubborn and egotistical, he tries to keep an open mind and treat others the way he would like to be treated. Email: Jackwuzhere42@aol.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
