Dick Cheney should really stop playing the blame game.

[Liability]

Let's see if any of this rings a bell for our Vastly Ignorant:

Article 4 prisoners of war include:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

• that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
• that of carrying arms openly;
• that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Umm, that still only defines what constitutes Lawful Combatants. Not what constitutes "Unlawful Combatants",a dn what differentiates "Unlawful Combatants" from criminals, in this case murderers.

If one is not a lawful combatant, then one is an unlawful combatant.

And combatants are not the same classification of individuals as mere criminals.

Criminals get a whole array of "rights" in our Republic.

But by resorting to your false dichotomy (either "lawful combatant" or "criminal") the lawful combatants would get LESS proetection than the unlawful ones since the unlawful ones become mere "criminal" defendants with all associated "rights."

That's absurd. Mere criminals are not combatants at all.

Lawful combatants don't get the benefit of our criminal justice system when caught.

UNlawful combatants clearly don't deserve greater protection than those combatants who bother to adhere to the GC and the rules and customs of war.

Your argument leads to absurd results. Don't you see this? And if your "argument" leads to absurd results that OUGHT TO BE a clue that you are woefully off base.

 

[CMike]

WAIT, WAIT, I found it:

An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

In other words they are a criminal.

Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And wait, there's more:

The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."

Wow. So, any Combatant that is not a "Lawful Combatant" and is from a foreign nation must first have their status determined by a tribunal, and be treated as a POW until that point.

After that, if they are found to not be POW's, they will be treated like any criminal, as I said, and have the right to a fair trial, just like Mr Obama wants.

See now, you learn something new every day.

So, that means that Bush and Cheney are in fact guilty of war crimes for torturing people who were supposed to be accorded the status of POW's until a military tribunal decided their status.

And this is done by a military tribunal in the US. It doesn't say it has to be a civilian court does it? It also doesn't say it has to be an international court either does it?

 

[CMike]

Tried by Domestic Law. Ours includes the classification of Unlawful or Illegal Combatant.

But only because of the aforementioned BS law, most facets of which were invalidated by the supreme court.

It's american law, not bs law.

And since we are not ruled by the UN, american law supersedes international law.

 

[CMike]

While not one to say that wikipedia doesn't qualify as a reasonable source, seems the Council of Foreign Relations disagrees, while not necessarily agreeing with Bush at the time:

Findings Report: Enemy Combatants and the Geneva Conventions - Council on Foreign Relations

So in fact to the conventions, though language changed:

International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977

Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section II -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status
Article 44 -- Combatants and prisoners of war
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an
armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
...

Carrying explosives in the crotch is NOT openly displaying arms...

I see your point, however the underwear bomber committed his crime in US airspace and was taken prisoner within US territory. Therefore he is not considered any kind of "combatant" at all, but just a criminal.

Prisoners taken as combatants from the warzone presumably carried their arms openly, making them "Lawful Combatants" until proven otherwise by a tribunal, and then tried as criminals if found to be "unlawful".

Since he is an Al qaida operative, and a foreign national, he is an unlawful combatant. Unlawful combatants can still operate in the US.

 

[CMike]

Completely false. They are not covered as LAWFUL combatants, but that does not make them mere criminals. It makes them UNlawful combatants. (Note: Repeating yourself, as you do, when you were wrong the first time, as you were, doesn't help correct you.)

The consequence of being an UNlawful combatant is that one is properly denied the protections granted to LAWFUL combatants. These scumbag vermin are more properly deemed to be enemy sabateurs or properly viewed more lie "spies" who may be summarily executed. We don't do that, but they have no cause for complaint that they don't get the benefits of the status of LAWFUL combatants.

And they absolutely don't have ANY right to be heard to argue that they deserve the even GREATER protection accorded to mere criminals.

If that were true, then the Geneva Conventions would have rules to cover "unlawful combatants, and the Bush administration and the Republican Congress wouldn't have had to define the term themselves in the 2006 Legislation pointed out by in that recent post.

No. America is responsible for our own laws. We don't rely on the UN to make laws for us.

However, unlawful combatants still follows int'l law.

And unlawful combatants are tired by a military tribunal in the US, until Obama started giving them all sorts of rights and endangering our country as a result.

 

[Intense]

Tried by Domestic Law. Ours includes the classification of Unlawful or Illegal Combatant.

But only because of the aforementioned BS law, most facets of which were invalidated by the supreme court.

What you term BS Law, some of us term, a necessary construction to correct a void. These people we are talking about are not U.S. Citizens, they are committing illegal Acts of War, and seeking to undermine the legal process and our security in the process. The pony show you justify, sanctioned by the Supreme Court only shows that they, the court, have assumed the power to do so, rightly or wrongly. The act does not justify intent, it just allowed it. The process to correct the vulnerability, rather than be refined, and brought into harmony with the Constitution, has been undermined and obstructed at every turn. Had the situation been reversed, and the detainees had you in their power, your torture and beheading would be on youtube. H.R. 6166 would have done much for Justice, had it been allowed to succeed.

Each Country has a Right to Implement It's own rules in the process, there are restrictions, we consent to. We have not crossed that line to my understanding. In relation to Illegal Combatants, it is Their personal choice and a legal process that brings them there. Everything has consequence.

 

[CMike]

Tried by Domestic Law. Ours includes the classification of Unlawful or Illegal Combatant.

But only because of the aforementioned BS law, most facets of which were invalidated by the supreme court.

What you term BS Law, some of us term, a necessary construction to correct a void. These people we are talking about are not U.S. Citizens, they are committing illegal Acts of War, and seeking to undermine the legal process and our security in the process. The pony show you justify, sanctioned by the Supreme Court only shows that they, the court, have assumed the power to do so, rightly or wrongly. The act does not justify intent, it just allowed it. The process to correct the vulnerability, rather than be refined, and brought into harmony with the Constitution, has been undermined and obstructed at every turn. Had the situation been reversed, and the detainees had you in their power, your torture and beheading would be on youtube. H.R. 6166 would have done much for Justice, had it been allowed to succeed.

Each Country has a Right to Implement It's own rules in the process, there are restrictions, we consent to. We have not crossed that line to my understanding. In relation to Illegal Combatants, it is Their personal choice and a legal process that brings them there. Everything has consequence.

Intense I like your sig line. I am in the process of rereading Atlas Shrugged.

I recommend it to everyone to read.

 

[Intense]

But only because of the aforementioned BS law, most facets of which were invalidated by the supreme court.

What you term BS Law, some of us term, a necessary construction to correct a void. These people we are talking about are not U.S. Citizens, they are committing illegal Acts of War, and seeking to undermine the legal process and our security in the process. The pony show you justify, sanctioned by the Supreme Court only shows that they, the court, have assumed the power to do so, rightly or wrongly. The act does not justify intent, it just allowed it. The process to correct the vulnerability, rather than be refined, and brought into harmony with the Constitution, has been undermined and obstructed at every turn. Had the situation been reversed, and the detainees had you in their power, your torture and beheading would be on youtube. H.R. 6166 would have done much for Justice, had it been allowed to succeed.

Each Country has a Right to Implement It's own rules in the process, there are restrictions, we consent to. We have not crossed that line to my understanding. In relation to Illegal Combatants, it is Their personal choice and a legal process that brings them there. Everything has consequence.

Intense I like your sig line. I am in the process of rereading Atlas Shrugged.

I recommend it to everyone to read.

I just finished a reread a couple of months back. Great book. "We The Living", and "Anthem " too.

 

[Vast LWC]

And this is done by a military tribunal in the US. It doesn't say it has to be a civilian court does it? It also doesn't say it has to be an international court either does it?

Since the language of the document mentioned a Tribunal in the first case and then differentiated with a different term in the second case, it is implied that the court would not be a military tribunal.

 

[Vast LWC]

Tried by Domestic Law. Ours includes the classification of Unlawful or Illegal Combatant.

But only because of the aforementioned BS law, most facets of which were invalidated by the supreme court.

It's american law, not bs law.

And since we are not ruled by the UN, american law supersedes international law.

No, it's AN American Law, voted in two years ago by the very same people who had been breaking the rules the law was intended to reverse in the first place.

They were breaking international law, so they decided to change said law with their own law.

That's why it's a BS law.

 

[Vast LWC]

Since he is an Al qaida operative, and a foreign national, he is an unlawful combatant. Unlawful combatants can still operate in the US.

Since Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, nor is it operating as a representative of a nation-state, they are not a "combatant" at all, they are a member of an organized criminal group.

 

[Vast LWC]

No. America is responsible for our own laws. We don't rely on the UN to make laws for us.

However, unlawful combatants still follows int'l law.

And unlawful combatants are tired by a military tribunal in the US, until Obama started giving them all sorts of rights and endangering our country as a result.

OK, what does the Geneva Convention have to do with the UN?

And the US has agreed to abide by the Geneva Convention in multiple treaties, therefore it IS US law.

And finally, as previously mentioned, there is no category defined as "Unlawful Combatants" in international law.

The previous administration and Congress MADE IT UP.

 

[Annie]

While not one to say that wikipedia doesn't qualify as a reasonable source, seems the Council of Foreign Relations disagrees, while not necessarily agreeing with Bush at the time:

Findings Report: Enemy Combatants and the Geneva Conventions - Council on Foreign Relations

So in fact to the conventions, though language changed:

International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977

Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section II -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status
Article 44 -- Combatants and prisoners of war
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an
armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
...

Carrying explosives in the crotch is NOT openly displaying arms...

I see your point, however the underwear bomber committed his crime in US airspace and was taken prisoner within US territory. Therefore he is not considered any kind of "combatant" at all, but just a criminal.

Prisoners taken as combatants from the warzone presumably carried their arms openly, making them "Lawful Combatants" until proven otherwise by a tribunal, and then tried as criminals if found to be "unlawful".

FDR and SCOTUS disagreed:

Ex parte Quirin

Ex parte Quirin

Facts
Eight German spies, including Q, sneak into the US during WWII
Q and the others are captured by the US
FDR orders the eight tried by military commission; they are sentenced to die
Q and the others seek an original writ of federal habeas corpus from the Court

Issue: Did the President have power to try Q by military commission?

The Court, per Stone, CJ, answers yes....

 

[Vast LWC]

What you term BS Law, some of us term, a necessary construction to correct a void. These people we are talking about are not U.S. Citizens, they are committing illegal Acts of War, and seeking to undermine the legal process and our security in the process.

OK, let me ask you this. How can an individual, who is not a representative of a Nation-state commit an Act of War?

Here is the definition of an Act of War, just in case there is any doubt:

act of war: –noun: an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.

Act of war Definition | Definition of Act of war at Dictionary.com

The pony show you justify, sanctioned by the Supreme Court only shows that they, the court, have assumed the power to do so, rightly or wrongly. The act does not justify intent, it just allowed it. The process to correct the vulnerability, rather than be refined, and brought into harmony with the Constitution, has been undermined and obstructed at every turn.

Because it specifically is an attempt to circumvent treaties that the US had previously signed concerning humanitarian law.

Had the situation been reversed, and the detainees had you in their power, your torture and beheading would be on youtube. H.R. 6166 would have done much for Justice, had it been allowed to succeed.

Which is why we have rules, and why the terrorists are terrorists. If you sink to the level of terrorists then YOU become the terrorists.

Each Country has a Right to Implement It's own rules in the process, there are restrictions, we consent to. We have not crossed that line to my understanding. In relation to Illegal Combatants, it is Their personal choice and a legal process that brings them there. Everything has consequence.

They have the right to implement their rules within the constraints of the previous agreements and treaties that they are a part of.

And the Supreme Court has the right to judge any law congress enacts to be unconstitutional. That is their job, after all.

 

[Vast LWC]

FDR and SCOTUS disagreed:

Ex parte Quirin

Ex parte Quirin

Facts
Eight German spies, including Q, sneak into the US during WWII
Q and the others are captured by the US
FDR orders the eight tried by military commission; they are sentenced to die
Q and the others seek an original writ of federal habeas corpus from the Court

Issue: Did the President have power to try Q by military commission?

The Court, per Stone, CJ, answers yes....

The Geneva Convention happened in 1949.

The events you describe happened at least 5 years before that, if FDR was still alive.

 

[CMike]

What you term BS Law, some of us term, a necessary construction to correct a void. These people we are talking about are not U.S. Citizens, they are committing illegal Acts of War, and seeking to undermine the legal process and our security in the process.

OK, let me ask you this. How can an individual, who is not a representative of a Nation-state commit an Act of War?

Here is the definition of an Act of War, just in case there is any doubt:

act of war: –noun: an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.

Act of war Definition | Definition of Act of war at Dictionary.com

The pony show you justify, sanctioned by the Supreme Court only shows that they, the court, have assumed the power to do so, rightly or wrongly. The act does not justify intent, it just allowed it. The process to correct the vulnerability, rather than be refined, and brought into harmony with the Constitution, has been undermined and obstructed at every turn.

Because it specifically is an attempt to circumvent treaties that the US had previously signed concerning humanitarian law.

Had the situation been reversed, and the detainees had you in their power, your torture and beheading would be on youtube. H.R. 6166 would have done much for Justice, had it been allowed to succeed.

Which is why we have rules, and why the terrorists are terrorists. If you sink to the level of terrorists then YOU become the terrorists.

Each Country has a Right to Implement It's own rules in the process, there are restrictions, we consent to. We have not crossed that line to my understanding. In relation to Illegal Combatants, it is Their personal choice and a legal process that brings them there. Everything has consequence.

They have the right to implement their rules within the constraints of the previous agreements and treaties that they are a part of.

And the Supreme Court has the right to judge any law congress enacts to be unconstitutional. That is their job, after all.

That's why you shouldn't use dictionary definitions for complicated issues.

The Geneva Convention also recognizes organized resistance members as legal combatants, as long as they meet the criteria.

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

 

[CMike]

Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also the tribunal to determine what's their status can be done by a military tribunal.

12. ^ The ICRC Commentary on Article 5 says on the issue of competent tribunal that "At Geneva in 1949, it was first proposed that for the sake of precision the term 'responsible authority' should be replaced by 'military tribunal' (11). This amendment was based on the view that decisions which might have the gravest consequences should Hot [sic] be left to a single person, who might often be of subordinate rank. The matter should be taken to a court, as persons taking part in the fight without the right to do so are liable to be prosecuted for murder or attempted murder, and might even be sentenced to capital punishment (12). This suggestion was not unanimously accepted, however, as it was felt that to bring a person before a military tribunal might have more serious consequences than a decision to deprive him of the benefits afforded by the Convention (13). A further amendment was therefore made to the Stockholm text stipulating that a decision regarding persons whose status was in doubt would be taken by a 'competent tribunal', and not specifically a military tribunal.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's why you shouldn't use dictionary definitions for complicated issues.

The Geneva Convention also recognizes organized resistance members as legal combatants, as long as they meet the criteria.

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

How would the term "Organized Resistance" apply to the Nigerian underwear bomber?

Have we invaded Nigeria?

And, more importantly, none of the conditions used to qualify an Organized Resistance member apply in any case.

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

 

[Vast LWC]

Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also the tribunal to determine what's their status can be done by a military tribunal.

12. ^ The ICRC Commentary on Article 5 says on the issue of competent tribunal that "At Geneva in 1949, it was first proposed that for the sake of precision the term 'responsible authority' should be replaced by 'military tribunal' (11). This amendment was based on the view that decisions which might have the gravest consequences should Hot [sic] be left to a single person, who might often be of subordinate rank. The matter should be taken to a court, as persons taking part in the fight without the right to do so are liable to be prosecuted for murder or attempted murder, and might even be sentenced to capital punishment (12). This suggestion was not unanimously accepted, however, as it was felt that to bring a person before a military tribunal might have more serious consequences than a decision to deprive him of the benefits afforded by the Convention (13). A further amendment was therefore made to the Stockholm text stipulating that a decision regarding persons whose status was in doubt would be taken by a 'competent tribunal', and not specifically a military tribunal.

Which was in my post.

Once their status is determined, being Lawful Combatant or Criminal, then they must be tried by a court, as per the normal laws of said country.

But, most importantly, said prisoners are to be treated according to the Geneva Convention rules until their status is determined.


Look, let's apply this to another situation that happened quite recently:



Just last year, 2 American journalists were captured by North Korea as spies, perhaps you heard of it?

According to your rules, North Korea had every right to:

1) hold said reporters indefinitely,

2) waterboard them until they made some sort of forced confession,

and

3) tried them in a military tribunal, where they would have been convicted and given the death penalty.

Do you see where this might be a problem?

 

[CMike]

That's why you shouldn't use dictionary definitions for complicated issues.

The Geneva Convention also recognizes organized resistance members as legal combatants, as long as they meet the criteria.

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

How would the term "Organized Resistance" apply to the Nigerian underwear bomber?

Have we invaded Nigeria?

And, more importantly, none of the conditions used to qualify an Organized Resistance member apply in any case.

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Why would we invade Nigeria. Did the Nigerian government sponsor Al Qaida?

The Organized Resistance would be Al Qaida. They are resisting America for whatever reason.