Dick Cheney should really stop playing the blame game.

[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.

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?

And we would have a right to drop a bomb on their ministry of defense.

I am simply quoting what the Geneva Convention wrote. I didn't write it.

 

[Intense]

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.

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

After Review, it would translate to Illegal Combatant. He is in violation of the rules of war. He is a Citizen of some Country. He is acting in violation of the Geneva Convention. Your Non-State of Al Qaeda having declared war on us is not stopped by you denying this is a war. I'm sure they get a big laugh out of your reasoning. Why not consider putting the same hand cuffs on them? They won't let you? I'm shocked.



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



I'm sure I can come up with more to expand the definition. Here is a source more to your liking, please explore it further. My point here is that the issue of Non-State Combatants is addressed. They still do belong to some State though. Reading the Geneva Conventions, I agree that All are covered, regardless of affiliation. There is a process that classifies the Combatant within the boundaries of the Convention. That is my point. There are actions of the combatant that upon review, should they classify him, illegal, put him in the hands of the Victim State to Charge and Prosecute according to Their Laws. That is where we are within our Rights, and that does include the Right to Construct a Trial Process that suits our concerns and needs over his. That is my point. Yes he is covered under the convention, yes there is a process allowed other than Public Trial, where he gets a soap box, and can also threaten National Security. You will find legitimate against Bush policy here. Again, What is not so much addressed is construction of Law that is Constitutional and addresses our concerns.

The War Crimes Act of 1996, as amended, makes it a criminal offense to commit certain
violations of the law of war when such offenses are committed by or against U.S. nationals or
Armed Service members. Among other things, the act prohibits certain violations of Common
Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which sets out minimum standards for the treatment
of detainees in armed conflicts “not of an international character (e.g., civil wars, rebellions, and
other conflicts between State and non-State actors). Common Article 3 prohibits protected
persons from being subjected to violence, outrages upon personal dignity, torture, and cruel,
humiliating, or degrading treatment. In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court
rejected the Bush Administration’s long-standing position that Common Article 3 was
inapplicable to the present armed conflict with Al Qaeda. As a result, questions have arisen
regarding the scope of the War Crimes Act as it relates to violations of Common Article 3 and the
possibility that U.S. military and intelligence personnel may be prosecuted for the pre-Hamdan
treatment of Al Qaeda detainees.
As amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA, P.L. 109-366), the War Crimes Act
now criminalizes only specified Common Article 3 violations labeled as “grave breaches.”
Previously, any violation of Common Article 3 constituted a criminal offense. Both the MCA and
the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA, P.L. 109-148, Title X) also afford U.S. personnel who
engaged in the authorized interrogation of suspected terrorists with a statutory defense in any
subsequent prosecution under the War Crimes Act or other criminal laws. These statutory
protections, along with a number of other available defenses, appear to make it unlikely that U.S.
personnel could be convicted under the War Crimes Act for any authorized conduct which was
undertaken with the reasonable (though mistaken) belief that such conduct was legal.
In the 110th Congress, legislative proposals were introduced to modify the scope of the War
Crimes Act, and it is possible that new legislative proposals will be introduced in the 111th
Congress. This report discusses current issues related to the War Crimes Act and Common Article
3.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33662.pdf


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

Not the way many of us see it. The classification upon review, determines status.
Torture V.S. Enhanced Interrogation, That issue needs to be resolved at the highest levels of Government, Our Government.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

And "Organized Resistance" is a very specific term referring to a group of people that are "resisting" a force that is occupying their country.

Al Qaeda does not qualify. And certainly a Nigerian member of Al Qaeda wouldn't qualify.

 

[Vast LWC]

And we would have a right to drop a bomb on their ministry of defense.

I am simply quoting what the Geneva Convention wrote. I didn't write it.

But what is in the Geneva Convention documents does not prove anything exceptional about this situation that calls for a new category of prisoner.

And to create such a category that is outside the bounds of the normal humanitarian rules is to set a terrible precedent that our own citizens will fall victim to.

Don't you all see that? Don't you understand that if you abandon the rules of conduct than your enemies in the present and in the future will then have the ability to do the same without fear of repercussion?

 

[CMike]

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.

And "Organized Resistance" is a very specific term referring to a group of people that are "resisting" a force that is occupying their country.

Al Qaeda does not qualify. And certainly a Nigerian member of Al Qaeda wouldn't qualify.

You are stating only your opinion not facts.

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

 

[Intense]

And we would have a right to drop a bomb on their ministry of defense.

I am simply quoting what the Geneva Convention wrote. I didn't write it.

But what is in the Geneva Convention documents does not prove anything exceptional about this situation that calls for a new category of prisoner.

And to create such a category that is outside the bounds of the normal humanitarian rules is to set a terrible precedent that our own citizens will fall victim to.

Don't you all see that? Don't you understand that if you abandon the rules of conduct than your enemies in the present and in the future will then have the ability to do the same without fear of repercussion?

Wrong. The Classification already exists. It is mentioned in the third convention. You are imagining limitations, projecting false values, and obstructing the construction of necessary safeguards based on superstition. The category is necessary, you deny both it's existence and it's purpose, that is fraud.

The Illegal Combatant Category does not abandon Due Process. It is Legal. It is accountable. Determinations are reviewed, and capable of appeal.

Our enemy, that falls into this classification has no regard for the rules of war, They are Terrorists, and War Criminals Specifically, charged with heinous crimes, the damage already done,or in motion, or the evidence conclusive, before being put here. Nothing you nor I do or don't do will effect their behavior. By what logic do you assume such claims?

 

[Vast LWC]

You are stating only your opinion not facts.

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

OK, sure, it's my opinion. Let me ask you this:

What is an "Organized Resistance" resisting if not an occupation of their country?

"Resistance" indicates an occupying force, and people fighting to "resist" an occupying force.

 

[CMike]

You are stating only your opinion not facts.

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

OK, sure, it's my opinion. Let me ask you this:

What is an "Organized Resistance" resisting if not an occupation of their country?

"Resistance" indicates an occupying force, and people fighting to "resist" an occupying force.

There can be organized resistance to the spread of aids, cancer, H1N1, communism, nazism, liberals, or just about anything else.

 

[Intense]

And we would have a right to drop a bomb on their ministry of defense.

I am simply quoting what the Geneva Convention wrote. I didn't write it.

But what is in the Geneva Convention documents does not prove anything exceptional about this situation that calls for a new category of prisoner.

And to create such a category that is outside the bounds of the normal humanitarian rules is to set a terrible precedent that our own citizens will fall victim to.

Don't you all see that? Don't you understand that if you abandon the rules of conduct than your enemies in the present and in the future will then have the ability to do the same without fear of repercussion?

This is out in space. Need will determine Necessity, yes it needs to be sold through reason, justification, and due process. Why would you deny or obstruct without reason?

American Citizens are Specifically protected because of Citizenship. Why do you make up this false claim. You need to study the Third Convention deeper. You miss allot.