Pentagon has been manipulating TV coverage

[Ziggurat]

Wow, I'm so happy that those people being held without their basic rights to a speedy trial and access to their attorneys are getting 3 meals a day.

Are you aware that Geneva Conventions-protected POW's do not get lawyers or trials? Why, then, would enemy combatants who are not entitled to those protections get even more rights? You are complaining about a depirvation of rights that never existed.

 

[GreyICE]

Are you aware that Geneva Conventions-protected POW's do not get lawyers or trials? Why, then, would enemy combatants who are not entitled to those protections get even more rights? You are complaining about a depirvation of rights that never existed.

They have Geneva convention rights? Really? You sure about this?

As Judge Scalia said, there are only two positions - that they are prisoners of war (which, since we are not at war, does not apply) or they are criminals. The constitution recognizes no such thing as enemy combatants in non-wartimes (and we are not at war).

If Bush had declared war, this would all be different of course. Wonder why he didn't...

 

[Tony]

I suggest you see Garrette's post in the other thread (link a few posts up) on the problem of active duty generals going along with an explicit violation of Joint Doctrine, specifically PSYOPS doctrine, regarding who the target of an information operation is.

While the suits are under no such constraints, by suits I refer to the various suit wearing political appointees and officials who fill in the upper echelon of Pentagon directorships and deputy secretary for this, that and the other, those with stars on their shoulders are on thin ice when so acting.

For another episode of similar problems, see McMaster, Dereliction of Duty. It is widely read in military circles. That the military leadership at the highest echelons chose to overlook the problem that McMaster so clearly spelled out is not just disappointing, but obvious neglect. The four stars in charge from 2000-2006 are the very generation of military officers who swore they wouldn't do what their Viet Nam era precedessors did.

No wonder Major General Batiste retired rather than accept a third star and command of a Corps. He saw what was going on, and I'll guess he could not stomach it any more.

The more interesting parts of the news story, to me, are the relationships between the talking head retired generals and various large companies, some of whom have contracts with the Pentagon, and the failure of the various news companies to consider the conflict of interest angle in hiring them for "expert" commentary.

There's a lot of wrong here.

DR

Furthermore, isnt it illegal for the US government to propagandize the american people?

Information warfare is part of any military operation.

When did the government launch a military operation against the american people?

 

[Ziggurat]

They have Geneva convention rights? Really? You sure about this?

They do not. They have less than Geneva Convention rights. That was my whole point, and you apparently missed it.

As Judge Scalia said, there are only two positions - that they are prisoners of war (which, since we are not at war, does not apply) or they are criminals.

They are prisoners of war. They are not Geneva convention-protected Prisoners Of War. The latter is only a subset of the former (and one that only dates to the signing of the convention).

The constitution recognizes no such thing as enemy combatants in non-wartimes (and we are not at war).

I am using the term to distinguish between prisoners of war who are protected by the Geneva conventions (ie, Prisoners Of War) and those who are not.

If Bush had declared war, this would all be different of course. Wonder why he didn't...

Because presidents do not have the power to declare war. Congress does. How did you miss something so basic? And congress essentially did declare war, through the AUMF.

 

[Kestrel]

They do not. They have less than Geneva Convention rights. That was my whole point, and you apparently missed it.

They are prisoners of war. They are not Geneva convention-protected Prisoners Of War. The latter is only a subset of the former (and one that only dates to the signing of the convention).

I am using the term to distinguish between prisoners of war who are protected by the Geneva conventions (ie, Prisoners Of War) and those who are not.

Because presidents do not have the power to declare war. Congress does. How did you miss something so basic? And congress essentially did declare war, through the AUMF.

The provisions of the Geneva Convention apply even the the absence of a formal declaration of war. Quoting from Part 1, Article 2:

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Geneva Conventions includes procedures for determining if a person is protected under the GC.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

US Military law specifies exactly how such a tribunal should be held. We haven't held such tribunals for the Gitmo detainees. A declaration by President Bush that they are all "enemy combatants' doesn't satisfy the legal requirements.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I suggest you see Garrette's post in the other thread (link a few posts up) on the problem of active duty generals going along with an explicit violation of Joint Doctrine, specifically PSYOPS doctrine, regarding who the target of an information operation is.

While the suits are under no such constraints, by suits I refer to the various suit wearing political appointees and officials who fill in the upper echelon of Pentagon directorships and deputy secretary for this, that and the other, those with stars on their shoulders are on thin ice when so acting.

For another episode of similar problems, see McMaster, Dereliction of Duty. It is widely read in military circles. That the military leadership at the highest echelons chose to overlook the problem that McMaster so clearly spelled out is not just disappointing, but obvious neglect. The four stars in charge from 2000-2006 are the very generation of military officers who swore they wouldn't do what their Viet Nam era precedessors did.

No wonder Major General Batiste retired rather than accept a third star and command of a Corps. He saw what was going on, and I'll guess he could not stomach it any more.

The more interesting parts of the news story, to me, are the relationships between the talking head retired generals and various large companies, some of whom have contracts with the Pentagon, and the failure of the various news companies to consider the conflict of interest angle in hiring them for "expert" commentary.

There's a lot of wrong here.

DR

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a good thing, or something which should be tolerated. I'm just saying this sort of thing will always happen, and while it is good that it should be fought against, you should not expect to ever win whilst there is the potential for abuse of the system to continue.

I mean look at pretty much the entirety of the Cold War. The US, British, French and other nations used to feed the populous of their own nations AND those of the USSR satellite nations with propaganda all the time. Most natios are still affected by some of it. They've just gotten really good at it now.

I don't think they care if it's legal or moral by anyones standards, it's just what they do. Of course they can't go to quite the extent of WWII or Cold War stuff, but it's still entirely possible to fill airwaves up with "good old USA/UK" stuff.

 

[Garrette]

I mean look at pretty much the entirety of the Cold War. The US, British, French and other nations used to feed the populous of their own nations AND those of the USSR satellite nations with propaganda all the time. Most natios are still affected by some of it. They've just gotten really good at it now.

The difference being that the source of the propaganda used not to include the military; now it does.

Darth's and my reactions may merely be examples of parochialism, borne of an ingrained desire to keep the uniforms subordinate to the suits, but the reactions are relevant nonetheless.

My army doesn't do Abu Ghraib even if the CIA does, and if it does, it's an anomaly, except maybe I'm wrong and it does. My army doesn't pull a snow job on the American people, even if the White House does, except maybe I'm wrong and it does.

 

[Ziggurat]

The provisions of the Geneva Convention apply even the the absence of a formal declaration of war.

Yes they do. But they do not apply to non-signatories who do not abide by the conventions.

We haven't held such tribunals for the Gitmo detainees. A declaration by President Bush that they are all "enemy combatants' doesn't satisfy the legal requirements.

Congress has already addressed this issue, and they are indeed getting tribunals.

I note that you apparently agree with me, however, that prisoners of war (Geneva conventions-protected or not) are not entitled to lawyers or trials.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They do not. They have less than Geneva Convention rights. That was my whole point, and you apparently missed it.

And as such they have no rights, we can do anything we want to them.

Pitty we didn't think of this earlier, would have made WWII much more fun.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The difference being that the source of the propaganda used not to include the military; now it does.

Darth's and my reactions may merely be examples of parochialism, borne of an ingrained desire to keep the uniforms subordinate to the suits, but the reactions are relevant nonetheless.

My army doesn't do Abu Ghraib even if the CIA does, and if it does, it's an anomaly, except maybe I'm wrong and it does. My army doesn't pull a snow job on the American people, even if the White House does, except maybe I'm wrong and it does.

The army should expect to be viewed as a wing of what ever party is in the white house, just like rest of the executive branch.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes they do. But they do not apply to non-signatories who do not abide by the conventions.

Or to US citizens, as we know that they can be held for long periods as enemy combatants.

The activist judges where just getting in the way of what is right.

 

[Ziggurat]

Pitty we didn't think of this earlier, would have made WWII much more fun.

What are you talking about? Saboteurs, for example, could be and were sumarily executed in WWII - no trial, no tribunal, nothing.

 

[Garrette]

The army should expect to be viewed as a wing of what ever party is in the white house, just like rest of the executive branch.

Speaking practically or philosophically?

If philosophically, you are 180 degrees out. The military should expect not to be embroiled in domestic political games.

If practically, I agree only to the point where one should be alert for attempts of the executive branch to use the military as a domestic political tool and guard against it. We've not been perfect in that regard in the US (nor in the West in general), but we've been very good.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What are you talking about? Saboteurs, for example, could be and were sumarily executed in WWII - no trial, no tribunal, nothing.

But they let the japanese out after the war. Think how long you could keep them in now as enemy combatants.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Speaking practically or philosophically?

If philosophically, you are 180 degrees out. The military should expect not to be embroiled in domestic political games.

I am saying their philosophy is incorrect. That they serve the president, and why not be like the justice department and take it the step further and make it explicit?

 

[Mister Earl]

They have Geneva convention rights? Really? You sure about this?

As Judge Scalia said, there are only two positions - that they are prisoners of war (which, since we are not at war, does not apply) or they are criminals. The constitution recognizes no such thing as enemy combatants in non-wartimes (and we are not at war).

If Bush had declared war, this would all be different of course. Wonder why he didn't...

Uh oh. Don't take this the wrong way, GreyICE, but are you a 9/11 "truther"? I'd thought they all went extinct after they were proven wrong after so many times. If you are not, my apologies ahead of time.

 

[Ziggurat]

But they let the japanese out after the war.

The internment of the japanese was entirely different. They were not intered because they were accused of being enemy combatants, they were intered because of the risk that they might be, or become. From a constitutional perspective, there was far less justification for imprisoning them at all. So why do you bring them up?

Think how long you could keep them in now as enemy combatants.

Hmmmmm.... you mean a gross overreach of governmental power was willingly pulled back after the threat it was made in response to was removed? Kinda runs counter to the whole slippery-slope argument, doesn't it?

And you can keep enemy combatants for at least as long as you can keep POW's: indefinitely. The issue of whether or not to release them all won't come up until the Taliban and Al Qaeda have surrendered or are anihilated. Neither is likely to happen any time soon, but they can't exactly blame us for that.

 

[Garrette]

I am saying their philosophy is incorrect.

Then you will never have my vote for any elected office.

That they serve the president,

No. The follow the legal orders of the president as CINC, but their oath is to the constitution.

and why not be like the justice department and take it the step further and make it explicit?

Ah. So you're trolling.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then you will never have my vote for any elected office.

SO only people who lie to you about what is happening can get your vote?

Ah. So you're trolling.

Many here made the arguement that for the justice department the president could really do nothing wrong as he is ultimately in charge. So clearly we need to expect selective prossecution, that is the whole point of having the highest levels appointed by the president.

 

[Ziggurat]

Many here made the arguement that for the justice department the president could really do nothing wrong as he is ultimately in charge.

That was not the argument which was made. The argument was that he can hire and fire whoever he wants for the job. The job itself is still constrained by Congress and the Constitution. In regards to the military, then, it can be argued that the president has extensive powers regarding the promoting and firing of military personel. But their job too is limited by both Congress and the Constitution. We're not talking about Bush's ability to promote and fire generals, but what those generals can and should do.

So clearly we need to expect selective prossecution, that is the whole point of having the highest levels appointed by the president.

Selective prosecution in what regards? Selective in terms of certain laws being enforced more vigorously than others? That's actually standard operating procedure, and while there may be room for debate on how much of a role the president should play in setting enforcement emphasis, there's nothing inherently political about it.

Selective in terms of who gets prosecuted? Well, that would be unconstitutional (it's a violation of equal protection). Which means it very much is not the point of having the highest levels appointed by the president.