The Term "Enemy Combatant"

[King of the Americas]

To Dan:

Well KoA, you obviously don't know the first thing about the law, the law of warfare, the detainee process, accusations of torture or much else. So let's discuss a few of them now:

What evidence do you have that the United States Government endorsed or approved the use of torture, overtly or covertly aside from the Order issued by Donald Rumsfeld (I would contend even including that order) which was immediatel countermanded? It makes no sense at all to spend so much effort battling something that isn't happening.

RESPONSE*I think the theme in my original post may not have been clear enough. I find that, within this new War on Terror, the U.S. through this Administration, has sought to 'change' or alter policies regarding the detention and interrogation of those captured in the name of executing this war. Moreover, that this disengagement, or lowering of the standards, from previous Rules of War and Geneva Convention stardards has diminished our ability to claim a moral high ground, and is furthermore helping the enemy to garner support.


Please remember to use the appropriate definition of torture which requires severe pain and suffering either physical or mental.

How is the use of sterile uniforms against the Geneva Conventions? The uniforms serve to distinguish the soldiers and they even carry insignia of country and service. They more than satisfy the Geneva Conventions. Now, tell me how people wearing civilian clothes, hiding among a civilian population, attacking by ambush and subterfuge is in any way equivelant to the way the US military operates? If you think we have soldiers out there wearing civilian clothes and taking part in military action you'd better have some darned good evidence.

RESPONSE*"...insignia of country and service..."...? Do you think that a patch or a small button in any way makes you stick out from others, civilians and soliders alike? All that I am saying is that if you say the ONLY way to be granted POW status is to be in full solider dress or unifrom, then WE'VE got some troops in danger right now.

How is it the Geneva Convention's definition of adequate uniform or distinguishing marks lack specificity? Have you read them? They aren't particularly lengthy and there aren't that many big words. (You started with the ad-hom's btw so deal with it. I'd rather be shortsighted than plain stupid).

RESPONSE*I HAVE read the standards, and they leave room for battlefield interpretation. If everyone of the captives are wearing a red piece of cloth on their right arm, and ALL of those whom you killed during the fight are also wearing this red on their right arm, one COULD reasonably assume that they were fighting on or within the same group. Thus I find this defination of adiquate untiform to be subjective. You find often times what you are looking for. And if you aren't looking desparately enough, you probably won't.

What protection do surrendered people deserve from US forces that they do not get? Granted there have been abuses but we cannot hold the entire administration responsible for the actions of some spec 4 who thinks he's doing the right thing. We investigate accusations of abuse and where we find there is cause we prosecute the abusers. This is acting responsibly.

RESPONSE* I believe that the best way to rally people to your cause, is to become the good in the fight, to stand truth and justice between us all. When Donald Rumsfeld stands before a microphone and defends the right of the U.S. government to extract intelligence by, doing things like "keeping them up to late, turning the air-conditioning up and down, disrobing them in front of women, and putting women's underwear on their head", then dismisses it all as no big deal...I've got a problem. Some idiot took pictures of Saddam Hussein in his underwear. Now while that may be good for a laugh in the breakroom at work, this plays bad around the globe. Because it makes us look sick or demented in some way. If the guy is guilty of crimes, try him, sentence him, and them do away with him. You see, because here's the thing, this is a top down order. These AREN'T POW's, so don't worry about treating them as such, then you are surprised when a few soliders take it too far...!?!?

How is the process that is currently in place for detainees held by the US inadequate? Do you know what the process is?

RESPONSE*What I know is that this Administration defends its reach for more authority to detain and interrogate prisoners underwhatever circumstances the Sec. of Def. deems neccessary, and that this 'new' policy adopted after the tragedy of 9.11, is LOWER than previously accepted global standards.

Prisoners of War are interned for the duration of the conflict with no right of review or appeal. Why should we give illegal combatants rights not guaranteed to legal combatants under the Geneva Conventions?

RESPONSE*I am saying that IF you want to win hearts and minds, you don't do so by MISTREATING those taken during combat.

Does it do us any good to win the moral war if we lose the physical one? Isn't it reasonable to assume that there must be tradeoffs between the two and that the balance may require adjustment as conditions change?

RESPONSE*Let me inform you of something, WE WILL NEVER LOSE A PHYSICAL WAR. We have more technological ability, than mere manpower can fight against. We will never lose "America", but we can't set one up somewhere else, while ignoring the standards that make us who we are. America stands in America because people know that they have equal access to the courts and a defense. What I am saying, that in America's case, the moral way IS the physical war.

Where do you find a declaration of the US Government saying we are better than everyone else? We do act to a higher standard than most and though we can admit we aren't perfect it seems some folks are more concerned about using those tragedies as an excuse to grab political power instead of addressing the problems.

RESPONSE*I think you ust made my point for me... However, I think you are an ignornat fool if you HAVEN'T heard President Bush SAY outloud that "democratic countires are peaceful countires and we only seek to spread peace and justice throughout the world, because Freedom is god's gift to the world." There it is WE are better than you, you should live like us, and if you don't like it too bad, my God told me so...

One last thing. The distinction in status that is being made is between being a legal combatant and an illegal combatant. Enemy combatant doesn't tell us much more than which way he was pointing his gun. Legal combatants have a right to be on the battlefield and a right to protection under the Geneva Conventions. Illegal combatants have no such protection. Illegal combatants are those that use illegal means to wage war (fail to wear a uniform or distinguishing marks, use protected buildings for military purposes, endanger or kill civilians out of proportion with military necessity, take hostages and a host of other things) or have no right to be on the battlefield such as mercenaries, foreign nationals not in the service of a nation party to the conflict and so on.

RESPONSE*Alright, I conceed your destinction. But are you further suggesting that because someone has been 'registered' as an illegal combatant, that they are deserving of endless torture until they are dead? I mean, say on the battlefield, you are receviing fire from a school. So you order everyone out, but no one comes out, but you start to receive 'heavy' fire- morters and such. So you call in an air strike, boom, the building goes down and ONE guy runs out and throws his face in the dirt, arms sprawled out, screaming that he was a teacher held captive. What does HE deserve? Imprisonment? Likely, along with LOTS of questions. Denial of food and water? Days of disrobing in a freezing room? They guy well could be an illegal combatant, but I don't think that makes it okay to torture him.

And finally, just once I would love to see someone so critical of the US take an honest look at who and what we are as a nation and compare them to the terrorists we are trying to destroy. Who does your scorn serve? I'd rather see dubya elected for life than let the people responsible for 9/11 and all the other terrorist acts get away with it. Does it occur to you that the terrorists want to destroy the United States? They want to use nukes on us. We don't need to understand why, we just need to stop them.

RESPONSE*What occures to ME is that the U.S. can't be destroyed, except from the inside. You can knock down all the trade centers you live but America will live on, because we understand that to live and be free and to fight for the right to party is endowed within all of us. The terrorist attacks of 9.11, where just that 'attacks', they weren't and could NEVER succeed as an 'invasion', which are two very different principles. These 'attacks' weren't intended or aimed at our military forces themselves (althought one could argue that the Pentagon hit might have been intended to do just that), but rather at softer civilian targets. These attacks were intended, I believe, to make political or policy changes to our course of action in 'their land'. Given that 'they' don't have a navy or an airforce, I don't see their 'invasion' and rule over our lives HERE in America as probably. That said, I think that unless we can show them our goodness, our willingness to stand for truth and justice, and the fact that we ONLY want to help them rule themselves...then the nuke IS headed for one or more of our major cities. Until you understand that the objective is to change American policy in the Middle East, you won't understand this issue at all.

Moreover, understand that you are FREE to live as you wish HERE in America, and only when you decide to give up that right and relent to an aggressor that you will not be an American. A Taliban fighter, or Osama himself couldn't force you to live as he does, even if he were at your door with an AK tomorrow. That is because this is America, and you are free to have a gun to defend yourself from just some an intrusion. We are in THEIR country, trying to tell THEM how to live. If we aren't the superior example, protecting of everyone's rights- even the most murderous among them, then WE are nothing more than tryanical occupational overlords, bent on forcing our will upon someone else.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Here's a littile something from the Geneva convention that makes things a little interesting...

Art. 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Kinda puts some of those foreign insurgents in a new category...Somebody should actually read this stuff every now & then

Ya know, I've often wondered what would happen if we treated jihadists as mercenaries simply on the notion that they receive outlandish rewards in the afterlife. 72 virgins, a crown and get out of hell free tickets for all your family certainly sounds like compensation to me.

It would be an interesting argument at least.

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Dan:

RESPONSE*What occures to ME is that the U.S. can't be destroyed, except from the inside. You can knock down all the trade centers you live but America will live on, because we understand that to live and be free and to fight for the right to party is endowed within all of us.

The right to party. Gotcha.

The terrorist attacks of 9.11, where just that 'attacks', they weren't and could NEVER succeed as an 'invasion', which are two very different principles.

No one is arguing this. The obvious question is, "so?" The Japanese didn't invade Pearl Harbor, either.

These 'attacks' weren't intended or aimed at our military forces themselves (althought one could argue that the Pentagon hit might have been intended to do just that), but rather at softer civilian targets.

Funny how you just dismiss the military significance of the friggin' PENTAGON with a wave of your hand. This is some kind of amazing thesis you have here, bud, make no mistake.

These attacks were intended, I believe, to make political or policy changes to our course of action in 'their land'.

So what do you call it? Aggressive lobbying?

Given that 'they' don't have a navy or an airforce, I don't see their 'invasion' and rule over our lives HERE in America as probably. That said, I think that unless we can show them our goodness, our willingness to stand for truth and justice, and the fact that we ONLY want to help them rule themselves...then the nuke IS headed for one or more of our major cities. Until you understand that the objective is to change American policy in the Middle East, you won't understand this issue at all.

Who cares if they nuke us? It's not an invasion or anything serious like that.

Moreover, understand that you are FREE to live as you wish HERE in America, and only when you decide to give up that right and relent to an aggressor that you will not be an American.

Yes, I thank God daily that I live in a country where iraving magalomaniacs can be smacked down at the polls and in the public arena.

A Taliban fighter, or Osama himself couldn't force you to live as he does, even if he were at your door with an AK tomorrow. That is because this is America, and you are free to have a gun to defend yourself from just some an intrusion.

And what weapon do you suggest as a countermeasure to the nuke you assure us is coming?

We are in THEIR country, trying to tell THEM how to live.

Whose country? How are we telling them how to live? If you mean Saudi Arabia, remember we are there at the pleasure (nay, the request) of their government. Why don't they attack the actual government that allows the western devils to sully pure islamic soil?

If you have a problem with junk mail, do you call the sender or just beat up your mailman?

If we aren't the superior example, protecting of everyone's rights- even the most murderous among them, then WE are nothing more than tryanical occupational overlords, bent on forcing our will upon someone else.

And yet you wonder why you continue to lose elections by ever-increasingly embarrassing margins... sheesh.

Tell me, who are we occupying against the will of the recognized government? How are we forcing changes to cultures? I want examples.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Eesh...I think I prefer it when you didn't know how to hit the quote button at all. You might want to look into how this technology stuff works before you use it. Same way you might want to understand what the Geneva Conventions say and how that is interpreted and implemented by various entities. I won't get into too much detail here, you seem to wander when you are thinking about more than one thing at a time.

KOA you can interpolate your comments into my comments. Maybe this will be so obnoxious that you'll either learn how to quote or will not reply.

The US administration has not changed or altered any policies. They have implemented policies in place and augmented them with orders and new policies which better fit a situation unanticipated when the original policies were drafted. Now, you still don't seem to be able to point to specific incidents of the government establishing policy which violates international agreements. If you can't then stop throwing accusations. Trust me on this, with enough research you can throw reasonable accusations (which can also be reasonably refuted), by throwing the accusations without doing the homework you just look stupid.

Yes, a small patch or button works as a distinguishing mark, or a red arm band or almost anything else which identifies a person as part of a unit. That is international law on the subject. Not every army can afford uniforms and flags. I never said a damn thing about having to be in full uniform. Read the Geneva Conventions, they really aren't that long or hard. There are other requirements in addition to wearing a uniform or distinguishing mark.

Why is that a big deal? They cut off the heads of their captives, isn't it fairly obvious who is more reasonable in their treatment of prisoners? While coercive interrogation techniques might fit under some people's definition of torture they do not fit under everybody's definition and they definitely do not fit the definition of torture established by the UN. Let me put something in perspective here: even prisoners captured by civil authorities in the US do not have the right to withold information from the police. The only right they have is the right to not incriminate themselves. A person who disobeys an order to testify may be held in jail indefintiely (usually just until the grand jury is released) at the pleasure of the authorities. They may be brought in front of interrogators or a judge every day and questioned. That's what the government can do to you, me and everyone else, why should the friggin' Taliban get special treatment?

The War on Terror is a different kind of war requiring different tactics. A lot of them we're making up as we go along. The enemy has likely infiltrated deeply into our country and operates more along the lines of organized crime than classical military. We have to adapt and we can't wait for an act of congress every time we need to change. Along the way mistakes will be made. However I do not see any definite cases of the administration exceeding the authority granted it under the constitution. Remember the President is the commander in chief, he doesn't need an act of congress before he makes military decisions. Congress does have the right to override any decision he does make, so everything that has been done is done with the approval of your elected representatives. Deal with it.

I don't know about you, but I'm less interested in winning hearts and minds than I am in protecting the nation from people like those who came here and slaughtered 3,000 of your fellow countrymen. Hearts and minds are good, but if winning hearts and minds means being soft on the terrorists then I can live with a little hate.

Your assertion that we will never lose a physical war is nothing but a bunch of witless tripe. We lost Vietnam, that was only two major wars ago. Think before you type next time.

I didn't make your point for you, and you didn't provide an adequate response to the question. The US does not habitually spread democracy by force of arms (numerous historical mistakes to the contrary). Ignorant fool I may be, but I listen to what people say instead of twisting it entirely into something else in order to support my own perverted political agenda.

Er...where do I suggest that illegal combatants should be tortured until they are dead? If anyone were to ask me I would simply say they should have their case adjudicated by a military tribunal and if they are illegal combatants they should be taken out back and given a cigarette and a wall to lean against. What the administration chooses to do is somewhat less than what I would do and neither of us advocate or practice the torture of people held in captivity.

The US can be destroyed from outside. All it takes is a dozen or so nuclear weapons the Russians lost track of years ago. Witha 50% success rate you can kill more than 10 million Americans immediately and probably 10 times that long term. This is what the enemy wants to do. They say so in their own communications. Shouldn't you be just a teensy bit more worried about doing everything we can to stop them than you are about the temperature of their cell? Do you suppose the cell was less comfortable than those caves in Tora Bora?

Anyway. Learn how to use the quote feature. I appologize for the rest of you, but I'm not going to go out of my way to make this easier to read by doing the things KOA should have done.

KOA, stop it with the accusations and put in some facts here. We've thrown some at you and directed you to the source material. There can be some strong arguments made from your side of the fence, but you sure aren't getting anywhere close to them.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Dan:

My accusations were VERY specific.

I accused this Administration of seeking 'limitless' power to imprison anyone they so choose, hold them without charges, and interrogate them endlessly.

To my knowledge this has happened to 'many' persons, even one American captured on American soil (Jose Padilla).

The Executive Branch through this 'new' "Executive Detention Order" in section 3 letter E has given Donald Rumsfeld or the Sec. of Def. authority to lock up and detain anyone he wants in whatever means he desires.

FROM A PRVIOUS RESPONSE"

"The major over-riding point being that this Administration has taken a step BACK from protecting human rights during warfare, rather than pushing for more human treatment.

This Executive has sought certain powers, during this unending War on Terror, to imprison and even torture indefinately anyone he or his cabinate so chooses.

This is unacceptable, and I believe it is the duty of the Legislature to limit the President's willingness to soil our good name by lowering our standards."

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Dan:

My accusations were VERY specific.

They always are. Your EVIDENCE is what's hopelessly vague.

I accused this Administration of seeking 'limitless' power to imprison anyone they so choose, hold them without charges, and interrogate them endlessly.

Yeah, and I accuse you of wasting the Muenster media's time. The difference? I HAVE EVIDENCE.

To my knowledge this has happened to 'many' persons, even one American captured on American soil (Jose Padilla).

To your "knowledge," space aliens built the pyramids and knocked up your grandmother. You have a credibility problem, pal.

The Executive Branch through this 'new' "Executive Detention Order" in section 3 letter E has given Donald Rumsfeld or the Sec. of Def. authority to lock up and detain anyone he wants in whatever means he desires.

I'd like to see a citation on this, and of course some reason to believe it's somehow legally binding? Oh, sorry, I forgot that you don't do evidence.

"The major over-riding point being that this Administration has taken a step BACK from protecting human rights during warfare, rather than pushing for more human treatment.

This Executive has sought certain powers, during this unending War on Terror, to imprison and even torture indefinately anyone he or his cabinate so chooses.

This is unacceptable, and I believe it is the duty of the Legislature to limit the President's willingness to soil our good name by lowering our standards."

In other words, the president is wrong and evil and brutish and wrong and evil and won't somebody please help me write letters to congress because the president is so wrong and evil and brutish and please don't press me on the details because I don't have any and... er, HALIBURTON!

Get a new act. Seriously.

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Dan:

This is unacceptable, and I believe it is the duty of the Legislature to limit the President's willingness to soil our good name by lowering our standards."

By the by, the legislature has spoken. Better get it in gear, those poorly-written letters aren't going to draft themselves, you know.

Congress renews Patriot Act by a 257-171 margin.

^That, by the way, is called a citation. It is used to back up one's assertions. Try it sometime, it's fun.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: To Dan:

My accusations were VERY specific.

No your accusations are very vague. In the Executive Order you cite below the president specifically states the legal source of his powers to do what he is doing. The courts may eventually quash it as unconstitutional, but that is a decision for the courts, not public opinion. So exactly what law is being broken here?

I accused this Administration of seeking 'limitless' power to imprison anyone they so choose, hold them without charges, and interrogate them endlessly.

Aside from the Patriot Act which does neither of the things you charge I'm unaware of the Administration attempting to seize any new powers. Got any particular examples in mind?

To my knowledge this has happened to 'many' persons, even one American captured on American soil (Jose Padilla).

Gee for a guy who is being locked up and tortured indefinitely at Donald Rumsfeld's whim isn't it kind of strange that he has a lawyer and a writ of habeus corpus before a judge right now? FYI Padilla is being held as an illegal enemy combatant who came to this country in order to attack us with a radioactive dirty bomb. He was originally held under material witness statutes and now is held under other causes. It matters not because as I pointed out before the government technically has the power to lock us all up indefinitely. We have the right to have our situation reviewed by a judge who can order the government to release us.

The Executive Branch through this 'new' "Executive Detention Order" in section 3 letter E has given Donald Rumsfeld or the Sec. of Def. authority to lock up and detain anyone he wants in whatever means he desires.

I hate to rain on your parade sunshine, but section 3 part E deals with the conditions of captivity that guarantees a certain quality of treatment to prisoners held under the act. Section 2 deals with identifying the people subject to the act and it specifically states that it does not apply to U.S. citizens. So Padilla is not being held under authority of this order.

FROM A PRVIOUS RESPONSE"

"The major over-riding point being that this Administration has taken a step BACK from protecting human rights during warfare, rather than pushing for more human treatment.

And your evidence is....what?

This Executive has sought certain powers, during this unending War on Terror, to imprison and even torture indefinately anyone he or his cabinate so chooses.

And your evidence is...what?

This is unacceptable, and I believe it is the duty of the Legislature to limit the President's willingness to soil our good name by lowering our standards."

And baseless, stupid accusations are unacceptable. I believe it is the duty of every legislatOR to laugh at you derisively and say rude things about you over cocktails.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Dan:

No your accusations are very vague. In the Executive Order you cite below the president specifically states the legal source of his powers to do what he is doing. The courts may eventually quash it as unconstitutional, but that is a decision for the courts, not public opinion. So exactly what law is being broken here?

RESPONSE: Jose Padilla was an AMERICAN citizen, captured on American soil. He NOW has a lawyer and is facing charges, but how long did that take, and under what conditions was he held previously, under what order or directive??? I read what I could of the links provided above, and it 'seems' clear enough to me and somewhat of a legal scholar that this President has sought Executive powers that quash the liberities and freedoms listed in our own Constitution, without even addressing our treatment of 'foreign' fighters. I believe the Executive order linked above is the broken law, but that until it is acted against it stands and allows for further injustices in the execution of such an order. I beleive that both the Legislature and the Judicial branches of our government are failing to provide and respect our checks and balances system.



Aside from the Patriot Act which does neither of the things you charge I'm unaware of the Administration attempting to seize any new powers. Got any particular examples in mind?

*RESPONSE: New powers...? The Sec. of Def. can capture and detain ANYONE he chooses for as long as he chooses, and then have them declaired Enemy Combatants- so to be able to 'interrogate them'. I didn't know that position held such power and authority over the globe before this Administration's actions after 9.11, but maybe I missed something.


Gee for a guy who is being locked up and tortured indefinitely at Donald Rumsfeld's whim isn't it kind of strange that he has a lawyer and a writ of habeus corpus before a judge right now? FYI Padilla is being held as an illegal enemy combatant who came to this country in order to attack us with a radioactive dirty bomb. He was originally held under material witness statutes and now is held under other causes. It matters not because as I pointed out before the government technically has the power to lock us all up indefinitely. We have the right to have our situation reviewed by a judge who can order the government to release us.

*RESPONSE: Here's the 'thing', you can resist government. In fact our Declaration of Independence demands that we do just that, when and if our standing goverment takes part in tryanical acts. Well, our enemies think of us that way, enacting laws within our own country to affect people's lives adversely abroad. Moreover, we as Americans have and believe in certain Constitutional Rights. Jose Padilla may very well be the worst among all Americans, but if we don't, er, DIDN'T protect his rights, what keeps an innocent person among your family from being treated in the exact same manner?


I hate to rain on your parade sunshine, but section 3 part E deals with the conditions of captivity that guarantees a certain quality of treatment to prisoners held under the act. Section 2 deals with identifying the people subject to the act and it specifically states that it does not apply to U.S. citizens. So Padilla is not being held under authority of this order.

*RESPONSE:
Sec. 3. Detention Authority of the Secretary of Defense. Any individual subject to this order shall be --

(a) detained at an appropriate location designated by the Secretary of Defense outside or within the United States;

(b) treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria;

(c) afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment;

(d) allowed the free exercise of religion consistent with the requirements of such detention; and

(e) detained in accordance with such other conditions as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.

This section indeed determines how the persons will be treated and detained, section "e" pretty much provides the Sec. of Def. more authority than I'd prefer... Section 2 does indeed say that if you wish "adverse effects" upon the U.S., its citizens, it economy, or national security, you can be subject to this order... "Economy"...? Would buying the U.S. dollar when it is low like China is doing right now, fall under that order too? What if you are just a dude from Saudia Arabia who sits in his tent all day and chants and prays for the downfall of America??? If am American G.I. pos in for a visit and sees a bunch of burning trade center tower pictures on the walls and sees this guy bowing down in front of a picture of Osama, do we have the right/authority to kill and or detain him and his family??


And your evidence is....what?

*RESPONSE: Are you serious? THE "DETENTION ORDER" IS EVIDENCE!


And your evidence is...what?

*RESPONSE: What is it that you 'need' in order to fulfill this equation? I accused this Administration of over-reaching in a power grab. I referred to the links provided, and stated an American citizen who was subjected to Guantanamoe "Enemy Combatant" status. This Executive's policies and actions need and demand the check from the Legislature & the Judiciary.

And baseless, stupid accusations are unacceptable. I believe it is the duty of every legislatOR to laugh at you derisively and say rude things about you over cocktails.

*RESPONSE: You may do and say what you will, but ingore my claims at your peril.

 

[Jocko]

But maybe I missed something.

Yes, you did. It's called a quote button. Sheesh.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Criminy KOA, I am sick to death of your inability to use a quote button. Learn how to use it will you.

Other than that, you failed to meet the questions asked of you:

What law is the President or the Administration breaking?

What constitutional limit on the President's powers has he exceeded or attempted to exceed?

What law or other document gives the Sec of Defense or anyone else the power to capture anyone he chooses for as long as he chooses and have them declared enemy combatants? If there is no such law or other document can you show that the Secretary of Defense is actually doing such a thing in violation of other applicable laws? Don't say yes...show us.

What rights has Jose Padilla had violated? If there were rights violated, were they violated as the result of a formal policy of this administration? If so, what is that policy and why is the legal system unable to address the issue?

What tyranical acts has our country performed that you think requires or excuses a citizen to rise up and oppose the government? Just as an informational note: armed revolution is rarely called for in a democratic country except by those who wish to overthrow the democratic system to put in....a tyranny maybe? Are even legitimate rebels authorized to use weapons of mass destruction against civilians in their rebellion?

Had to change your tune on the executive order did you? Do you think it's possible you don't understand the situation at all?

If section 3 of the executive order directs the Secretary of Defense to treat prisoners in a humane manner, with adequate food, freedom to practice religion and so on, what exactly is the problem with letting him handle the other details? What is he doing that you think is illegal?

No the detention order is not evidence of your ridiculous assertions. The detention order is just that, an executive order. The courts have full power to rescind it on review, and congress can pass laws which override it.

Where exactly has the administration done these things again? As I said before, the detention order certainly isn't it.

I had to quote this bit:

*RESPONSE: You may do and say what you will, but ingore my claims at your peril.

No, there is no peril at all involved in ignoring your stupid, ill-conceived claims. There are plenty of ways to legitimately argue some of the points you are ineptly trying to reach. Unfortunately it seems you are unaware of any of them and incapable of forming them on your own. Bring on the peril.

 

[LeFevre]

KOA isn't the only poster who doesn't know how to use the quote. I wish he and others would use it; its quick, easy and makes it easier to read and reply to.

Instead of using a * or something like >>>> to distinguish your comments from others, use the quote feature.

 

[Jocko]

KOA isn't the only poster who doesn't know how to use the quote. I wish he and others would use it; its quick, easy and makes it easier to read and reply to.

Instead of using a * or something like >>>> to distinguish your comments from others, use the quote feature.

He knows better. He chooses to ignore it because kings don't follow the same rules as us commoners.

 

[Ravenwood]

I see KOA has yet to actually read the Geneva conventions before spouting off...here are some more excerpts pertaining to the subject:
Art. 37. Prohibition of Perfidy

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: (a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender; (b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness; (c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and (d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

Section II. Combatants and Prisoners of War

Art. 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: (a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

 

[Cylinder]

Pop quiz: Why is perfidy such a grave crime under the laws of armed conflict?

 

[Beausoleil]

Here's a littile something from the Geneva convention that makes things a little interesting...

Art. 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Kinda puts some of those foreign insurgents in a new category...Somebody should actually read this stuff every now & then

Not really, since they fail to be mercenaries under item (c) above.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Not really, since they fail to be mercenaries under item (c) above.

Maybe it's twisting things, but since martyrs are promised an entire warehouse full of goodies and privileges by the imams can't you argue that they are doing it for private gain? I mean 72 Virgins, get out of hell free cards for 70 relatives and a crown with gems in it that are worth more than the entire planet? Sounds like material rewards to me, the fact that it is in the afterlife is not germaine.

I don't know how the legal eagles would view it, but I think you could at least make that argument.

 

[Jocko]

Pop quiz: Why is perfidy such a grave crime under the laws of armed conflict?

Ooh! Ooh! I know!

Because it is complete anathema to the entire word and spirit of the Geneva Conventions in toto?

Hopefully this bite-sized piece of common sense will save KOA the chore of actually reading through the text before commenting on it.

 

[Jocko]

Maybe it's twisting things, but since martyrs are promised an entire warehouse full of goodies and privileges by the imams can't you argue that they are doing it for private gain? I mean 72 Virgins, get out of hell free cards for 70 relatives and a crown with gems in it that are worth more than the entire planet? Sounds like material rewards to me, the fact that it is in the afterlife is not germaine.

I don't know how the legal eagles would view it, but I think you could at least make that argument.

I guess those things aren't actually "material" rewards so much as "etherial," but that sounds more like a case for amending subparagraph C than a reason for discounting their mercenary status. I think in spirit it's largely the same thing. After all, if you promise a merc a handful of manure and convince him it's priceless, that would seem to fit the bill as well.

BTW, what the hell good is a gem worth more than the whole planet? Where you gonna sell it? Durr. And how long do you think 72 virgins will last you? I've done better than that inside of a 48-hour drunk.

 

[Dan Beaird]

I guess those things aren't actually "material" rewards so much as "etherial," but that sounds more like a case for amending subparagraph C than a reason for discounting their mercenary status. I think in spirit it's largely the same thing. After all, if you promise a merc a handful of manure and convince him it's priceless, that would seem to fit the bill as well.

BTW, what the hell good is a gem worth more than the whole planet? Where you gonna sell it? Durr. And how long do you think 72 virgins will last you? I've done better than that inside of a 48-hour drunk.

The terms actually indicate physical rewards (well the virgins and the crown at least) I don't think many religious people would like to make the argument that paradise isn't a "real" place. Like I say, I think someone could make the argument, I don't know if they'd be able to make it stick.

I'd probably wind up trading the gems for more virgins. They're like those little potato chips in the tube...after the first one it's just about impossible to stop until you've had them all.