If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   A Supreme Error: Fred Thompson's response to the Supreme Court's recent Guantanamo Bay decision   (townhall.com) divider line 158
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2132 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2008 at 11:39 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-06-14 03:08:58 AM
homerdrew415:

I'm not saying that non-citizens have no rights and can be made to be cattle or dog food. What I am saying is that the constitution and the bill of rights and all the privileges and freedoms they included were written with citizens in mind (not non-citizens). I don't have a legal background aside from a undergraduate course in media law (emphasis on the first amendment) that I took en route to getting my B.A.


I disagree. The Constitution makes references to citizens in some places, in others it makes references to people. I believe the Bill of Rights only makes references to people. I think they intended this. Think about it from a historical perspective; it would make sense for them to consider the rights of non-citizens since it was a new country and a lot of people were immigrating at the time. It also makes sense from a moral/human rights standpoint.
 
2008-06-14 03:12:31 AM
Axolotl: homerdrew415 And they will still be entitled to Constitutional protections. It doesn't matter where they are, so long as they are in US territory, a military base counts, and being dealt with by the US government? It all applies.

US territory/bases like Guantanamo or Diego Garcia would count, but on a US ship at sea? nope...

Actually, the SCOTUS decision is based on US control, not territory. A US Navy ship is clearly under US control. Anywhere on the planet. You're being a devious weasel trying to find a way to ignore human rights through location or classification, and you are failing.

BTW, Ron Paul Revere is wiping the floor with you and KaponoFor3.


I'm being a devious weasel? So nice of you to notice! I said it earlier, the SCOTUS decision is just going to force the pentagon & white house & CIA, etc. to change their plans for prisoners and keep them away from any place that would have to abide by the SCOTUS decision. I don't care where, how, etc. as it's not my job to deal with that shiat. Just remember that president Obama or McCain won't put OBL or whoever in cuffs and have them arraigned in a DC public court room. Whatever happens, with whomever in office, it will happen behind closed doors and probably outside of the jurisdiction of the American Justice system.

And if falsely accusing people of being xenophobes and racists means Ron Paul Revere is "wiping the floor with me" than wow, I'm toast..Nice to see it's still fashionable to falsely accuse others of xenophobia & racism up in Seattle. Oh and if there were a whiter than white place out there with a white ivory tower to throw stones from, it would be there.
 
2008-06-14 03:12:58 AM
homerdrew415: The guy at the end of the thread

I've seen them protesting at SFSU when I was still there and at UC Berkeley (GF goes there), and I can't get over how they show themselves in worse conditions than anything at GITMO and they've been waterboarded (word?) hundreds more times than the 3 times on record (admittedly on record is a loaded term).


Yeah, I didn't notice the red jumpsuit, and bellbottoms in the background, til you posted. So, now I feel bad for posting the pic. Booze and Google Image Search for the loss :(

Regardless, I never could understand the logistical benefit for the whole "sight-sound-deprevation"/"dog kennel" things that we do. I mean, we can all bicker and argue whether to label them POWs or Enemy Combatatants, but we should treat both parties as humanely as possible. Once they are in our possesion, they are no threat, so treating them like shiat doesn't provide us with any real military advantage. Unless we run that place like Hogans Heroes, where they are able to sneak out when were not looking.
 
2008-06-14 03:15:34 AM
Wraithbane: homerdrew415
US territory/bases like Guantanamo or Diego Garcia would count, but on a US ship at sea? nope...

A U.S. Navy ship IS U.S. territory. Whether it be at sea, in it's homeport, or in the middle of Sydney harbor. Feel free to argue with my 8 years of Sea Duty with the Navy.


I'm fine with accepting your statement on a naval vessel being US Territory.
 
2008-06-14 03:16:28 AM
Lemina: homerdrew415:

I'm not saying that non-citizens have no rights and can be made to be cattle or dog food. What I am saying is that the constitution and the bill of rights and all the privileges and freedoms they included were written with citizens in mind (not non-citizens). I don't have a legal background aside from a undergraduate course in media law (emphasis on the first amendment) that I took en route to getting my B.A.

I disagree. The Constitution makes references to citizens in some places, in others it makes references to people. I believe the Bill of Rights only makes references to people. I think they intended this. Think about it from a historical perspective; it would make sense for them to consider the rights of non-citizens since it was a new country and a lot of people were immigrating at the time. It also makes sense from a moral/human rights standpoint.


If it were about people wouldn't that have to include slaves? As I recall that wasn't a very high priority at that time period
 
2008-06-14 03:16:39 AM
In all fairness, I am as willing to give as much weight to Senator Thompson's opinion as I am to any other cast member of Iron Eagle III

www.flightsim.com
 
2008-06-14 03:17:55 AM
homerdrew415: Just remember that president Obama or McCain won't put OBL or whoever in cuffs and have them arraigned in a DC public court room. Whatever happens, with whomever in office, it will happen behind closed doors and probably outside of the jurisdiction of the American Justice system.

There's no baseless statement presented as fact like a skookum-style baseless statement presented as fact.

You in some sort of apprenticeship program?
 
2008-06-14 03:18:59 AM
The guy at the end of the thread: homerdrew415: The guy at the end of the thread

I've seen them protesting at SFSU when I was still there and at UC Berkeley (GF goes there), and I can't get over how they show themselves in worse conditions than anything at GITMO and they've been waterboarded (word?) hundreds more times than the 3 times on record (admittedly on record is a loaded term).

Yeah, I didn't notice the red jumpsuit, and bellbottoms in the background, til you posted. So, now I feel bad for posting the pic. Booze and Google Image Search for the loss :(

Regardless, I never could understand the logistical benefit for the whole "sight-sound-deprevation"/"dog kennel" things that we do. I mean, we can all bicker and argue whether to label them POWs or Enemy Combatatants, but we should treat both parties as humanely as possible. Once they are in our possesion, they are no threat, so treating them like shiat doesn't provide us with any real military advantage. Unless we run that place like Hogans Heroes, where they are able to sneak out when were not looking.


I'd just be happy with a working lie detector that was useful enough to be accepted as evidence in a court of law..
 
2008-06-14 03:22:37 AM
Occam's Chainsaw: homerdrew415: Just remember that president Obama or McCain won't put OBL or whoever in cuffs and have them arraigned in a DC public court room. Whatever happens, with whomever in office, it will happen behind closed doors and probably outside of the jurisdiction of the American Justice system.

There's no baseless statement presented as fact like a skookum-style baseless statement presented as fact.

You in some sort of apprenticeship program?


Oh I'm sorry...I keep forgetting that our new president will completely change American politics forever! For some reason I keep thinking that once sworn into office, this president will have to make horrible tough decisions that will result in the death of people, and that no matter how noble and naive they are, the cold hard slap of reality will teach them a lesson eventually..

It's funny because every president has blood on their hands...Their supporters just choose to ignore it when it's inconvenient.
 
2008-06-14 03:35:25 AM
homerdrew415 I said it earlier, the SCOTUS decision is just going to force the pentagon & white house & CIA, etc. to change their plans for prisoners and keep them away from any place that would have to abide by the SCOTUS decision.

p-userpic.livejournal.com

Any territory under US control is subject to US law.

Why do you think there are exceptions to that?

Do you like the idea of secret US prisons?
 
2008-06-14 03:39:02 AM
Axolotl: homerdrew415 I said it earlier, the SCOTUS decision is just going to force the pentagon & white house & CIA, etc. to change their plans for prisoners and keep them away from any place that would have to abide by the SCOTUS decision.

Any territory under US control is subject to US law.

Why do you think there are exceptions to that?

Do you like the idea of secret US prisons?


I think there are exceptions, because I'm a realist. I don't care about secret prisons one way or another, but I do know that every power has blood on their hands and nothing I say or do will change that. If you want to live in the land of flying puppies and unicorns go right ahead, just don't talk shiat to me for taking the red pill a long time ago...
 
2008-06-14 03:40:17 AM
homerdrew415:

If it were about people wouldn't that have to include slaves? As I recall that wasn't a very high priority at that time period


Hey, I won't say the founding fathers were perfect...I believe they considered slaves property, not people.
 
2008-06-14 03:41:56 AM
Lemina: homerdrew415:

If it were about people wouldn't that have to include slaves? As I recall that wasn't a very high priority at that time period

Hey, I won't say the founding fathers were perfect...I believe they considered slaves property, not people.


and freed slaves? They weren't property but they certainly weren't the same as a free european
 
2008-06-14 03:43:29 AM
homerdrew415: Oh I'm sorry...I keep forgetting that our new president will completely change American politics forever! For some reason I keep thinking that once sworn into office, this president will have to make horrible tough decisions that will result in the death of people, and that no matter how noble and naive they are, the cold hard slap of reality will teach them a lesson eventually..

It's funny because every president has blood on their hands...Their supporters just choose to ignore it when it's inconvenient.


What a wonderful bunch of facts and citations you've presented to support the assertion above that the next administration will not prosecute OBL openly if captured. Which was in no way pulled directly from your ass. Nosiree.

So does skookum actually give lectures and discuss tradecraft, or just show by example? Is there a benefits package?
 
2008-06-14 03:46:07 AM
I offer every president that has ever held the office as evidence of the next administration's future actions. You name a president from history and they are all responsible for innocent deaths.
 
2008-06-14 03:48:51 AM
homerdrew415 I think there are exceptions, because I'm a realist.

No you are not. You are rationalizing, or you are an apologist. Please review the following: "rule of law" "slippery slope" and "due process." Google 'em or somthin.
 
2008-06-14 03:50:35 AM
homerdrew415: I offer every president that has ever held the office as evidence of the next administration's future actions. You name a president from history and they are all responsible for innocent deaths.

Correct, in the Sylvia Plath "everyone's dying" sense. Now kindly explain to me how this in any way relates to OBL and whether or not he will be openly tried if apprehended alive.
 
2008-06-14 03:56:43 AM
The only reason I see liberals freaking out about Guantanamo is they are waiting for the government to show up at their door and haul them away for dissenting, I got new for you, if they tried that the conservatives would be there with their guns to back you up and we would not let *anyone* be taken without a fight.

These are non-American combatants taken from the field of battle at Gitmo. They raised weapons against our soldiers, and our boys took them alive. These prisoners should not be afforded the same rights as American citizens, they are POW's. A distinction has to be drawn. This ruling is moronic.
 
2008-06-14 03:56:51 AM
homerdrew415:

and freed slaves? They weren't property but they certainly weren't the same as a free european


No, but that was due to racism, and it is unfortunate that freed slaves weren't always treated equally because of that. But my argument was that the Constitution was originally written with non-citizens in mind, such as immigrating Europeans.
 
2008-06-14 04:01:52 AM
Lemina: homerdrew415:

and freed slaves? They weren't property but they certainly weren't the same as a free european

No, but that was due to racism, and it is unfortunate that freed slaves weren't always treated equally because of that. But my argument was that the Constitution was originally written with non-citizens in mind, such as immigrating Europeans.


As specific as the Framers were with a great deal of constitutional amendments, and the whole 11th - 15th amendment thing, I don't think they were thinking about immigrant Europeans.
 
2008-06-14 04:06:03 AM
Teikiatsu: These are non-American combatants taken from the field of battle at Gitmo. They raised weapons against our soldiers, and our boys took them alive. These prisoners should not be afforded the same rights as American citizens, they are POW's. A distinction has to be drawn. This ruling is moronic.

C&P from one of my above posts:

The administration has done everything in their power to make damned certain that current detainees are not afforded the status of being POWs. This ruling in no way concerns or affects POWs. Fail.

Look, either they're POWs as you attest (and the Bush admin denies flatly) and you apply the Geneva conventions, or they're civilians and should be tried in civilian courts. That's it. This isn't rocket surgery.
 
2008-06-14 04:12:28 AM
Again, too little, too late, and who gives a shiat what Fred Thompson says?
 
2008-06-14 04:17:28 AM
Occam's Chainsaw: Look, either they're POWs as you attest (and the Bush admin denies flatly) and you apply the Geneva conventions, or they're civilians and should be tried in civilian courts. That's it. This isn't rocket surgery.

Apparently these folks advocate the third option: molecular calculus--where you can set up a third system outside of the rules of war and the rules of civil law, where you can cast aside any due process for people that are obviously evil, where detainees are guilty because they are detainees, and where the last 200+years of precedent are too quaint and outdated to apply.
 
2008-06-14 04:29:28 AM
homerdrew415: El_Dan: blah blah blah

Wikipedia isn't exactly a respected legal authority.

Out of curiosity, what is your expertise here? I have yet to hear someone with any legal education whatsoever - from a first year law student to a Supreme Court judge - argue that no foreigners have any Constitutional protection from the US government.

Well if you won't accept Wikipedia how about the national archives (new window)?

I'm not saying that non-citizens have no rights and can be made to be cattle or dog food. What I am saying is that the constitution and the bill of rights and all the privileges and freedoms they included were written with citizens in mind (not non-citizens). I don't have a legal background aside from a undergraduate course in media law (emphasis on the first amendment) that I took en route to getting my B.A.


Wait, what are you basing that claim on? You personally are not an expert, and the National Archives link you provided was too vague to address this issue directly.

But really, you don't need any particular expertise to understand how citizenship affects Constitutional rights. Just read the document, particularly the amendments. It uses phrases like "the people" most of the time, and terms like "citizens" in a few specific instances. Check out the fourteenth amendment, section one.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See how they used "citizen" in one phrase, and "person" in another? Could it be that the phrase that says "citizen" refers to rights of citizens, and the other phrase refers to rights that the government must recognize in everyone? Fun fact: The fourteenth amendment is the only one of the first fourteen that even mentions the word citizen; the rest refer to everyone. And the portion of the fourteenth amendment that refers to citizenship, as anyone who has taken a Con Law course could tell you, has an extremely narrow application, affecting only the ability of states to discriminate against US citizens from other states.

So now that we've established that, can you please tell me what support your argument has?
 
2008-06-14 04:31:34 AM
El_Dan: So now that we've established that, can you please tell me what support your argument has?

He has an argument?
 
2008-06-14 04:37:30 AM
Ron Paul Revere: Our uniformed military personnel are covered by the Geneva Convention.

No US uniformed personnel taken prisoner since 1945 has been afforded Geneva Convention III protections. It says a lot that the last foreign country to do so was Nazi Germany.

So-called "enemy combatants" are a newly designated status by the Bush administration, an idea that has no basis in any law, international or US.

The term "unlawful combatant" was created by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1942 in the Ex Parte QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) decision.

By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

It is currently defined by the United States Senate and Congress in 10 USC sec. 948a(1)(a):

(A) The term "unlawful enemy combatant" means-
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.


/assuming you meant to say "unlawful combatant" when you wrote "enemy combatant" as they have always existed
 
2008-06-14 04:44:02 AM
Teikiatsu 2008-06-14 03:56:43 AM

They raised weapons against our soldiers, and our boys took them alive. These prisoners should not be afforded the same rights as American citizens, they are POW's. A distinction has to be drawn. This ruling is moronic.



POWs have rights under the Geneva Convention. Your government wants to deny them that right and created a new definition of prisoner to deny them those rights.

Oh, and don't forget that this isn't a war. No declaration of war was ever made.
 
2008-06-14 04:46:12 AM
jvl: Ron Paul Revere: Our uniformed military personnel are covered by the Geneva Convention. So-called "enemy combatants" are a newly designated status by the Bush administration, an idea that has no basis in any law, international or US.

You have made an error: lllegal Enemy Combantant was a term invented in World War II.

/ But the Administration was stupid to push this until the Supremes intervened


You have made a greater error, the Court had the power to issue writs of habeas corpus on the Unlawful Enemy Combatants during WWII that you allude to. Their petition was heard by the Supreme Court and it was ruled that their detention was both proper and authorized. They were later executed.

Ex Parte Quirin (new window)

I suppose such "facts" and such "precedent" are "inconvenient" for Fred Thompson's "comical attempt at writing a serious op-ed."
 
2008-06-14 05:11:52 AM
Cyber_Junk: POWs have rights under the Geneva Convention.

Those rights of which come from being in a status which is not automatically conferred on just any combatants. You have to earn those by following the rules laid out in the GC. The rules are there to encourage civilized warfare by using a "carrot and stick." The carrot being the privileges affored legitimate POWs and the stick being the withholding of those privileges upon capture. If the privileges are applied to any detainee, then the incentive to behave according to the GC is removed and war becomes barbaric.
 
2008-06-14 05:20:39 AM
Alien Robot: Cyber_Junk: POWs have rights under the Geneva Convention.

Those rights of which come from being in a status which is not automatically conferred on just any combatants. You have to earn those by following the rules laid out in the GC. The rules are there to encourage civilized warfare by using a "carrot and stick." The carrot being the privileges affored legitimate POWs and the stick being the withholding of those privileges upon capture. If the privileges are applied to any detainee, then the incentive to behave according to the GC is removed and war becomes barbaric.


So they're civilian criminals?
 
2008-06-14 05:31:03 AM
Occam's Chainsaw: So they're civilian criminals?

They are unlawful combatants. A civilian is by definition not someone taking up arms and engaging in combat. A civilian is also a protected category. Are special forces saboteurs "civilians" as well insofar as they don't follow the GC III rules that would give them POW status when captured?
 
2008-06-14 05:31:48 AM
No outside force can destroy my nation.
It requires an act of Congress.

Thanks conservative douchebags for actually putting an effort in to, and nearly succeeding at, destroying my nation.
The British couldn't do it over 200 years ago, when it was just a baby.
The USSR couldn't do it decades ago.
Terrorists can't do it now.
No outside force will do it in the future.
It will be a cancer that kills us, from the inside. With conservative cowards passing laws, or judges issuing decisions that are nothing more than political hackery and fear-mongering.
Thanks conservatives; you're always the loudest flag wavers, but you've never been a patriot.

\tired of these cowards
\\230 years ago, they'd all be red coats
 
2008-06-14 05:46:01 AM
Alien Robot: Occam's Chainsaw: So they're civilian criminals?

They are unlawful combatants. A civilian is by definition not someone taking up arms and engaging in combat. A civilian is also a protected category. Are special forces saboteurs "civilians" as well insofar as they don't follow the GC III rules that would give them POW status when captured?


You skipped a step. Specifically, the one differentiating "unlawful combatants" from regular criminals. What's the criteria here that differentiates Muslim criminals from the Middle East from white criminals from the United States? The number of AK-47s within a 1-mile-radius at the time of arrest? Whether or not they're sold to US troops by bounty hunters? How well they speak English?
 
2008-06-14 05:47:09 AM
Alien Robot: Cyber_Junk: POWs have rights under the Geneva Convention.

Those rights of which come from being in a status which is not automatically conferred on just any combatants. You have to earn those by following the rules laid out in the GC. The rules are there to encourage civilized warfare by using a "carrot and stick." The carrot being the privileges affored legitimate POWs and the stick being the withholding of those privileges upon capture. If the privileges are applied to any detainee, then the incentive to behave according to the GC is removed and war becomes barbaric.


They qualify as POW's under Geneva. My memory is that they are combatants in a country that isn't theres in a war not of an international (between nations) nature. That qualifies them.
 
2008-06-14 05:51:34 AM
Alien Robot [TotalFark] Quote 2008-06-14 05:11:52 AM
Cyber_Junk: POWs have rights under the Geneva Convention.

Those rights of which come from being in a status which is not automatically conferred on just any combatants. You have to earn those by following the rules laid out in the GC. The rules are there to encourage civilized warfare by using a "carrot and stick." The carrot being the privileges affored legitimate POWs and the stick being the withholding of those privileges upon capture. If the privileges are applied to any detainee, then the incentive to behave according to the GC is removed and war becomes barbaric.



First off your beef with them being called POWs should be with Teikiatsu, not me. I only quoted him. But barring that, lets proceed down this merry path you've staked out...

bar.bar.ic \ba:r-'bar-ik\ aj 1: of, relating to, or characteristic of
barbarians 2a: marked by a lack of restraint : WILD 2b: having a bizarre,
primitive, or unsophisticated quality


So because these enemy combatants lack the funding to wage a 'decent' war against the invasion of their country they should lose the protections of the GC? If the GC existed back when your country was fighting for independence the americans captured would all be enemy combatants. Interesting, n'est ce pas?
 
2008-06-14 05:58:38 AM
Cyber_Junk: Alien Robot [TotalFark] Quote 2008-06-14 05:11:52 AM
Cyber_Junk: POWs have rights under the Geneva Convention.

Those rights of which come from being in a status which is not automatically conferred on just any combatants. You have to earn those by following the rules laid out in the GC. The rules are there to encourage civilized warfare by using a "carrot and stick." The carrot being the privileges affored legitimate POWs and the stick being the withholding of those privileges upon capture. If the privileges are applied to any detainee, then the incentive to behave according to the GC is removed and war becomes barbaric.



First off your beef with them being called POWs should be with Teikiatsu, not me. I only quoted him. But barring that, lets proceed down this merry path you've staked out...

bar.bar.ic \ba:r-'bar-ik\ aj 1: of, relating to, or characteristic of
barbarians 2a: marked by a lack of restraint : WILD 2b: having a bizarre,
primitive, or unsophisticated quality

So because these enemy combatants lack the funding to wage a 'decent' war against the invasion of their country they should lose the protections of the GC? If the GC existed back when your country was fighting for independence the americans captured would all be enemy combatants. Interesting, n'est ce pas?


It's really kind of amazing how some people ignore context. (if you agree with the quoted post, read this as an anti-Alien_Robot post. If you disagree, read this as an anti-Cyber_Junk post).
 
2008-06-14 06:02:50 AM
El_Dan: You skipped a step. Specifically, the one differentiating "unlawful combatants" from regular criminals. What's the criteria here that differentiates Muslim criminals from the Middle East from white criminals from the United States?

The Supreme Court of the United States answered that in Ex parte QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)

...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
 
2008-06-14 06:09:40 AM
Cyber_Junk: So because these enemy combatants lack the funding to wage a 'decent' war against the invasion of their country they should lose the protections of the GC?

Funding has nothing to do with it. The dirt-poor NVA wore a uniform consisting of black pajamas and shoes made of old car tires, but it was a recognizable uniform recognizable at a distance as the GC requires.

If the GC existed back when your country was fighting for independence the americans captured would all be enemy combatants. Interesting, n'est ce pas?

Not true. The Continental Army met all the criteria needed:

www.thedctraveler.com

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, fulfil 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.
 
2008-06-14 06:21:24 AM
Cyber_Junk: So because these enemy combatants lack the funding to wage a 'decent' war against the invasion of their country they should lose the protections of the GC?

Not all of the detainees are fighting against the invasion of "their country."

"Of the 505 detainees, 100 or more are from Saudi Arabia, about 80 from Yemen, about 65 from Pakistan, about 50 from Afghanistan and two from Syria."

It doesn't require any particular level of funding to not behead detainees for propaganda videos, to suicide bomb uniformed enemy soldiers instead of civilian markets full of women and children, or to not hide weapons in Mosques.
 
2008-06-14 06:27:49 AM
Alien Robot [TotalFark] Quote 2008-06-14 06:09:40 AM
Cyber_Junk: So because these enemy combatants lack the funding to wage a 'decent' war against the invasion of their country they should lose the protections of the GC?

Funding has nothing to do with it. The dirt-poor NVA wore a uniform consisting of black pajamas and shoes made of old car tires, but it was a recognizable uniform recognizable at a distance as the GC requires.


The 'uniform' you describe worn by the NVA was also worn by many common peasants.

As well the uniforms you show in your painting weren't universal in the Continental Army, scarcity of proper cloth made Washinton's plans to do so unfeasible.
 
2008-06-14 06:52:51 AM
Yeah because the American public should never be trusted to give a fair trial.

Our justice is only good for us.
 
2008-06-14 06:56:55 AM
Ok, I doubt that anyone is still really reading this far down, but I am going to say it anyway.

First of all, I agree with the SCOTUS decision. I think it is entirely wrong to just grab someone on the suspicion that they have done something wrong and make them just disappear indefinitely. Some of these people have been detained for what is going on 6 years now with no trial. If they are as bad as Bushco says they are, then it should be no problem to prove this in a fair trial.

Second, the military tribunals held down in Guantanamo Bay are a joke. They are nothing more than a kangaroo court. Recently, when a 'court' case was going badly against one of the 'detainees' due to the prosecution side not turning over evidence to the defense. The judge called them on it and he was promptly replaced with a new judge that won't ask any questions of the prosecution.

(source: Link (new window)
 
2008-06-14 08:39:01 AM
BigPhilly: You have made a greater error, the Court had the power to issue writs of habeas corpus on the Unlawful Enemy Combatants during WWII that you allude to. Their petition was heard by the Supreme Court and it was ruled that their detention was both proper and authorized. They were later executed.

Ex Parte Quirin (new window)


If you actually READ the decision, you will note it was a motion for leave to file a petition for habeas corpus ("we aren't allowed to do this but will you let us anyway"). It was DENIED, the court found no habeas rights.

In fact, no Court has ever found habeas rights for a non-citizen not on sovreign U.S. territory.
 
2008-06-14 08:45:03 AM
Like I say, you keep right on thinking that our Constitution applies to everyone in the entire world. That rights we have as American citizens apply to everyone.

Did you know we're going to go to war with every non-Democracy in the world now? Our Constitution clearly states the methods by which people should be governed and since the Supreme Court feels our Constitution applies to everyone, clearly anyone who is violating it should be arrested... Except you don't arrest governments, you go to war with them.

Why stop there? England, France, Ireland, Finland... They use different methods of government that are against the law. They must comply with our Constitution because it applies to everyone in the world.
 
2008-06-14 09:20:45 AM
randomjsa: Like I say, you keep right on thinking that our Constitution applies to everyone in the entire world. That rights we have as American citizens apply to everyone.

Did you know we're going to go to war with every non-Democracy in the world now? Our Constitution clearly states the methods by which people should be governed and since the Supreme Court feels our Constitution applies to everyone, clearly anyone who is violating it should be arrested... Except you don't arrest governments, you go to war with them.

Why stop there? England, France, Ireland, Finland... They use different methods of government that are against the law. They must comply with our Constitution because it applies to everyone in the world.


Foreigners, in our jurisdiction, must abide by our laws, right?
Foreigners, in our jurisdiction, also share the protections of our legal system.

There. So simple even a Republican can understand it.
 
2008-06-14 09:36:59 AM
Habeas Corpus
 
2008-06-14 09:43:36 AM
Without Fail: Foreigners, in our jurisdiction, must abide by our laws, right?
Foreigners, in our jurisdiction, also share the protections of our legal system.


Jurisdiction is not the correct term. What has to be determined is whether or not they are in an area over which the U.S. has sovreignty. In order to reach the ruling they did here, the majority had to create a new concept of "de facto" sovreignty, totally ignoring that niether of the other two branches of government had ever chosen to extend U.S. laws to it. Scalia's opinion has a pretty good discussion of this at footnote 3.
 
2008-06-14 09:48:44 AM
Ambiguous_Clown: Habeas Corpus

Gud speeling is for loosers.
 
2008-06-14 10:07:46 AM
Nabb1: Remove all Republicans: A mental error: Paying attention to Fred Thompson.

Yeah, I really shouldn't pay heed to an opinion from a former U.S. Attorney, the lead prosecutor on the Watergate case, and should pay more attention to someone with a troll name who posts little cartoons instead of actual discussion of the merits.


A foundation of bullshiat is still a foundation of bullshiat, even if the house is built by a master carpenter.
 
2008-06-14 10:42:56 AM
Alien Robot:

Not true. The Continental Army met all the criteria needed:

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, fulfil 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.


Sorry, I have to take issue with points b and d. While they may have had company colors, some soldiers didn't have shoes, let alone uniforms.

The laws and customs of war that day were not "hide in the bushes and pick out the colors", but "march on the green and shoot right at eachother".

Besides, it wasn't exactly uncommon for locals to cause trouble. I recall one incident where the brits were "psaulted".
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report