Originally posted by no1marauderExactly.
if they were being treated like POWs, there'd be no problem. If they were being treated like criminals, there'd be no problem. But trying to create a third class and apply rules of your own making contrary to international agreements and the US Constitution is the problem.
Originally posted by no1marauderAs you believe they are not a third element.
No they are not. If they are soldiers in a war, they should be treated as POWs. If they are alleged to have committed crimes against the rules of war, there are well established procedures for trying them.
If they are simple , there are well established procedures called the US criminal justice system for dealing with them.
This is a "problem" created by the illegal actions of the US Executive Branch.
Then which are they, POWs or criminals?
This "problem" now includes the Legislative Branch, with
check and balance power to determine courts' jurisdiction.
Originally posted by xsOnes captured on the battlefield are POWs.
As you believe they are not a third element.
Then which are they, POWs or criminals?
This "problem" now includes the Legislative Branch, with
check and balance power to determine courts' jurisdiction.
Ones arrested for plotting acts of terrorism are alleged criminals.
Not too hard, is it?
The legislative branch has no legitimate power to suspend habeas corpus outside of the limited exceptions in the US Constitution. And it has no power at all to deny an accused the right to a magistrate as Locke puts it.
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio[/i]so, does this mean that this "3rd class" are not eligable for protection under civilian law (eg. right to a fair trial...), and aren't eligable for the protection given to combatants under the Geneva Convention (eg. must be treated humanely...)? If there truely is a 3rd class that needs it's own catagory then shouldn't there be a similar list of 'rights' taht apply to this class instead of simply denying them all rights that exist to other classes?
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-detain29sep29,1,6381532,full.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage
Senate has passed an act that prevents the court from hearing cases involving non-Americans
that are labeled as enemy combatants.
[i]No court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of ha y to shield itself
from court review.
Aren't people getting annoyed about this?
Nemesio
It always scares me when I see examples of a system where the system can decide that because you're X then you don't have access to the legal system which is your only way to prove that you're not X. All very good if the system is right every time, but I don't think anyone is nieve enough to say to think that is is.
So, do this "3rd class" get their own rules & rights, or do they essentially become outlaws who can be treated as the system likes without recourse for appeal? If the latter, how do you justify the fact that it will undoubtably lead to to innocent people being incarcirated as they have no way to appeal? If you argue that it is for the greater good that a few innocents are locked up to protect the masses from the threat please report to the nearest detentoin facility to prove that you still believe in this if it's you that's the innocent party who loses their life or liberty.
edit - removing random italics
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's not quite that simple...
Ones captured on the battlefield are POWs.
Ones arrested for plotting acts of terrorism are alleged criminals.
Not too hard, is it?
The legislative branch has no legitimate power to suspend habeas corpus outside of the limited exceptions in the US Constitution. And it has no power at all to deny an accused the right to a magistrate as Locke puts it.
To be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a uniform and bear arms openly.
An illegal combatant (also unlawful enemy combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent) is a person who is accorded neither the rights a soldier would normally have under the laws of war, nor the civil rights a common criminal would normally have.
Originally posted by xsThere is no such thing under the Geneva Convention as an "illegal combatant"; that is a creation of the Bush administration. And that definition has been expanded as regards irregular and partisan forces.
It's not quite that simple...
To be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a uniform and bear arms openly.
An illegal combatant (also unlawful enemy combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent) is a person who is accorde ...[text shortened]... ormally have under the laws of war, nor the civil rights a common criminal would normally have.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's true the phrase "illegal combatant" does not appear Geneva
There is no such thing under the Geneva Convention as an "illegal combatant"; that is a creation of the Bush administration. And that definition has been expanded as regards irregular and partisan forces.
Convention. However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories
of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. "Prisoner of
war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant".
At any rate I won't argue sematics.
The Geneva Convention does contain criteria of a 'protected person'.
These people fall short.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe United States Constitution, Article I
The law is unconstitutional, period.
(Section 1...Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of
the United States...)
Section 8:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Looks constitutional.
From LATimes.com:
The measure is virtually the same as one passed by the House on
Wednesday. (President) Bush is expected to receive a bill he can sign
into law in the next few days.
The legislative victory for the president came three months after he had
suffered a stinging defeat in the Supreme Court. In striking down the
plan the White House had devised for putting "unlawful enemy combatants"
on trial, the justices ruled that Congress must authorize the process
for trying terrorism suspects.
Originally posted by xsTreaties are Supreme Law of the Land and this law violates the Geneva Convention as well as the explicit provision regarding Habeas Corpus. It will be thrown out.
The United States Constitution, Article I
(Section 1...Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of
the United States...)
Section 8:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Looks constitutional.
From LATimes.com:
The measure is virtually the same as one passed by th ...[text shortened]... ] justices ruled that Congress must authorize the process
for trying terrorism suspects.[/b]
Originally posted by xsIF they "fall short" of POW status (which I don't agree with in most cases) they still have the rights of criminal suspects. What the Bush Administration is trying to do is create a class that has no rights but what a hostile government feels like giving them. This is blatantly against the very philosophy this country was founded on.
It's true the phrase "illegal combatant" does not appear Geneva
Convention. However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories
of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. "Prisoner of
war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant".
At any rate I won't argue sematics.
The Geneva Convention does contain criteria of a 'protected person'.
These people fall short.
Originally posted by no1marauderthe Geneva Convention protocolss, even the part that the US is signed up for, are specific in defining military combatants. it appears they do define a separate, non-regular-military class. otherwise, why spend so much time defining the rules under which individual combatants are defined as and treated as regular military?
if they were being treated like POWs, there'd be no problem. If they were being treated like criminals, there'd be no problem. But trying to create a third class and apply rules of your own making contrary to international agreements and the US Constitution is the problem.
so what's your beef?
Originally posted by chancremechanicThe Constitution doesn't give rights to Americans, it iterates rights
No, not at all! The laws were devised for AMERICAN CITIZENS! Why should I have to pay for a lawyer for an Illegal alien or enemy combatatnt? Did Americans get court-appointed lawyers in Vietnam? Hell no! Until the war on terror is won, the scumbags can rot in Gitmo, and illegal aliens should be deported once they have been found to have NO prope ...[text shortened]... uldn't have any problems; if they are afraid, they should catch the next plane back to Karachi!
that all human beings have (as being self-evident).
When Americans didn't get court-appointed lawyers in Vietnam, did
you feel that this was right? Of course you didn't, because it
wasn't! Rights aren't about tit-for-tat, you give me rights, I give you
rights. They are inalienable by definition; all we can do is refuse
to acknowledge them.
If you are saying that America is refusing to acknowledge the rights
of the prisoners in Guantanemo, then you are agreeing with me. And
you are agreeing that the Constitution is being ignored.
Nemesio
Originally posted by xsHow convenient to create a limbo where they aren't criminals but they
The United States Constitution, Article I
(Section 1...Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of
the United States...)
Section 8:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Looks constitutional.
From LATimes.com:
The measure is virtually the same as one passed by th ...[text shortened]... ] justices ruled that Congress must authorize the process
for trying terrorism suspects.[/b]
aren't soldiers! That's pretty bold!
Are other countries allowed to make limbos, too, or is this one of those
constructs that only Americans are allowed to utilize?
Nemesio
