Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Completely false. They are not covered as LAWFUL combatants, but that does not make them mere criminals. It makes them UNlawful combatants. (Note: Repeating yourself, as you do, when you were wrong the first time, as you were, doesn't help correct you.)
The consequence of being an UNlawful combatant is that one is properly denied the protections granted to LAWFUL combatants. These scumbag vermin are more properly deemed to be enemy sabateurs or properly viewed more lie "spies" who may be summarily executed. We don't do that, but they have no cause for complaint that they don't get the benefits of the status of LAWFUL combatants.
And they absolutely don't have ANY right to be heard to argue that they deserve the even GREATER protection accorded to mere criminals.
If you haven't read the provisions of the Geneva Accords, and it looks like you haven't, then why are you spouting off?
Are you actually seeking to be heard to argue that the GC doesn't define its own terms? And if you acknowledge that it does, then you tell US what it says about recognizable uniforms and insignia or badges. I mean, you ARE familiar with those provisions, right?
Don't feign ignorance. It's bad enough if you really are ignorant and saying the utterly silly shit you've been spewing here.
S.3930
Title: A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] (introduced 9/22/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Related Bills: H.RES.1054, H.R.6054, H.R.6166, S.3861, S.3886, S.3901, S.3929
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-366 [GPO: Text, PDF]
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
A bill that the Bush administration and it's flunkies in the Republican congress MADE UP to cover their own unconstitutional actions, on September 28th 2006, just days before the November elections.
And it's utter Bullshit.
The Supreme Courts rulings since that legislation have overturned most of it.
Completely false. They are not covered as LAWFUL combatants, but that does not make them mere criminals. It makes them UNlawful combatants. (Note: Repeating yourself, as you do, when you were wrong the first time, as you were, doesn't help correct you.)
The consequence of being an UNlawful combatant is that one is properly denied the protections granted to LAWFUL combatants. These scumbag vermin are more properly deemed to be enemy sabateurs or properly viewed more lie "spies" who may be summarily executed. We don't do that, but they have no cause for complaint that they don't get the benefits of the status of LAWFUL combatants.
And they absolutely don't have ANY right to be heard to argue that they deserve the even GREATER protection accorded to mere criminals.
If that were true, then the Geneva Conventions would have rules to cover "unlawful combatants, and the Bush administration and the Republican Congress wouldn't have had to define the term themselves in the 2006 Legislation pointed out by in that recent post.
If you haven't read the provisions of the Geneva Accords, and it looks like you haven't, then why are you spouting off?
Are you actually seeking to be heard to argue that the GC doesn't define its own terms? And if you acknowledge that it does, then you tell US what it says about recognizable uniforms and insignia or badges. I mean, you ARE familiar with those provisions, right?
Don't feign ignorance. It's bad enough if you really are ignorant and saying the utterly silly shit you've been spewing here.
I didn't say I haven't read them, I'm asking you to show me where it differentiates "Unlawful Combatants" from criminals.
S.3930
Title: A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] (introduced 9/22/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Related Bills: H.RES.1054, H.R.6054, H.R.6166, S.3861, S.3886, S.3901, S.3929
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-366 [GPO: Text, PDF]
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
A bill that the Bush administration and it's flunkies in the Republican congress MADE UP to cover their own unconstitutional actions, on September 28th 2006, just days before the November elections.
And it's utter Bullshit.
The Supreme Courts rulings since that legislation have overturned most of it.
Completely false. They are not covered as LAWFUL combatants, but that does not make them mere criminals. It makes them UNlawful combatants. (Note: Repeating yourself, as you do, when you were wrong the first time, as you were, doesn't help correct you.)
The consequence of being an UNlawful combatant is that one is properly denied the protections granted to LAWFUL combatants. These scumbag vermin are more properly deemed to be enemy sabateurs or properly viewed more lie "spies" who may be summarily executed. We don't do that, but they have no cause for complaint that they don't get the benefits of the status of LAWFUL combatants.
And they absolutely don't have ANY right to be heard to argue that they deserve the even GREATER protection accorded to mere criminals.
If that were true, then the Geneva Conventions would have rules to cover "unlawful combatants, and the Bush administration and the Republican Congress wouldn't have had to define the term themselves in the 2006 Legislation pointed out by in that recent post.
And here I thought the US is a soverign nation. Go figure
Let's see if any of this rings a bell for our Vastly Ignorant:
Article 4 prisoners of war include:
Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
- that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
- that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
- that of carrying arms openly;
- that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
By what right do you term people as flunkies? Righteousness is clearly not on your side. You have the numbers for now, to back your claims, but I don't see that holding in the end.
There are Lawful Combatants, Unlawful Combatants, and Criminals. It is you that uses the misapplication of Law and the Rule of Law to obstruct Justice. It is you that obstructs necessary action that addresses the real threat to Civil Society and Liberty. The construction and implementation of Necessary Laws to Safeguard are obstructed by you in defense of The Rights of those that have already crossed over to dark side, that makes you more of an Accomplice to Terrorism, than an Agent for Liberty and Justice. Controlling the Masses through misinformation may work for now. Your days are numbered and I will enjoy counting every one of them. The Bullshit is you treating the True Enemy as a Criminal, with nothing but unearned Privilege and the likes of you on their side. There is nothing ethical about what you do. You have Power on your side, not Justice. The Jihadist's are just laughing at you for different reasons than us.
An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."
The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).
The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals, and case law. However, unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian", the term "unlawful combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.
Note this line:
The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).
and this line:
The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals, and case law. However, unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian", the term "unlawful combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.
from the same link, however.
Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carrying explosives in the crotch is NOT openly displaying arms...Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section II -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status
Article 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:
...
While not one to say that wikipedia doesn't qualify as a reasonable source, seems the Council of Foreign Relations disagrees, while not necessarily agreeing with Bush at the time:
Findings Report: Enemy Combatants and the Geneva Conventions - Council on Foreign Relations
So in fact to the conventions, though language changed:
International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977
Carrying explosives in the crotch is NOT openly displaying arms...Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section II -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status
Article 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:
...
While not one to say that wikipedia doesn't qualify as a reasonable source, seems the Council of Foreign Relations disagrees, while not necessarily agreeing with Bush at the time:
Findings Report: Enemy Combatants and the Geneva Conventions - Council on Foreign Relations
So in fact to the conventions, though language changed:
International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977
Carrying explosives in the crotch is NOT openly displaying arms...Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section II -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status
Article 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:
...
I see your point, however the underwear bomber committed his crime in US airspace and was taken prisoner within US territory. Therefore he is not considered any kind of "combatant" at all, but just a criminal.
Prisoners taken as combatants from the warzone presumably carried their arms openly, making them "Lawful Combatants" until proven otherwise by a tribunal, and then tried as criminals if found to be "unlawful".
By what right do you term people as flunkies? Righteousness is clearly not on your side. You have the numbers for now, to back your claims, but I don't see that holding in the end.
There are Lawful Combatants, Unlawful Combatants, and Criminals. It is you that uses the misapplication of Law and the Rule of Law to obstruct Justice. It is you that obstructs necessary action that addresses the real threat to Civil Society and Liberty. The construction and implementation of Necessary Laws to Safeguard are obstructed by you in defense of The Rights of those that have already crossed over to dark side, that makes you more of an Accomplice to Terrorism, than an Agent for Liberty and Justice. Controlling the Masses through misinformation may work for now. Your days are numbered and I will enjoy counting every one of them. The Bullshit is you treating the True Enemy as a Criminal, with nothing but unearned Privilege and the likes of you on their side. There is nothing ethical about what you do. You have Power on your side, not Justice. The Jihadist's are just laughing at you for different reasons than us.
Flunkies are people who subvert their own honor, dignity and integrity to serve another person, in a way that furthers their own self interest.
The Republican Congress specifically drafted this legislation, at the behest of the Bush administration, after the torturing of the terrorist suspects had come to light, so that they could cover the collective asses of the various members of their party from the President on down.
And the term "Unlawful Combatant" as separate from "Criminal", didn't exist until this legislation tried to make it so.
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.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.........
.....Art. 70. Protected persons shall not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power for acts committed or for opinions expressed before the occupation, or during a temporary interruption thereof, with the exception of breaches of the laws and customs of war.
Only by the administration, see CNN reports for today. Actually see lots of news reports for today:
al qaeda threat - Google News
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.
Meaning a tribunal shall be called to determine the status of the prisoner only. Whether they are a POW or a criminal. After which the subject will be afforded the right of trial by the captors.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.........
Concerning rights of COMMUNICATION, as a spy would of course not be allowed to communicate with their nation of origin for fear of information leaks.
.....Art. 70. Protected persons shall not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power for acts committed or for opinions expressed before the occupation, or during a temporary interruption thereof, with the exception of breaches of the laws and customs of war.
So if a person committed murder outside the the "laws and customs of war", then they would be eligible to be "arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power", as a criminal.
Tried by Domestic Law. Ours includes the classification of Unlawful or Illegal Combatant.
