can a kinder gentler nation survive?

[brer]

Gee, if it was not happening, the Bush adminsistration would not be in cover my ass mode.  As it is, their destruction of evidence against court orders and advice from former CIA chiefs not to is evidence of wrongdoing, or at the very least obstruction of justice. Classification of anything that might be used against the administration is also evidence that some very serious wrongdoing is going on. Some sunshine needs to shined on this administration.

Sorry, I did my ten years on the wall protecting this nation.  I have a serious hate going on for for the recent crop of young republicans and chicken hawks. Neither of which thought enough of the nation to serve. 

Did you serve? 

You attacked the premise of my post.  Defend yours now.

[HankB]

What the hell are 'unlawful combatants', anyway? 

It refers to those who bear arms (including IEDs and such) while not wearing the uniform of any country. The term is being used today in order to justify holding them, rather than hanging or shooting them out of hand as spies, which was SOP in the past when enemies were caught out of uniform.

[brer]

and also against the rules of the geneva convention and technically a war crime/crime against humanity.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"their destruction of evidence against court orders "

read the article closely and you'll see that despite the less than truthful title to the thread no such action against court orders happened.  but it did sound good didn't it?

[HankB]

and also against the rules of the geneva convention and technically a war crime/crime against humanity.

Please cite the section of the Geneva Convention that extends POW protections to non-uniformed fighters.

[brer]

Sorry Cassandrasdaddy, that dog don't hunt.

Both U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr and U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler had issued orders for the preservation of the tapes.

Your comment makes for a nice sound bite, but does not stand up to scrutiny.

[brer]

HankB

Read the conventions yourself. It is a good education.  If you lack the fundamental ability to find it yourself, I will point it out in a day or three.

I would advise reading the conventions on the treatment of civilians.  The Geneva conventions do not just cover military POW's. Even under the POW conventions they define protected classes which an "unlawful combatant" would fall under. They also define rules of prosecution.

[HankB]

HankB

Read the conventions yourself. It is a good education.  If you lack the fundamental ability to find it yourself, I will point it out in a day or three.

When I opined that captured enemies not wearing uniforms used to be executed as spies, YOU asserted that such conduct was a war crime according to the Geneva Convention.

I - very reasonably, I believe - asked you to provide a cite.

Instead of a cite, you provided the response quoted above. 

I'll keep watch for ". . . a day or three . . ." to see if you can bear the burden of proof of your assertion; I'm always eager to learn and look forward to your cite of the specific section of the Geneva Convention that extends POW protection to the subject group. (Note that the subject group is not comprised of ordinary enemy civilians, but non-uniformed enemies bearing arms against us.)

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Sorry Cassandrasdaddy, that dog don't hunt.

Both U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr and U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler had issued orders for the preservation of the tapes.

Your comment makes for a nice sound bite, but does not stand up to scrutiny.

read slower and see whats actually there as opposed to what you want to see. i'll give you one more chance before i quote the important parts for ya....  but hey maybe your one of those followers of "IT COULDA HAPPENED THAT WAY"    mores the pity  heres a hint the orders were specific about what tapes were to be preserved vis a vis where they were made. and the reason no ones in jail for violating the orders is that they weren't violated  it tell you how and why in the first article if you read carefully

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

heres the important part that you "feel or imagine" won't stand up to scrutiny  i tend to go with imagine


"That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July.

At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed, weren't at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners that existed off the books  and apparently beyond the scope of the court's order."

[roo_ster]

What the hell are 'unlawful combatants', anyway?

Just another cute little catch phrase engineered to facilitate the willing sacrifice of freedom for perceived security. Kind of like "They Hate us For Our Freedoms" "Fundamental Islamic Extremists" and the all time Guiliani favorite - "Islamofacist".

and also against the rules of the geneva convention and technically a war crime/crime against humanity.

Riley, the term "unlawful combatant" is an artifice of the Geneva Conventions and Hague Accords.  To be deemed such requires more than just not being in uniform.  They also have to violate the conventions themselves with regard to their treatment of for-real POWs , civilians, etc.  Things like setting off car bombs in markets and deliberately targeting civilians will earn one that moniker.

IOW, it is not a term GWB pulled out of his 4th point of contact and applied to folks he dislikes.  It is defined, has a solid meaning, and folks who earn the appellation must work hard to get it.

brer's and Finch's posts display ignorance of the topic at hand.  'nuff said.

RileyMc, if you are truly interested in learning about and reading them, they are posted several places on the net.  Keep in mind that the USA and many other countries refused to sign on to subsequent addenda in the 1970s.  Why?  Becasue they included verbiage that equated mass-murderers with lawful combatants (IOW, POWs) as to treatment.  Regular soldiers that fight according to the laws of war & the conventions deserve good treatment, wherever they come from  Mass-murderers of noncombatants deserve a quick hanging after capture.

The usual suspects were pushing those addenda in the 1970s: leftists and others who supported the numerous "liberation" groups that killed noncombatants willy-nilly.

[roo_ster]

c-daddy:

Reading truly IS fundamental. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

reading can be such a drag though so restrictive and confining.  it reins in your soaring imagination and fluttering feelings with  harsh facts and reallity. its a curse of post pubescent life. sound bites notwithstanding

[brer]

jfruser

Actually the term "unlawful combatant" is a term Bush and Co pulled out of their collective rears to try to avoid the duties required by the geneva conventions.  I just grepped the geneva conventions and the Hague accord  and unsurprisingly find the term missing in both.


Hank B and Jfruser

Try reading article five of the geneva convention.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.


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 security of State or Occupying Power "</P" as case may be.>

No such thing as as an "unlawful combatant under the convention, and anyone captured must be given the rights of a POW.  No right to torture etc.

part 1 article 3 section d (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Summary executions are illegal.

Sorry HankB, but if you are going to make comments based on ignorance without even making a token effort to learn, it is not really my problem to straighten you out.  As I said before, take some time and read the conventions.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State."

must be some interpretation of this that is unique to brer


and apparently some confusion as to the meaning of this
"at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power "</P" as case may be.>

pity that.  i think jfuser hit the nail on the head  reading is fundemental

[HankB]

In section 4.1.2, it gives some insight into who may be accorded POW status:

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
* that of carrying arms openly
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

The Al-Qaeda terrorists do not fulfill all of these conditions, hence, they are not entitled to POW status.

Interestingly enough, when the USA ratified the convention in 1955, it was with this reservation:

"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"

Sorry HankB, but if you are going to make comments based on ignorance without even making a token effort to learn, it is not really my problem to straighten you out.  As I said before, take some time and read the conventions.

Right back at ya.

[Ex-MA Hole]

Guys-

Chill.

Now.

[geronimotwo]

link to a condensed geneva convention

http://www.icrc.org/WEB/ENG/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/p0365?OpenDocument&style=Custo_Final.4&View=defaultBody2

other links there for more specifics.

[brer]

HankB

The insurgents do not have to be classified as POWs, I never said they were, but under the convention they are granted the protections that Pows enjoy.

As far as having entered into the last treaty convention with reservations, either we are parties to the convention or we are not. Considering we have not formally withdrawn from the convention, we are still part of it, and  must comply with all parts of it.

CassandrasDaddy

Yes, you are right, reading is fundamental, where does it give the right to torture?

The only right that is removed from people in this class is the right to communication.

[Len Budney]

The only right that is removed from people in this class is the right to communication.

In addition, the convention states that it should not be interpreted in such a way as to mandate compromising "the Security of the State." Communication by spies is an obvious special case of this: letting a spy talk to a priest, for example, might enable him to smuggle intelligence back to his side.

Clearly, the current administration is interpreting "the security of the State" in the broadest way possible, and claiming in effect, "Not torturing our prisoners compromises the security of the State."

But face it. It doesn't matter if we're stretching the conventions to the breaking point. The simple fact is that there's something satisfying about torturing towel heads. The beauty of having it done out of sight in places like Guantanamo is that we can enjoy the vicarious thrill of holding the bastards' heads under water until they're begging for mercy, while simultaneously pretending that this doesn't make us evil sadistic bastards ourselves.

--Len.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

HankB

The insurgents do not have to be classified as POWs, I never said they were, but under the convention they are granted the protections that Pows enjoy.

As far as having entered into the last treaty convention with reservations, either we are parties to the convention or we are not. Considering we have not formally withdrawn from the convention, we are still part of it, and  must comply with all parts of it.

CassandrasDaddy

Yes, you are right, reading is fundamental, where does it give the right to torture?

The only right that is removed from people in this class is the right to communication.

i'm sorry  were we looking for a right to torture?  i thought i was scoffing at your feeling that these folks were protected by the geneva accords. and was using articles 5's unusually clear  definition to show this to be untrue

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The only right that is removed from people in this class is the right to communication.

But face it. It doesn't matter if we're stretching the conventions to the breaking point. The simple fact is that there's something satisfying about torturing towel heads. The beauty of having it done out of sight in places like Guantanamo is that we can enjoy the vicarious thrill of holding the bastards' heads under water until they're begging for mercy, while simultaneously pretending that this doesn't make us evil sadistic bastards ourselves.

--Len.

Yeah, what he said!

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

brer you ever figure out why there was no violation of the court order?

and len   did anyone  other than you seem gleeful about torture?  i'm put in mind of my liberal pro gun control friends  they are so afraid of their own proclivities they see everyone else as a threat

[Perd Hapley]

And I predict that when GWB and Cheney die, the location of their graves will remain secret, because future generations will dig up their sorry rotting carcasses and hang them.

Seriously?   

[De Selby]

In section 4.1.2, it gives some insight into who may be accorded POW status:

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
* that of carrying arms openly
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

The Al-Qaeda terrorists do not fulfill all of these conditions, hence, they are not entitled to POW status.

Interestingly enough, when the USA ratified the convention in 1955, it was with this reservation:

"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"

Sorry HankB, but if you are going to make comments based on ignorance without even making a token effort to learn, it is not really my problem to straighten you out.  As I said before, take some time and read the conventions.

Right back at ya.

This is exactly right, except there's one major issue that people here keep missing:

Being a POW means that you are generally exempt from criminal prosecution, even if you're a member of an outlaw army.  This is the reason why German regulars went free after World War II-because they were considered something more like "guys doing their jobs in the field" than "evil defenders of the Nazi regime."

So no, no one argues that Al Qaeda members should get POW status.  I don't think anyone has even tried to argue that.

But not being a POW does not equal having no rights.  If you're not entitled to POW protections, and you are suspected of fighting in a war, then you are a suspected criminal.

And criminals have rights-ie, they get to hear the accusations and respond, and there has to be some proof provided to an impartial trier of fact that the person is in fact a criminal.

What does not exist in the law, and never has existed, is a class of people who can be punished as criminals without applying any of the legal procedures used to try crimes whatsoever.  And that is precisely what the Bush administration is doing in many of these cases-handing out criminal punishment without applying the procedures generally used to prove crimes.

Again, to summarize, since many seem to be missing this key feature of the debate:

POW=no criminal prosecution, and no criminal punishment.  POW's are not guilty of any crime.  Wearing a uniform and behaving in accord with the conventions of war earns the combatant the right to be exempt from criminal prosecution for his conduct.

"Unlawful Combatant"=criminal behavior.  Not complying with the conventions of war, ie, behaving like Al Qaeda, makes you a criminal.  And we all know what is required to impose punishments on criminals-there must be proof that the person is in fact a criminal, and that the person committed a specific crime. 

There is not and never has been a rule that you may be shot simply because someone in the uniform of an army said you were a spy or a guerrilla.  And there're good reasons why, if you think about it.  Granting executives and their agents the right to punish summarily, without answering to any judicial authority, and without having to observe any procedures for proving allegations, amounts to giving the executive the right to punish whomever it wishes whenever it wishes.