 Quote: |
Originally Posted by foundit66 Quote: |
Originally Posted by sgtdmski First, lets clear up this misguided notion about the term "Enemy Combatants". It was not made up by President Bush or anyone in the Bush administration. The term dates to 1942 and decision by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin.
Its is from this ruling that the decision to hold members of terrorist groups like al-Queda and the Taliban originated. The Court held that lawful combatants were deemed prisoners of war and afforded the protection under Article 3 of the Geneva convention. The court also found that unlawful combatants were not entitled to prisoner of war status. Furthermore, the Geneva Convention in Article 5 states that any persons who status is uncertain will be treated as a Prisoner of War and afforded the same rights under Article 3. However, members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban fail to qualify as prisoners of war, thus, their status has been termed Enemy Combatant in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in 1942 Ex Parte Quirin. | You're leaving a LOT out about this case Sarge...
First, it predates the Geneva Convention.
Second, it's legality has never really been addressed in an INTERNATIONAL purview. (At least that I can see.) I realize some may be comfortable with Americans deciding how Americans should treat other country's citizens, but I think a little bit about a bigger picture than just that...
Third, it involved a case of people who committed a crime on U.S. SOIL, and they were taken into custody on U.S SOIL. As opposed to people captured by U.S. troops who have invaded and/or acting on SOME OTHER COUNTRY'S turf...
I find that difference rather significant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin
Fourth, did I mention that this case PREDATES THE GENEVA CONVENTION.
Ergo, the Geneva Convention, if applicable, would SUPERCEDE this case and make it moot. Quote:
1942 Quirin case
The term unlawful combatant has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law[2]. The Bush administration seems to have appropriated the concept of "unlawful combatants" from a 1942 United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin, through which it was introduced into US domestic law.[9] In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):
"...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."
The validity of this case, as basis for denying prisoners in the war on terror protection by the Geneva Conventions, has been disputed.[10][11][12] A report by the American Bar Association commenting on this case, states:
The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, “The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission ... is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States. “ Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin,11 that right could hardly be denied to U. S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all.[13]
Since the 1942 Quirin case, the US signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which are, therefore, considered to be a part of US domestic law. The court cases which are currently making their way through the US judicial system should clarify the US administration's domestic legal position and its international treaty obligations.[14]
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
Bush IS the first person to try and apply this term, first used to describe SABOTEURS acting on AMERICAN soil to actual "war" conflict.
(Using "war" from Bush's own classification of "War on Terror".) | howcome you didnt reply to my post when I said almost exactly the same thing as sgtdmski -- San Fernando Valley's where it's at |