Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Quote: |
Originally Posted by foundit66 You're leaving a LOT out about this case Sarge...
First, it predates the Geneva Convention. | The Geneva Convention was originally adopted in 1864. So you are WRONG, it does not predate the convention. So lets be clear, you are wrong. |
You're splitting hairs.
It predates the Geneva Convention articles that we are discussing. Specifically, the last revision to the POW aspects of the Geneva Convention, revised in 1949. THEY post-date the U.S.'s "enemy combatant" ruling in Ex parte Quirin.
Happier?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Quote: |
Originally Posted by foundit66 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 | However, the original contention was that it was the Bush Administration made up the term Enemy Combatant was it not?? |
That was the original contention, and it was wrong.
It would be more accurate to say something which I explicitly said in the post you responded to.
"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".)"
Bah. In re-reading that statement, I see I didn't finish my original statement...
revised:
"Bush IS the first person to try and apply this term, first used to describe SABOTEURS acting on AMERICAN soil to actual "war" conflict, against individuals we have actively taken up arms against.
(Using "war" from Bush's own classification of "War on Terror".)"
The original sentence, read literally, makes
no sense. How could Bush be the first person to apply this term when I cite the history of the term in a 1942 case?
Hopefully this clears up any possible confusion I might have caused.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Clearly this was a lie on the part of those members who believed it. I cited the case first to show where the term came from, and second to show that lo and behold, there is legal jurisprudence backing the decision. You fail to address that do you not?? |
"Lie" is such a harsh term.
I usually reserve allegations of "lying" for people who know something to be true, but state something contradicting that knowledge. Otherwise, we could claim that people who believed that the earth is only a few thousand years old are just plain "lying"...
Since you have educated me on the origins of this term, I will endeavor to not repeat the same mistake (claiming Bush originated the term) again...
And considering you are responding to my "addressing" of "that", I really don't comprehend how you can ask such a question...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Secondly, the case submits a basic premise, the establishment of illegal combatants, or enemy combatants. Come now sir, if you want to argue legalese at least know what you are arguing. The Supreme Court did not try the case, instead they ruled upon the Constitutionality of the case. In doing so, they established the legal jurisprudence that determines the status of combatants. In this case they recognized that there were legal and illegal combatants. Furthermore it established the legal jurisprudence in this country to address legal combatants -as prisoners of war and illegal combatants - are subjected to trial and punishment. |
Yes, but what DEFINES a "lawful" as opposed to an "unlawful" combatant?
I can see clearly how a saboteur would classify as an "unlawful" combatant. Through subterfuge and deceit, he attacks the enemy without announcement. I would see "terrorists" as falling in the same boat.
But for the UNITED STATES to go OVERSEAS to attack an enemy, and then declare that enemy to be an "unlawful combatant"? That seems rather deceitful. The UNITED STATES has declared the "lawful combat", so it seems that, at best, the combatants who have had war declared upon them have no choice but to defend themselves.
I can't help but wonder if we are detaining "unlawful combatants", then wouldn't that logically make the COMBAT ITSELF as an "unlawful combat"?
Yes. It is MUCH more complicated than just that...
But on the flip side, I see a RIDICULOUS over-simplification done by the Bush administration in declaring that ANYBODY who doesn't qualify as a POW would thus be classified as "unlawful combatant".
Suppose the U.S. invades a country. The citizens of that country, lacking uniforms and not being sworn in as "military" by their country, might take up arms to defend their VERY HOMES themselves.
Yet, according to the classification of "POW", the U.S. military could take these people and declare that they don't qualify for "POW" status.
The point being that Bush has made this RIDICULOUSLY binary, when it's much more complicated than just that.
To me, Bush hasn't JUSTIFIED the situation as much as he is trying to find an EXCUSE for GETTING AWAY with the situation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Quoting the decision by Justice Stone;
"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." |
To this statement, I can't help but say "TRY" them then. GIVE them a trial.
This holding them WITHOUT giving them a trial crap is part of the problem, IMO.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Quote: |
Originally Posted by foundit66 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. | Geneva Convention established 1864, Ex parte Quirin decided 1942. Hmmm last time I checked 1864 was 78 years prior, but then I could be wrong, but I doubt it. |
I see.
And what aspect of the 1864 Geneva Convention dealt with POWs?
When was the LAST Geneva Convention to modify / deal with POWs?
Compare those dates to the "1942" date, if you will...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Quote: |
Originally Posted by foundit66 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".) |
However, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the President is utilizing his constitutional authority. THus far, the Courts have upheld that power of the President, including in the cases of the current detainees. The simple fact remains, that this decision established the precedence for Enemy Combatants.[/quote]
I believe "constitutional authority" would include a wide-sweeping set of issues. Like insuring that we are abiding by international treaties in not torturing the detainees. Or insuring that we are abiding by international treaties which establish: "Unlawful combatants do retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
It is on THOSE grounds that I feel he is failing his constitutional authority/responsibility.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Furthermore, in respecting international treaties, the detention of the detainees is also within the legal scope. They have been removed from the battlefield as required, they have been provided with food, shelter and clothing, and they have been allowed to practice their religion. Since the convention allows for the detaining of combatants until the end of hostilities, nothing has been done outside the law. |
To which convention do you refer?
Are you referring to the Third Geneva Convention, which talks about POWs but not the status of the prisoners we are discussing?
Or are you referring to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which talks more thoroughly about OTHER CASES like the one we are discussing?
And considering BUSH HIMSELF has stated that the "WAR on terror" will probably be a war that will have no end, your assessment of the situation makes me incredibly uneasy...
What would constitute an "end" of these "hostilities"?
Can we define when we will have an "end"? (Hmmm. What has Bush said on this issue?)
If not, don't you see a glaring problem here?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Which means that the President does not have to charge them with a crime or worry about conducting tribunals until such time as hostilities end. They are not guaranteed a right to a speedy trial. All we have are a bunch of overactive organizations who are against the war in Iraq trying all means and methods to challenge the authority of the President as Commander in Chief. |
I was against going to war with Iraq, but this is an ENTIRELY SEPARATE issue. Quite frankly, a lot of that "opinion" is a past issue as we are currently IN Iraq, and my opinions on what we should do now that we are IN Iraq are entirely different.
With that said, Don't try to lump the two together. It does the current focus of discussion a grave disservice.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Your argument has proved nothing other than the fact you do not understand how to argue legally.
dmk |
Really?
Do we need to head back to the "illegal wire-tapping" thread for some history on "legal" arguments?
Perhaps we could use some of your concepts on "lying" to your statements made in that thread?
Let's not get too snide here...
We all make mistakes.
We all learn things (or at least we should) in these discussions.