Defending the Truth

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.

Again, you are wrong. Seeing as how the Convention met again following WWII, it was addressed. This convention deliberately spelled out who was a POW. It gave distinct criteria.

However, the original contention was that it was the Bush Administration made up the term Enemy Combatant was it not?? 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??

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.

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."

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.

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".)[/quote]

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. 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. 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.

Your argument has proved nothing other than the fact you do not understand how to argue legally.

dmk

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?


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.


"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...


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.


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.


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...


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.


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?


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.


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.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of what anybody says, gitmo fuels resentment.
According to the US constitution i understand that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Shooting at the enemy in armed combat is only proff of a person fighting. Not any sort of proof of terrorist links. So catching them in combat is not an admission of guilt.
To be honest if i had been afghani, i would have fought against an invasion whether or not i supported the Taliban. I mean it would be my country and i would be damned if anybody else was allowed to come in and act the boss.
Same thing in iraq.
But you know what, if the US will insist on making themselves unpopular, then by all means great. But this much is a fact. Gitmo, Aghanistan and Iraq will affect the US more negatively than any other nation on the planet.
Nobody takes the democratic rhetoric of the bush admin seriously. Why should they when statements made, are directly contradicted by the actions of the US.
But like i said, it doesn't matter to anybody really if the US shoots itself in the foot. But maybe the citizens of the US would wanna stop the neocon nuts from hijacking america.

Once again, you are trying to apply criminality to combat/war, they are not the same. The rules of law that apply to criminal actions are different than the rules of law that apply to combat/war. Routinely individuals who are captured during combat/war are repatriated without any trial. They are detained to prevent them from returning to the fight. It would be absolutely ridiculous for a nation to return individuals to the war prior to the ceasing of hostilities for the threat remains that the individuals will return to the combat. Thus is the logic and reaoning behind detaining individuals until the ceasing of hostilities.

Combatants are not criminals, unless they have violated the Rules of War and are then subject to war tribunals. You are making hte mistake of comparing apples and oranges.

dmk

Pentagon mulls torture rule on Guantanamo evidence

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In what would be a key change in U.S. policy, the Pentagon may formally require military prosecutors to observe a U.N. convention against torture in their use of evidence during tribunals at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

Such a move would represent a formal bar on the use of any evidence obtained by torture in prisoner tribunals at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, where the United States has held hundreds of foreign terrorism suspects since early 2002.

Washington has faced steady criticism over the Guantanamo camp from the United Nations, rights groups and some foreign governments. Former detainees have charged U.S. authorities use torture at the camp, which the Pentagon denies.

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said on Wednesday the administration up to now has relied on prosecutors to ensure that their cases before tribunals, known as military commissions, reflect President George W. Bush's stated policy that the United States not condone torture.

"Up to this point, it's not believed to have been necessary because of the way in which prosecutors and the commission members have been able to proceed in their trials," Whitman told reporters.

"But it is something that is being looked at as a possible way to eliminate any doubt that the Convention Against Torture, Article 15, is understood and is applicable to these prosecutions," he said. "The department is taking a look at it and may issue a separate instruction on it."

Article 15 of the U.N Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment requires states to ensure that evidence invoked in proceedings not be the result of torture.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060322/..._guantanamo_dc

I wonder what a terrorist would do to a US troop if they captured one...

That is what separates us from them.

Unfortunately under the Bush administration we are now acting as the terrorists do, showing low moral character and adding fuel to the hatred of America.

There is some irony in going to war against Iraq, and maintaining our presence there because we want them to be more like us...

... and how our wars make us more like them instead ...

Showing low moral character. Really, how??? By detaining persons captured in combat??? By detaining persons that have ties to terrorism?? By interrogating prisoners using techniques that cause them discomfort?? Truly such a broad statement without any supporting evidence.

dmk

If they were captured in the combat that has been declared a war on terror, then they have not received their right to a trial. That is showing very low moral character and is adding fuel to the fire.