so long habeus corpus.

[2Slow]

Originally posted by Stoney74
For those of you just joining us, from an earlier post...

excerpt from the act
(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
excerpt from the act
(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

I stand corrected.  The American Sons of Liberty site has posted unreliable information.  That the act says "alien" makes it ok with me.  As long as no one mistakenly identifies a citizen as an alien.  One so mistakenly identified will have no recourse but to suffer the detention and hope that the truth comes out in the long run, during ones lifetime.

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Viking
I'm afraid it is not. The GC doesn't even contain the word "combatant" at all let alone "unlawful enemy combatant". Like "assault weapon" the term "unlawful enemy combatant" is invented by your government and has no precedence in law, US or international.

Yeah, its the term our government uses to identify the knuckleheads.

Anyone who is detained and fits the classification as defined by the GC must be considered a Prisoner of War.  As these guys do not, they are not lawful combatants (lawful as having protections as a uniformed member under the GC).  You can call them a Ham Sandwich, I don't care--but they do not have rights.  Further, they are not treated as civilians because they took part in hostilities.  There is a definition of non-combatant or civilian in the GC.  


I'll post the whole dang document if I have to.

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Viking

Also the GC states that the enemy must have a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" to be considered "uniformed". Mind you a colored arm-band is enough to satisfy the GC. And let's take a look at some Iraqi insurgentswhatever:

They clearly carry their arms openly, and I would consider the headscarf distinctive and recognizable at a distance.

The guys in question, detained at Gitmo, are not Iraqi insurgents.  Those guys are Al Qaeda folks from different countries picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan.  

The uniform of the Iraqi insurgent is a whole other issue for a different thread

[-dead-]

Originally posted by 2Slow
I stand corrected.  The American Sons of Liberty site has posted unreliable information.  That the act says "alien" makes it ok with me.  As long as no one mistakenly identifies a citizen as an alien.  One so mistakenly identified will have no recourse but to suffer the detention and hope that the truth comes out in the long run, during ones lifetime.

Of course if you're accused of being an "enemy combatant", you might conceivably be stripped of your citizenship, making you a de facto alien.

[Rolex]

Originally posted by Stoney74
The guys in question, detained at Gitmo, are not Iraqi insurgents.  Those guys are Al Qaeda folks from different countries picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan.  

The uniform of the Iraqi insurgent is a whole other issue for a different thread

Most of the guys in question, detained at Gitmo, are not anything but guys unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If your version were true, why haven't there been a whole slew of tribunals by now, or lined up?

The answer is because there is no evidence or reason to detain the vast majority of them.

Legal immigrants and those with permanent resident visas -- who pay taxes, are subject to the draft and serve now in the armed forces --  have always been granted all civil liberties and legal protections of the Constitution afforded to citizens, except the right to vote.

They all come under this law now.

The US government has rounded up, detained and seized the possessions of American citizens without due process in the past. What makes you think it's not capable of doing it again?

They have rounded up citizens of other countries (Brazil) and shipped them to detainment camps in the US. You can only say "rounded up," because there was no legal extradition, no legal basis for doing it, no crimes were committed, no rights afforded them, no regress, no hearings, no charges, no nothing. In actuality, they were kidnapped.

Trusting the good nature and common sense of those who govern is only for fools. Even the most explicitly written law will be under threat of circumvention by politicians.

[oboe]

excerpt from the act
(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

I think you guys are missing a critical phrase of the act.   It doesn't matter what the detainee's status is - alien, citizen, combatant legal or illegal.   As long as their classification is "awaiting determination" they can be held indefinitely.    Essentially, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is gone for everybody.

Not trying to be a fear-monger, but it strikes me as a potentially dangerous situation which could lead to abuses.   Obviously, the Founding Fathers recognized such peril and that is why our Constitution specifically prohibits suspension of the Writ.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Stoney74
Further, they are not treated as civilians because they took part in hostilities.  There is a definition of non-combatant or civilian in the GC.  

Would you please quote definition of "non-combatant or civilian" in the Geneva Conventions? This is the second time you've claimed the GC contains non-existent definitions.

[john9001]

ok, I've been convinced, they are POW's, and they can be held prisoner until the end of the war. No trial, no court, no habeus corpus, no lawyers, just a POW camp.  Happy now?

[Viking]

Sure, POW camp is fine. Most of them don't deserve more than a bullet in the head though.

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Viking
Would you please quote definition of "non-combatant or civilian" in the Geneva Conventions? This is the second time you've claimed the GC contains non-existent definitions.

civilian

A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)

combatant status

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.  Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)
Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)
However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)
The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.  In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

[lukster]

Originally posted by Rolex
Most of the guys in question, detained at Gitmo, are not anything but guys unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And you know this how? I think I'll trust the troops that captured them more than you.

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by oboe
I think you guys are missing a critical phrase of the act.   It doesn't matter what the detainee's status is - alien, citizen, combatant legal or illegal.   As long as their classification is "awaiting determination" they can be held indefinitely.    Essentially, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is gone for everybody.

Not trying to be a fear-monger, but it strikes me as a potentially dangerous situation which could lead to abuses.   Obviously, the Founding Fathers recognized such peril and that is why our Constitution specifically prohibits suspension of the Writ.

excerpt from the act
(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of  of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

excerpt from the act
(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Rolex
Most of the guys in question, detained at Gitmo, are not anything but guys unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

Oboe, I respect what you're saying, but if you really believe this, its gonna be hard to continue this discussion.  Most of the "average Joes" that were rounded up have been released back to thier country of origin.  There are some pretty nefarious guys down there right now.

[Viking]

So there is no definition of "non-combatant or civilian" then. Like I said.

Originally posted by Stoney74
civilian

A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)

Tell me are the terrorists "members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms"? No? If not then therefore "if there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian" seems to be the correct interpretation.

They are either warriors eligible for POW status, or civilians (criminals). There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant".

[Stoney74]

There is a definition of civilian--I posted it.

There is a definition of combatant--I posted that too.  If you do not fit the definition of a combatant, then you are a non-combatant.

I guess I should have just used civilian--since there is an explicit definition