Author Topic: so long habeus corpus. (Read 5957 times)

lukster · « **Reply #165 on:** October 21, 2006, 09:49:40 AM »

Quote

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

Now you're getting it. The purpose of this bill is to create procedure to handle these unlawful combatants. As has been stated here multiple times, it is inappropriate to put these guys through our civilian courts.

oboe · « **Reply #166 on:** October 21, 2006, 09:50:29 AM »

Stoney,

Do you have me confused with Rolex? I'm the guy trying to shoehorn a discussion of the Act's unconstitutionality into the thread (without luck so far). I haven't commented on the specifics of the Gitmo detainees.

~~EDIT: I see you response to my post above now; I hope you are right. It doesn't change my opinion that the suspension of Habeas Corpus in unconstitutional, however.~~

Stoney74 · « **Reply #167 on:** October 21, 2006, 09:53:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
Stoney,

Do you have me confused with Rolex? I'm the guy trying to shoehorn a discussion of the Act's unconstitutionality into the thread (without luck so far). I haven't commented on the specifics of the Gitmo detainees.

~~Sorry, I was in a flurry....~~

lazs2 · « **Reply #168 on:** October 21, 2006, 09:55:56 AM »

just to be clear rolex... are you saying that all or even most of the prisoners at gitmo are just unlucky innocent citizens of foriegn countries that we have rounded up for no reason?

viking... your comments on our situation and what we can do is pretty accurate except... I like the Abrams strat... build the iraqi police and let them take over... it is slightly more complex given the backward bloodthirsty nature of the people there but if need be.... partition the place... it's not like it was a real country anyway... maybe we need to partition the whole middle east into tribal areas. They want to live in the fourth century? let em.

as for the bill of rights.... I think the bill of rights is only for citizens. sorry... get if anyone doesn't like that they can become a citizen or get their own bill of rights.

lazs

Viking · « **Reply #169 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:04:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 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

There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant" in the GC. You are either a combatant eligible for protection as a POW or a civilian. Period.

"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 they do belong in any of those categories they are to be afforded POW status. If they don't belong in any of those categories they are civilians. Period.

"If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian."

There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant". "Unlawful civilian" on the other hand…

lukster · « **Reply #170 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:06:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant".

There is now.

Viking · « **Reply #171 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:08:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
There is now.

In the demented minds of your leaders, not in the Geneva Conventions.

lukster · « **Reply #172 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:12:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
In the demented minds of your leaders, not in the Geneva Conventions.

If these guys don't want to play by the rules of the GC then what business is it of yours or anyone outside of the US how we deal with them? You've already stated that the GC does not apply to them. Just think of this as an addition to our civilian procedures dealing with civilian combatants if you can't grasp the term unlawful combatant.

Viking · « **Reply #173 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:20:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
If these guys don't want to play by the rules of the GC then what business is it of yours or anyone outside of the US how we deal with them?

We're not making it our business; we are however voicing our opinions. Just like we're voicing our opinions on other nations that condone torture and other atrocities. If we made it our business we would be actively helping your enemies.

Right now we are content with pointing fingers and criticizing. Soon to be replaced with "we told you so", and perhaps a little laugh.

lukster · « **Reply #174 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:26:33 AM »

For those of you in fear that this means US citizens will be held indefinitely as unlawful combatants consider this scenario.

Joe Blow, a US citizen, converts to Islam and falls in with Al Qaeda. He then attemps to blow up a shopping mall (maybe in the US , maybe not) but is captured. Can he be held as an unlawful enemy combatant? According to this new bill he can challenge his new found status. If the Supreme Court agrees that he is an unlawful enemy combatant then a military tribunal decides his fate. If the court finds he is not an unlawful enemy combatant then he can be tried in civilian court and I suggest he should be charged with nothing less than treason.

lukster · « **Reply #175 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:28:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
We're not making it our business; we are however voicing our opinions. Just like we're voicing our opinions on other nations that condone torture and other atrocities. If we made it our business we would be actively helping your enemies.

Right now we are content with pointing fingers and criticizing. Soon to be replaced with "we told you so", and perhaps a little laugh.

I think you've already started with the finger pointing and this is preventing you from seeing that this new law is needed to handle a situtation for which there is no established procedure.

john9001 · « **Reply #176 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:29:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Right now we are content with pointing fingers and criticizing. Soon to be replaced with "we told you so", and perhaps a little laugh.

you are really going to laugh when the "unlawful combatants" start blowing up your people.

Viking · « **Reply #177 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:32:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
I think you've already started with the finger pointing ...

I don't understand why you have to think about it. We started pointing fingers more than three years ago.

lukster · « **Reply #178 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:35:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
I don't understand why you have to think about it. We started pointing fingers more than three years ago.

You know what they say about pointing fingers.

Viking · « **Reply #179 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:36:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
you are really going to laugh when the "unlawful combatants" start blowing up your people.

Terrorism is nothing new in Europe.