The Term "Enemy Combatant"

[King of the Americas]

Here's a little piece I am working on, what do ya think?

---

The Term "Enemy Combatant"

If a 'fighter', 'warrior', or otherwise 'criminal element' decides to willingly lay down their arms and stop resisting our rule, then they are deserving of certain rights.

The very least of which is to NOT be tortured in pursuit of useful intelligence.

*It is this willingness to stop fighting and lay down one's arms that qualifies you for POW status. It is the offering yourself up as a willing 'Prisoner' that gives you this status. It does NOT and SHOULD NOT matter where you were, what you were wearing, or which army you were fighting for.

We have certain spies and or under dressed military personal in unfriendly areas, and if they were caught by those whom they were gathering intelligence on, our present course of actions have cleared the way for them to be physically forced to give up more than their 'name, rank, and serial number'.

This Administration's willingness to re-write rules and policies, are ever-further unchecked reachings for power, and they are leading us down the wrong path. This Legislature's inaction has too been at least irresponsible, in its own willingness to turn a blind eye to such misdeeds. Regardless of the much desired ends, these means are dishonorable and actions should be taken to end them immediately. No President, Emperior, or King should be allowed to indefinately torture and imprison anyone they wish for as long as they wish, in the name of some rightious war. Those who would deserve to be unseated.

As a nation of laws we are bound by common civility to see to it that no people are mistreated or tortured by their captures, especially if said captures are Americans.

Please take the time to write and or call your local Representative and Senator, and relay these sentiments:

"Anyone who willingly lays down their arms and relents to being our prisoner, deserves "Prisoner" of War- status. For it is one's willingness to STOP fighting that makes you a prisoner, not what uniform you were wearing or what group you were fighting for. The creation and use of the term 'Enemy Combatant' is no less than a breech of the contract that makes America what is it. If America is not the protector of Equal Rights, then who is?"

---

By protecting the rights of those whom we deem the worst, then we ensure the rights of those innocent and or wrongly accused among us, in the future.

 

[Jocko]

Here's a little piece I am working on, what do ya think?

---

The Term "Enemy Combatant"

If a 'fighter', 'warrior', or otherwise 'criminal element' decides to willingly lay down their arms and stop resisting our rule, then they are deserving of certain rights.

Our rule where, precisely?

The very least of which is to NOT be tortured in pursuit of useful intelligence.

Define torture.

*It is this willingness to stop fighting and lay down one's arms that qualifies you for POW status. It is the offering yourself up as a willing 'Prisoner' that gives you this status. It does NOT and SHOULD NOT matter where you were, what you were wearing, or which army you were fighting for.

Your appendix to this piece should include your re-drafting of the Geneva Conventions, since that's the definition you're so gallantly tossing aside.

We have certain spies and or under dressed military personal in unfriendly areas, and if they were caught by those whom they were gathering intelligence on, our present course of actions have cleared the way for them to be physically forced to give up more than their 'name, rank, and serial number'.

Dear me, someone thinks we're still sending spooks into East Berlin. You do realize that most agents, when caught and released, are part of a prisoner swap that follows rules not in the G.C., nor apparently in this little manifesto?

This Administration's willingness to re-write rules and policies, are ever-further unchecked reachings for power, and they are leading us down the wrong path.

As opposed to your willingness to rewrite the rules, policies, and even definitions of words like torture? Tell me, are you still beffuddled as to why you keep getting trounced in your mayoral campaigns?

This Legislature's inaction has too been at least irresponsible, in its own willingness to turn a blind eye to such misdeeds. Regardless of the much desired ends, these means are dishonorable and actions should be taken to end them immediately.

There have been multiple investigations, corrective actions and convictions as a result of abuse. How is this a "blind eye"? Are you unsatisfied with anything short of public hanging, or a blanket a priori assumption that every single endeavor undertaken by the US and its armed forces is evil?

No President, Emperior, or King should be allowed to indefinately torture and imprison anyone they wish for as long as they wish, in the name of some rightious war. Those who would deserve to be unseated.

You wouldn't be speaking about Saddam or the Taliban here, would you?

As a nation of laws we are bound by common civility to see to it that no people are mistreated or tortured by their captures, especially if said captures are Americans.

And the mechanism whereby you would enforce reciporical behavior by our adversaries... remember, the ones who bomb children and behead civilians... is what, exactly? Or are you more interested in just giving away the store?

Please take the time to write and or call your local Representative and Senator, and relay these sentiments:

"Anyone who willingly lays down their arms and relents to being our prisoner, deserves "Prisoner" of War- status. For it is one's willingness to STOP fighting that makes you a prisoner, not what uniform you were wearing or what group you were fighting for. The creation and use of the term 'Enemy Combatant' is no less than a breech of the contract that makes America what is it. If America is not the protector of Equal Rights, then who is?"

Hooray, another petition and letter-writing campaign. That'll learn 'em. You have a lot to learn about how to motivate people, dude.

By protecting the rights of those whom we deem the worst, then we ensure the rights of those innocent and or wrongly accused among us, in the future.

Yeah, you're a real Thomas Jefferson. I'd be curious about what you'd have to say about the points I raised above.

Oh, and when you're done with that, how about a post-mortem on your 12-vote performance? Surely the sting has gone out of that by now.

 

[King of the Americas]

GREETINGS Jocko:

It has been quite a while since I last batted the message board ball around, especially with the likes of YOU...

Although I AM feel'n a might squirly today, so here's a little sand up your crack, as you sit sprawled upon the beach arse up:

----


Our rule where, precisely?

*I'd say ANYWHERE wherew we are attempting to force it upon others with threat or use of armed invasion...


Define torture.

*http://www.essex.ac.uk/torturehandbook/handbook/appendix_i.htm

Its already been done.

Your appendix to this piece should include your re-drafting of the Geneva Conventions, since that's the definition you're so gallantly tossing aside.

*I think you are confusing me with the Bush Administration. It is the dismissal of those standards, and the creation of this new status, the "Enemy Combatant", that should be re-drafted.

Dear me, someone thinks we're still sending spooks into East Berlin. You do realize that most agents, when caught and released, are part of a prisoner swap that follows rules not in the G.C., nor apparently in this little manifesto?

*In our, or rather this present War on Terrorism, we do indeed have coverts working in unfreindly places, but most of them aren't in "East Berlin". We won that War, remember? What do you think keeps an enemy force from taking such persons/spies and torturing them endlessly, if WE ourselves are guilty of no less??? Especially given our public disclaimer about such actions being within the President's legal authority, under 'new' rules of war???

As opposed to your willingness to rewrite the rules, policies, and even definitions of words like torture? Tell me, are you still beffuddled as to why you keep getting trounced in your mayoral campaigns?

*I am merely in favor of of adhearing to already accepted and writ into signed treaty, certian standards. It is this Administration's RE-WRITING or outright dismissal of these standards that beffuddle me. I am not sure what my mayoral shortcomings have to do with this argument...


There have been multiple investigations, corrective actions and convictions as a result of abuse. How is this a "blind eye"? Are you unsatisfied with anything short of public hanging, or a blanket a priori assumption that every single endeavor undertaken by the US and its armed forces is evil?

*This Administration has used, and is still using the term "Enemy Combatant" to hold and torture captives. They do so, in an attempt to disallow 'Prisoners' taken in this War on Terror, certain rights granted to POWs. It seems that no number of investigations, corrective actions, or convictions have changed this Administration's errand policies regarding this issue.

You wouldn't be speaking about Saddam or the Taliban here, would you?

*It would be no less comforting, if I were.


And the mechanism whereby you would enforce reciporical behavior by our adversaries... remember, the ones who bomb children and behead civilians... is what, exactly? Or are you more interested in just giving away the store?

*International criminal courts. "...giving away the store..."? I am not sure what that means. What am I 'giving' away by saying that we should adhear to the treties that we've signed? What did I lose or give up by NOT torturing people, or calling for an end to torture altogether?


Hooray, another petition and letter-writing campaign. That'll learn 'em. You have a lot to learn about how to motivate people, dude.

*All that ANY one man can do is speak clearly in order to be heard, and ask for others to join him, if they so agree with his statements. YOU are not required by me or anyone else to do something to do anything with which you disagree. My only hope is that you would...that you would understand and agree that following our previous accepted standards and treaties is paramount in keeping America's integrity intact, and moreover that you would act in such a way that would insure that we have a moral high ground on which to stand.


Yeah, you're a real Thomas Jefferson. I'd be curious about what you'd have to say about the points I raised above.

*If I am "Thomas Jefferson", what would your comments make YOU, I wonder...

Oh, and when you're done with that, how about a post-mortem on your 12-vote performance? Surely the sting has gone out of that by now.

*There is a "post mortem" post about my loss over at my "Internet Magazine"...

www.voy.com/18861/

Later,

Thanks for your response!

 

[RandFan]

If a 'fighter', 'warrior', or otherwise 'criminal element' decides to willingly lay down their arms and stop resisting our rule, then they are deserving of certain rights.

I don't know of any that do so willingly. Most do so under threat of death. If laying down your arms to keep your head from being blown off is willingly then I'm going to have to reevaluate some things.

There is reason and purpose to the rules as they are now. I don't see how your idea resolves a whole host of issues considered when drafting the rules in the first place.

 

[Jocko]

KOA, I'm not going to bother quoting you since you can't be bothered to do the same. Long story short, I see a lot of "shoulds" without any reasons to back them up, practical or otherwise.

This is known as utopian thinking, and it should be classified as a mental disorder, IMHO. You know, like your little narcissistic personality problem.

Edited to add: Yes, you still do have your little problem, don't you?

Even my own hometown newspaper refused to
attend my press conference and pose questions of me
and my platform, suggesting strongly that if I wanted
to tell the people of Muenster what I thought, that I
should pay to run an ad. Otherwise that, '...they
didn't cover political campainging.', and that they
wouldn't be attended my press offering...

...If felt to me that I was being weighed not by the
worthiness of my ideas and platform, but rather solely
by my perceived level of experience. Indeed, how
would anyone know how capable I am if none of these
power sources ever asked me a single question? I felt
as though I was graded without ever having been
tested...

...What things does a mayor
need to know in order to garner sincere support? If
you deem me under or completely un-qualified to hold
office, then please tell me the things I need to know
in order to be over-qualified...

You can start with my initial response above, junior.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Here's a little piece I am working on, what do ya think?

Well I think it's wrong on a lot of levels. I'll do my best not to repeat Jocko...

The Term "Enemy Combatant"

If a 'fighter', 'warrior', or otherwise 'criminal element' decides to willingly lay down their arms and stop resisting our rule, then they are deserving of certain rights.

The most dangerous time for any prisoner is the actual moment of surrender. I would say that a prisoner does not gain whatever rights they have until after their surrender has been accepted and they are in our custody, not the moment they lay down their arms. Enemies have a habit of picking up those arms they layed down just a minute or two ago.

The very least of which is to NOT be tortured in pursuit of useful intelligence.

The UN Convention Against Terrorism prohibits torture for any purpose. The problem is (as Jocko says) it doesn't do any good to prohibit something unless you can tell people exactly what you are prohibiting.

It is this willingness to stop fighting and lay down one's arms that qualifies you for POW status. It is the offering yourself up as a willing 'Prisoner' that gives you this status. It does NOT and SHOULD NOT matter where you were, what you were wearing, or which army you were fighting for.

I see you want to re-write the Geneva Conventions. Sorry, there's more to getting POW status than surrendering to an American. To qualify as a POW you must also fulfill all the criteria for that status as layed down in the accords. It very much matters where you were fighting, what you are wearing and what army you are fighting for. A person who is fighting from a protected structure (mosque, hospital) or who fails to wear a distinguishing uniform or symbol or who fights in an army that is recognized as criminal (meaning that it consistantly and habitually fails to act in accordance with the laws of warfare) does not deserve protection. Protection is a privilege that is earned by obeying the law.

We have certain spies and or under dressed military personal in unfriendly areas, and if they were caught by those whom they were gathering intelligence on, our present course of actions have cleared the way for them to be physically forced to give up more than their 'name, rank, and serial number'.

Spies are, by definition, outside the scope of protected persons under every circumstance. The only hope for a captured spy is to be valuable enough for their agent-state to make political efforts to protect them. By under-dressed military I assume you mean special operations soldiers wearing "sterile" uniforms (all insignia and markings removed except for a tag identifying their service: US Army, Navy etc..) which are perfectly acceptable as uniforms under the Geneva Conventions. Or maybe you're talking about the mud wrestling strip-tease that was in the news a while back?

Now, about our present course of action: there have been abuses, there have been mistakes and there has also been investigations, trials and punishments meted out to people responsible for mistreatment of prisoners. Every soldier knows that prisoners are not to be mistreated in any way ever. Since American soldiers can expect torture or death if they are captured by the enemy in this war it seems a moot point to worry about how our soldiers are treated. Unless you are somehow hinting that these steps will make the other side see the light and start following the laws of war.

This Administration's willingness to re-write rules and policies, are ever-further unchecked reachings for power, and they are leading us down the wrong path. This Legislature's inaction has too been at least irresponsible, in its own willingness to turn a blind eye to such misdeeds. Regardless of the much desired ends, these means are dishonorable and actions should be taken to end them immediately. No President, Emperior, or King should be allowed to indefinately torture and imprison anyone they wish for as long as they wish, in the name of some rightious war. Those who would deserve to be unseated.

Rules and policies are constantly being rewritten. We hope that the new rules are better, but that isn't always the case. Since there exists laws which allow the impeachment of any elected official then the unchecked reaching for power line is nothing but a stupid lie. As for the legislature, they represent the people who elected them, not you. Write your congressman if you feel like it, believe me any of them who put this pile of tripe on the floor will hear from me in short order. As for the imprisoning part, the United States has a legal system that is determining how much power to do just that the president has. You're just mad because the government isn't letting you watch.

As a nation of laws we are bound by common civility to see to it that no people are mistreated or tortured by their captures, especially if said captures are Americans.

Why should we be held to standards so far beyond that which you hold the rest of the world to? Nevermind, we try to live up to that standard anyway. We don't always succeed, there will always be criminals and there will always be situations that are insufficiently defined in existing law that will result in ambiguous situations. The fact is that there are people in the world who want to kill Americans. Most of them want to kill Americans because other people are telling them that killing Americans is the right thing to do. Being an American is not a suicide pact. I've looked at the other side and face it, they're a lot worse on the old humanitarian record than we are. I'd prefer to be on the winning side.

Please take the time to write and or call your local Representative and Senator, and relay these sentiments:

"Anyone who willingly lays down their arms and relents to being our prisoner, deserves "Prisoner" of War- status. For it is one's willingness to STOP fighting that makes you a prisoner, not what uniform you were wearing or what group you were fighting for. The creation and use of the term 'Enemy Combatant' is no less than a breech of the contract that makes America what is it. If America is not the protector of Equal Rights, then who is?"

---

By protecting the rights of those whom we deem the worst, then we ensure the rights of those innocent and or wrongly accused among us, in the future.

Hmmm...and can we throw in a line or two about how we expect others to treat American prisoners and what we will do about it if they don't?

 

[King of the Americas]

To RandFan:

I don't know of any that do so willingly. Most do so under threat of death. If laying down your arms to keep your head from being blown off is willingly then I'm going to have to reevaluate some things.

*You don't stop fighting until you run out of bullets...and then you may still grab your knife, if you absolutely refuse to be taken prisoner. Regardless, most POW were taken because they chose to stop fighting and relent to capture. I don't know about YOU ut I am a "you'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers, king of guy". Although, if my aggressors were of a respected U.S. Federal or Local Police authority, I might well lay down my arms and face prosecution, but only given that I believe I will have certain rights to face a jury, and present a defense with legal aid. Now, if I weren't ME, and were instead rather some Taliban fighter in Afghanstan, maybe I'd have a different view?

There is reason and purpose to the rules as they are now. I don't see how your idea resolves a whole host of issues considered when drafting the rules in the first place.

*I think this 'willing prisoner' issue is at the heart of the argument, in determining the status of a detainee, be they 'prisoner' or 'combatant'. I think using the term 'combatant' to describe someone who has laid down their arms is incorrect. I am not talking about the Geneva Convention standards, but rather the decent from those standards to this other low by the Bush Administration.

---

If this were a political cartoon it would show a long road lead up a big hill to a postede "Perfect World", half way up the hill are a bunch of Liberal carrying signs reading "Geneva Convention Standards". At the foot of the hill is the short haired female G.I. pointing at Saddam in his underwear with her patented smile, and then Rumsfeld is standing next to her saying but we aren't as bad as the guys behind us! Right next to him are Hitler, further down the road are the Spanish Inquisition, and further back are the dark ages...

The major over-riding point being that this Administration has taken a step BACK from protecting human rights during warfare, rather than pushing for more human treatment.

This Executive has sought certain powers, during this unending War on Terror, to imprison and even torture indefinately anyone he or his cabinate so chooses.

This is unacceptable, and I believe it is the duty of the Legislature to limit the President's willingness to soil our good name by lowering our standards.

 

[WildCat]

KOA, would you PLEASE start using the quote button? Your posts are a chore to read and hard to figure out because of your refusal to do so, above and beyond your poor writing abilities.

 

[RandFan]

KOA, would you PLEASE start using the quote button? Your posts are a chore to read and hard to figure out because of your refusal to do so, above and beyond your poor writing abilities.

Agreed, I don't think I have the desire to pick through it. Hey, did you get the thing about the long line and Hitler? I guess when in doubt make a comparison to Hitler.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

KOA, take this from someone who is no fan of the current administration. The Geneva Conventions are very specific about who they cover and as I read them, neither the prisoners we have in Guanatanamo nor the insurgents in Iraq are covered. On this issue, I have to hold my nose and side with Bush and Co.

 

[Cylinder]

Agreed, I don't think I have the desire to pick through it. Hey, did you get the thing about the long line and Hitler? I guess when in doubt make a comparison to Hitler.

I guess when the DSM-V comes out in the next few years, President Bush should be credited with oncovering a new diagnostic variant of Tourette's.

"voop...voop, HITLER, voop...CHIMP, LIES, voop, voop...HALIBURTON!!!!"

 

[King of the Americas]

To Dan:

Well I think it's wrong on a lot of levels. I'll do my best not to repeat Jocko...

*That would be apprecaited, Thank you.



The most dangerous time for any prisoner is the actual moment of surrender. I would say that a prisoner does not gain whatever rights they have until after their surrender has been accepted and they are in our custody, not the moment they lay down their arms. Enemies have a habit of picking up those arms they layed down just a minute or two ago.

*And if they 'tried' then they could and very well would be shot, and justly killed. I wasn't talking about someone 'pretending' to be a possible POW. I am talking about someone who earnestly lays down their weapons and surrenders to capture. These people deserve the protections provided in agreed to and signed treaties.

The UN Convention Against Terrorism prohibits torture for any purpose. The problem is (as Jocko says) it doesn't do any good to prohibit something unless you can tell people exactly what you are prohibiting.

*I don't think Jocko said that...


I see you want to re-write the Geneva Conventions. Sorry, there's more to getting POW status than surrendering to an American. To qualify as a POW you must also fulfill all the criteria for that status as layed down in the accords. It very much matters where you were fighting, what you are wearing and what army you are fighting for. A person who is fighting from a protected structure (mosque, hospital) or who fails to wear a distinguishing uniform or symbol or who fights in an army that is recognized as criminal (meaning that it consistantly and habitually fails to act in accordance with the laws of warfare) does not deserve protection. Protection is a privilege that is earned by obeying the law.

*My bad. I do NOT wish to depart from Geneva Convention Standards, but I think those rights and restrictions have interpretational cracks in them. I think the term 'distinguishing uniform' is one that lacks specificty to say the least. That said, even the worst of the worst, without regard to innocent human life previously...IF they lay down their weapons and willingly surrender, deserve 'some' rights. The LEAST of which is to not be tortured indefinately. Moreover, that the best you could do to or for such a detainee, is to try them for war crimes within some kind of international tribunal, provide them a defense, and if found guilty put them to death, quickly. I believe protection from brutality, and being brought to justice, is what EVERYONE deserves.


Spies are, by definition, outside the scope of protected persons under every circumstance. The only hope for a captured spy is to be valuable enough for their agent-state to make political efforts to protect them. By under-dressed military I assume you mean special operations soldiers wearing "sterile" uniforms (all insignia and markings removed except for a tag identifying their service: US Army, Navy etc..) which are perfectly acceptable as uniforms under the Geneva Conventions. Or maybe you're talking about the mud wrestling strip-tease that was in the news a while back?

*I was actually referring to deep cover agents, and units operating in steril or local garb. I find that OUR actions regarding the capture and detaining of such clearly 'unmarked' fighters, has put any of our captured soliders in harm's way.

Now, about our present course of action: there have been abuses, there have been mistakes and there has also been investigations, trials and punishments meted out to people responsible for mistreatment of prisoners. Every soldier knows that prisoners are not to be mistreated in any way ever. Since American soldiers can expect torture or death if they are captured by the enemy in this war it seems a moot point to worry about how our soldiers are treated. Unless you are somehow hinting that these steps will make the other side see the light and start following the laws of war.

*I think that is EXACTLY how you win a moral war. You say, WE are the good guys who believe in truth and justice, and we are here to kill and or change the minds of those 'evil' people who would try to force a singular will upon a people. If we want to win, we set forth a rightious standard, and lead by example. When you treat people with the equal hands of a blind justice, you will rally people to your cause. When you thumb your nose at previously accepted standards, then you become the evil, you become the unrightious, and you lose the moral high ground from which to preach.

Rules and policies are constantly being rewritten. We hope that the new rules are better, but that isn't always the case. Since there exists laws which allow the impeachment of any elected official then the unchecked reaching for power line is nothing but a stupid lie. As for the legislature, they represent the people who elected them, not you. Write your congressman if you feel like it, believe me any of them who put this pile of tripe on the floor will hear from me in short order. As for the imprisoning part, the United States has a legal system that is determining how much power to do just that the president has. You're just mad because the government isn't letting you watch.

*I am not mad, I am disappointed in my leaders, and their willingness to regress backwards and reject previous treaties. I want only for my country to be the example of Justice in the world. And when I hear this Administration defend the practice of labeling prisoners 'Enemy Combatants'...it makes my stomach turn.

Why should we be held to standards so far beyond that which you hold the rest of the world to?

*BECAUSE WE SAID WE WERE BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE! We are the ones saying 'live like us', be FREE form democratic prinicples, adhear to peaceful ways and means, seek to live as WE do, and you'll be happy. You can't say one thing, and then DO something completely different, and expect to gain support.

Nevermind, we try to live up to that standard anyway. We don't always succeed, there will always be criminals and there will always be situations that are insufficiently defined in existing law that will result in ambiguous situations. The fact is that there are people in the world who want to kill Americans. Most of them want to kill Americans because other people are telling them that killing Americans is the right thing to do. Being an American is not a suicide pact. I've looked at the other side and face it, they're a lot worse on the old humanitarian record than we are. I'd prefer to be on the winning side.

*You are NOT going to win, running this war, in this manner, period. By torturing prisoners, you only rally others to their cause.

-------------------------------------------------------



Hmmm...and can we throw in a line or two about how we expect others to treat American prisoners and what we will do about it if they don't?

*SURE. But I think that I DID in my saying that ANYONE who willingly lays down their weapons and chooses to cease armed combat, is deserving of 'Prisoner' status, and not a 'Combatant' designation.

Thank you for your reasoned, albeit shortsighted, measured response. I appreciate the lack of ad hock personal attacks.

__________________

 

[Cylinder]

Re: To RandFan:

This Executive has sought certain powers, during this unending War on Terror, to imprison and even torture indefinately anyone he or his cabinate so chooses.

The Executive Detention Order is predicated on the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a joint resolution of Congress - powers which extend from the War Powers Act of 1973. Those links contain some of the reading required to have a meaningful discussion on these issues. You might also consider the majority opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which addresses these very concerns:

Hamdi contends that the AUMF does not authorize indefinite or perpetual detention. Certainly, we agree that indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized. Further, we understand Congress’ grant of authority for the use of “necessary and appropriate force” to include the authority to detain for the duration of the relevant conflict, and our understanding is based on longstanding law-of-war principles. If the practical circumstances of a given conflict are entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war, that understanding may unravel. But that is not the situation we face as of this date. Active combat operations against Taliban fighters apparently are ongoing in Afghanistan. See, e.g., Constable, U.S. Launches New Operation in Afghanistan, Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2004, p. A22 (reporting that 13,500 United States troops remain in Afghanistan, including several thousand new arrivals); J. Abizaid, Dept. of Defense, Gen. Abizaid Central Command Operations Update Briefing, Apr. 30, 2004, http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040430-1402.html (as visited June 8, 2004, and available in the Clerk of Court’s case file) (media briefing describing ongoing operations in Afghanistan involving 20,000 United States troops). The United States may detain, for the duration of these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban combatants who “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States.” If the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in active combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of “necessary and appropriate force,” and therefore are authorized by the AUMF.

This is unacceptable, and I believe it is the duty of the Legislature to limit the President's willingness to soil our good name by lowering our standards.

To quote your freind Chimpy McCokeSpoon:

Elections have consequences

The decision has already been made.

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Dan:

Thank you for your reasoned, albeit shortsighted, measured response. I appreciate the lack of ad hock personal attacks.

Yeah, at least he didn't call you shortsighted. If there's some kind of objective scale for measuring people who just don't friggin' get it, you'd pin the needle.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Well KoA, you obviously don't know the first thing about the law, the law of warfare, the detainee process, accusations of torture or much else. So let's discuss a few of them now:

What evidence do you have that the United States Government endorsed or approved the use of torture, overtly or covertly aside from the Order issued by Donald Rumsfeld (I would contend even including that order) which was immediatel countermanded? It makes no sense at all to spend so much effort battling something that isn't happening.

Please remember to use the appropriate definition of torture which requires severe pain and suffering either physical or mental.

How is the use of sterile uniforms against the Geneva Conventions? The uniforms serve to distinguish the soldiers and they even carry insignia of country and service. They more than satisfy the Geneva Conventions. Now, tell me how people wearing civilian clothes, hiding among a civilian population, attacking by ambush and subterfuge is in any way equivelant to the way the US military operates? If you think we have soldiers out there wearing civilian clothes and taking part in military action you'd better have some darned good evidence.

How is it the Geneva Convention's definition of adequate uniform or distinguishing marks lack specificity? Have you read them? They aren't particularly lengthy and there aren't that many big words. (You started with the ad-hom's btw so deal with it. I'd rather be shortsighted than plain stupid).

What protection do surrendered people deserve from US forces that they do not get? Granted there have been abuses but we cannot hold the entire administration responsible for the actions of some spec 4 who thinks he's doing the right thing. We investigate accusations of abuse and where we find there is cause we prosecute the abusers. This is acting responsibly.

How is the process that is currently in place for detainees held by the US inadequate? Do you know what the process is?

Prisoners of War are interned for the duration of the conflict with no right of review or appeal. Why should we give illegal combatants rights not guaranteed to legal combatants under the Geneva Conventions?

Does it do us any good to win the moral war if we lose the physical one? Isn't it reasonable to assume that there must be tradeoffs between the two and that the balance may require adjustment as conditions change?

Where do you find a declaration of the US Government saying we are better than everyone else? We do act to a higher standard than most and though we can admit we aren't perfect it seems some folks are more concerned about using those tragedies as an excuse to grab political power instead of addressing the problems.

One last thing. The distinction in status that is being made is between being a legal combatant and an illegal combatant. Enemy combatant doesn't tell us much more than which way he was pointing his gun. Legal combatants have a right to be on the battlefield and a right to protection under the Geneva Conventions. Illegal combatants have no such protection. Illegal combatants are those that use illegal means to wage war (fail to wear a uniform or distinguishing marks, use protected buildings for military purposes, endanger or kill civilians out of proportion with military necessity, take hostages and a host of other things) or have no right to be on the battlefield such as mercenaries, foreign nationals not in the service of a nation party to the conflict and so on.

And finally, just once I would love to see someone so critical of the US take an honest look at who and what we are as a nation and compare them to the terrorists we are trying to destroy. Who does your scorn serve? I'd rather see dubya elected for life than let the people responsible for 9/11 and all the other terrorist acts get away with it. Does it occur to you that the terrorists want to destroy the United States? They want to use nukes on us. We don't need to understand why, we just need to stop them.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

Next you should do a piece on "Guest Worker"

 

[Crossbow]

Here's a little piece I am working on, what do ya think?

---

....

About 5 to 10% of it sounds good which is just about on par with your efforts to become Mayor of Muenster, TX about two months ago.

Incumbent Henry Weinzapfel received 128 votes and
challenger A.J. Knabe received 11 votes.

 

[Ravenwood]

Here's a littile something from the Geneva convention that makes things a little interesting...

Art. 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Kinda puts some of those foreign insurgents in a new category...Somebody should actually read this stuff every now & then

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is known as utopian thinking, and it should be classified as a mental disorder, IMHO.

Michael Badnarik and his followers should take note.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: The Term "Enemy Combatant"

About 5 to 10% of it sounds good which is just about on par with your efforts to become Mayor of Muenster, TX about two months ago.

Incumbent Henry Weinzapfel received 128 votes and
challenger A.J. Knabe received 11 votes.

Be fair, Crossbow, and provide a little context to these results.

After all, 4 years ago he got 17 votes as a write-in candidate. The funniest thing of all is that he believes this is progress. His little rant in his "magazine" is a plea for someone to please, for the love of God, tell him what he's been doing wrong all this time.

I could name a few people here who know what a waste of time THAT is.