[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants, and as these Taliban leaders were not US citizens, the sum total of their entitlements is jack shit.[/quote]
I know the Bush lawyers did a good job convincing people that placing a label on them means that they have no human rights whatsoever and that they exist in some netherworld of non-personhood. But if Geneva doesn’t apply, they are still in U.S. Custody, and have at least the same rights as any other criminal in U.S. Custody, whether its a military or civilian criminal in U.S. custody. Either they are legitimate warriors or they are criminals; both have a set of basic minimum rights.
So if these guys were “unlawful combatants” subject to release when the war is over, it looks like they were going home anyway now that Obama has declared the war is over.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants, and as these Taliban leaders were not US citizens, the sum total of their entitlements is jack shit.[/quote]
I know the Bush lawyers did a good job convincing people that placing a label on them means that they have no human rights whatsoever and that they exist in some netherworld of non-personhood. But if Geneva doesn’t apply, they are still in U.S. Custody, and have at least the same rights as any other criminal in U.S. Custody, whether its a military or civilian criminal in U.S. custody. Either they are legitimate warriors or they are criminals; both have a set of basic minimum rights. [/quote]
You are wrong and I’ve already explained why. They were not POWs and they were not common criminals. They were unlawful enemy combatants. You seem to have very strange priorities. Do you realise that the medical treatment and doctor to patient ratio at Gitmo far exceeds that given to US veterans?
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Obviously none of us knows shit. There’s definitely a reason behind the trade and it sure as hell isn’t something we’ll figure out from random shit thrown about by emotional politicians, soldiers, press, etc.
Certainly on the surface this seems odd which should speak more to what we don’t know rather than what we do.[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants, and as these Taliban leaders were not US citizens, the sum total of their entitlements is jack shit.[/quote]
I know the Bush lawyers did a good job convincing people that placing a label on them means that they have no human rights whatsoever and that they exist in some netherworld of non-personhood. But if Geneva doesn’t apply, they are still in U.S. Custody, and have at least the same rights as any other criminal in U.S. Custody, whether its a military or civilian criminal in U.S. custody. Either they are legitimate warriors or they are criminals; both have a set of basic minimum rights. [/quote]
You are wrong and I’ve already explained why. They were not POWs and they were not common criminals. They were unlawful enemy combatants. You seem to have very strange priorities. Do you realise that the medical treatment and doctor to patient ratio at Gitmo far exceeds that given to US veterans?
[/quote]
If they are not POWs and are not criminals, what legal basis does the U.S. have to detain them?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants, and as these Taliban leaders were not US citizens, the sum total of their entitlements is jack shit.[/quote]
I know the Bush lawyers did a good job convincing people that placing a label on them means that they have no human rights whatsoever and that they exist in some netherworld of non-personhood. But if Geneva doesn’t apply, they are still in U.S. Custody, and have at least the same rights as any other criminal in U.S. Custody, whether its a military or civilian criminal in U.S. custody. Either they are legitimate warriors or they are criminals; both have a set of basic minimum rights. [/quote]
You are wrong and I’ve already explained why. They were not POWs and they were not common criminals. They were unlawful enemy combatants. You seem to have very strange priorities. Do you realise that the medical treatment and doctor to patient ratio at Gitmo far exceeds that given to US veterans?
[/quote]
If they are not POWs and are not criminals, what legal basis does the U.S. have to detain them?
[/quote]
They are legally detained as unlawful enemy combatants.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants, and as these Taliban leaders were not US citizens, the sum total of their entitlements is jack shit.[/quote]
I know the Bush lawyers did a good job convincing people that placing a label on them means that they have no human rights whatsoever and that they exist in some netherworld of non-personhood. But if Geneva doesn’t apply, they are still in U.S. Custody, and have at least the same rights as any other criminal in U.S. Custody, whether its a military or civilian criminal in U.S. custody. Either they are legitimate warriors or they are criminals; both have a set of basic minimum rights. [/quote]
You are wrong and I’ve already explained why. They were not POWs and they were not common criminals. They were unlawful enemy combatants. You seem to have very strange priorities. Do you realise that the medical treatment and doctor to patient ratio at Gitmo far exceeds that given to US veterans?
[/quote]
If they are not POWs and are not criminals, what legal basis does the U.S. have to detain them?
[/quote]
They are legally detained as unlawful enemy combatants.
Right. Your link says they were charged as criminals and given a trial in a military tribunal.
“On July 2, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Proclamation 2561 establishing a military tribunal[1] to prosecute the Germans.[2] Placed before a seven-member military commission, the Germans were charged with 1) violating the law of war; 2) violating Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of corresponding with or giving intelligence to the enemy; 3) violating Article 82 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of spying; and 4) conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in the first three charges.”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants, and as these Taliban leaders were not US citizens, the sum total of their entitlements is jack shit.[/quote]
I know the Bush lawyers did a good job convincing people that placing a label on them means that they have no human rights whatsoever and that they exist in some netherworld of non-personhood. But if Geneva doesn’t apply, they are still in U.S. Custody, and have at least the same rights as any other criminal in U.S. Custody, whether its a military or civilian criminal in U.S. custody. Either they are legitimate warriors or they are criminals; both have a set of basic minimum rights. [/quote]
You are wrong and I’ve already explained why. They were not POWs and they were not common criminals. They were unlawful enemy combatants. You seem to have very strange priorities. Do you realise that the medical treatment and doctor to patient ratio at Gitmo far exceeds that given to US veterans?
[/quote]
If they are not POWs and are not criminals, what legal basis does the U.S. have to detain them?
[/quote]
They are legally detained as unlawful enemy combatants.
Right. Your link says they were charged as criminals and given a trial in a military tribunal.
“On July 2, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Proclamation 2561 establishing a military tribunal[1] to prosecute the Germans.[2] Placed before a seven-member military commission, the Germans were charged with 1) violating the law of war; 2) violating Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of corresponding with or giving intelligence to the enemy; 3) violating Article 82 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of spying; and 4) conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in the first three charges.”
[/quote]
But there is no requirement that they be charged at all under US or international law. Why are you trying to attribute rights to Talibs that they don’t have under international or US law?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants, and as these Taliban leaders were not US citizens, the sum total of their entitlements is jack shit.[/quote]
I know the Bush lawyers did a good job convincing people that placing a label on them means that they have no human rights whatsoever and that they exist in some netherworld of non-personhood. But if Geneva doesn’t apply, they are still in U.S. Custody, and have at least the same rights as any other criminal in U.S. Custody, whether its a military or civilian criminal in U.S. custody. Either they are legitimate warriors or they are criminals; both have a set of basic minimum rights. [/quote]
You are wrong and I’ve already explained why. They were not POWs and they were not common criminals. They were unlawful enemy combatants. You seem to have very strange priorities. Do you realise that the medical treatment and doctor to patient ratio at Gitmo far exceeds that given to US veterans?
[/quote]
If they are not POWs and are not criminals, what legal basis does the U.S. have to detain them?
[/quote]
They are legally detained as unlawful enemy combatants.
Right. Your link says they were charged as criminals and given a trial in a military tribunal.
“On July 2, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Proclamation 2561 establishing a military tribunal[1] to prosecute the Germans.[2] Placed before a seven-member military commission, the Germans were charged with 1) violating the law of war; 2) violating Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of corresponding with or giving intelligence to the enemy; 3) violating Article 82 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of spying; and 4) conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in the first three charges.”
[/quote]
But there is no requirement that they be charged at all under US or international law. Why are you trying to attribute rights to Talibs that they don’t have under international or US law?
[/quote]
All persons in detention by the U.S. have some basic form of minimum rights, including con-law rights.
The question is, why don’t you want to charge and convict criminals and either send them to jail or execute them for their crimes?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants, and as these Taliban leaders were not US citizens, the sum total of their entitlements is jack shit.[/quote]
I know the Bush lawyers did a good job convincing people that placing a label on them means that they have no human rights whatsoever and that they exist in some netherworld of non-personhood. But if Geneva doesn’t apply, they are still in U.S. Custody, and have at least the same rights as any other criminal in U.S. Custody, whether its a military or civilian criminal in U.S. custody. Either they are legitimate warriors or they are criminals; both have a set of basic minimum rights. [/quote]
You are wrong and I’ve already explained why. They were not POWs and they were not common criminals. They were unlawful enemy combatants. You seem to have very strange priorities. Do you realise that the medical treatment and doctor to patient ratio at Gitmo far exceeds that given to US veterans?
[/quote]
If they are not POWs and are not criminals, what legal basis does the U.S. have to detain them?
[/quote]
They are legally detained as unlawful enemy combatants.
Right. Your link says they were charged as criminals and given a trial in a military tribunal.
“On July 2, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Proclamation 2561 establishing a military tribunal[1] to prosecute the Germans.[2] Placed before a seven-member military commission, the Germans were charged with 1) violating the law of war; 2) violating Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of corresponding with or giving intelligence to the enemy; 3) violating Article 82 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of spying; and 4) conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in the first three charges.”
[/quote]
But there is no requirement that they be charged at all under US or international law. Why are you trying to attribute rights to Talibs that they don’t have under international or US law?
[/quote]
All persons in detention by the U.S. have some basic form of minimum rights, including con-law rights.
The question is, why don’t you want to charge and convict criminals and either send them to jail or execute them for their crimes?
[/quote]
Who said I don’t? I just pointed out that there is no legal requirement that unlawful combatants be criminally charged. That doesn’t mean I think they should or shouldn’t be.
He has hit rock bottom. I think he is sick of being President, and really doesn’t give a fuck anymore. The best part of his signature healthcare law turned out to be the lies and rhetoric to pass it. But the truth of it turned out to be total shit.
He looks tired and worn into submission. He sees his party possibly losing the Senate, and should this happen, he won’t get shit done for his last 2 years.
He is acting like a kid taking his ball and going home because no one picked him to be on their team. His ego is done, thus he is done.
Is someone who deserts his post, removes his uniform (and mails it back to Idaho) and is captured by an enemy with no uniform and no nation state…is he a POW?
I don’t know; but he would be treated as such by a GC signatory.
I think the proper term would be " hostage" or worse, willing hostage.
[/quote]
So Gilad Shalit was a hostage, not a POW.
[/quote]
Is there a Palestinian state which is a GC signatory?
Is HAMAS or Hezbollah.
Are any of these organizations publicly pledged to follow the GC in any case?
Practically speaking, was Shalit treated as a PoW or as a hostage?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants, and as these Taliban leaders were not US citizens, the sum total of their entitlements is jack shit.[/quote]
I know the Bush lawyers did a good job convincing people that placing a label on them means that they have no human rights whatsoever and that they exist in some netherworld of non-personhood. But if Geneva doesn’t apply, they are still in U.S. Custody, and have at least the same rights as any other criminal in U.S. Custody, whether its a military or civilian criminal in U.S. custody. Either they are legitimate warriors or they are criminals; both have a set of basic minimum rights. [/quote]
You are wrong and I’ve already explained why. They were not POWs and they were not common criminals. They were unlawful enemy combatants. You seem to have very strange priorities. Do you realise that the medical treatment and doctor to patient ratio at Gitmo far exceeds that given to US veterans?
[/quote]
If they are not POWs and are not criminals, what legal basis does the U.S. have to detain them?
[/quote]
They are legally detained as unlawful enemy combatants.
Right. Your link says they were charged as criminals and given a trial in a military tribunal.
“On July 2, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Proclamation 2561 establishing a military tribunal[1] to prosecute the Germans.[2] Placed before a seven-member military commission, the Germans were charged with 1) violating the law of war; 2) violating Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of corresponding with or giving intelligence to the enemy; 3) violating Article 82 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of spying; and 4) conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in the first three charges.”
[/quote]
But there is no requirement that they be charged at all under US or international law. Why are you trying to attribute rights to Talibs that they don’t have under international or US law?
[/quote]
All persons in detention by the U.S. have some basic form of minimum rights, including con-law rights.
The question is, why don’t you want to charge and convict criminals and either send them to jail or execute them for their crimes?
[/quote]
You ask a rhetorical question. From the field of combat, the chain of custody of evidence cannot be vetted in civil court.
Why they are not tried before a military tribunal is a question for Mr Obama; am I the only one to suspect that there has been no indictment before a military tribunal , in part, because of this deal?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Someone at the White House apologized for not telling Congress, so it’s cool. Nothing more to talk about. [/quote]
If they were capable of actually making a decision, it might be worth telling them things. [/quote]
You mean a decision that was signed into law by Mr Obama?
What’s one more law that he has found inconvenient and conveniently broken?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Just curious, are the “high value targets” they traded for POWs or convicted criminals? [/quote]
Are combatants captured in a theater of war tried in civilian courts?
Nope. A question settled by the USSC 70 years ago
Arguable that they are POWs, but Bergdahl isn’t a POW either[/quote]
What makes you say Bergdahl wasn’t a POW?[/quote]
Well the fact that Bergdahl mailed all his personal belongings home, converted to Islam, and left a note in his bunk staying he was off to join the Taliban (found after he was discovered missing) is a pretty good clue he was a traitor, not a POW.
I know it is Army policy to leave no man behind, including people who desert like this, but to trade this useless piece of crap (who needs to go to prison, if not get the firing squad) for 5 dangerous terrorists, is absurd.
I really hope some old WWII vet dying of cancer pops his Bergdahl in the head with his old 1911.
Well the fact that Bergdahl mailed all his personal belongings home, converted to Islam, and left a note in his bunk staying he was off to join the Taliban (found after he was discovered missing) is a pretty good clue he was a traitor, not a POW.
[/quote]
I guess it depends on the definition used. My thinking was that he was still a member of the armed services of a nation state.
[quote]
I know it is Army policy to leave no man behind, including people who desert like this, but to trade this useless piece of crap (who needs to go to prison, if not get the firing squad) for 5 dangerous terrorists, is absurd.
I really hope some old WWII vet dying of cancer pops his Bergdahl in the head with his old 1911.[/quote]
Can’t say I disagree. I wouldn’t be surprised if this guy commits an act of terrorism once he gets home. The guy obviously has more than a few screws loose and it appears to run in the family.