[quote]Sloth wrote:
Orion, is a non-uniformed fighter a lawful combatant?[/quote]
No, he is a civilian criminal, that is to be treated humane and given a fair trial as soon as possible and can be detained until that happens.
Which in all likelyhood means he will get shot after a rather speedy trial.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Orion, is a non-uniformed fighter a lawful combatant?
No, he is a civilian criminal, that is to be treated humane and given a fair trial as soon as possible and can be detained until that happens.
Which in all likelyhood means he will get shot after a rather speedy trial.
[/quote]
So, bombing an Al Qaeda hide out is deliberate targeting civilians? Huh?
Orion, a civilian shooting at a soldier, because he’s angry at his wife, might be a civilian. But, those who act in a concerted effort, with military goals in mind, are enemy combatants, period.
And, Al Qaeda are enemy combatants operating outside of the legal conventions of war. It is mind boggling that you’re attempting to define them as civilians, instead of enemy combatants.
[quote]orion wrote:
If you blow up something or someone while not wearing a uniform you are a civilian committing a crime and laws during war time tend to be harsh.[/quote]
In the US, laws for civilians are the same regardless of foreign relations. The above would seem to indicate that US law extends to any soil on which US troops are fighting, how very imperialistic and very much against the purpose of the GC itself.
For many countries, there are portions of international war time law that don’t, and shouldn’t, trickle down to civilian courts and to act as though they should automatically shows ignorance of both international and domestic law.
Just because someone puts on a uniform and shoots someone doesn’t mean war were declared much the same way wearing no uniform and shooting at soldiers is not attempted murder.
Most people don’t realize how important guns, esp handguns, are for our freedom. Governments only began to share power with its citizenry when the citizens could fight back. Peasants with picks and hoes could not stand up to armed men.
It was only when firearms became available, and the governments didn’t have a monopoly on same that freedom began to spread.
It was for this reason that the first thing the Nazis did was confiscate all guns.
The handgun has done more to liberate the world than just about anything else.
Friends,
Please don’t get worked up over orion.
His opinions would be completely different if he were placed in the line of fire.
He adopts a holier than thou attitude safe in the knowledge that his country (besides arming the enemy) won’t be overrun anytime soon.
You throw orion or his family near any danger, you’d see a dramatic shift.
Granted, he may be so weak and cowardly that he retreats further into submission. However, I’d bet he’d be much more likely to show some spine.
Oh, the geneva convention doesn’t cover the slime using school children as human shields.
If it did, it would be swiftly changed or ignored.
Poor try.
JeffR
Why is everyone arguing over the Geneva Convention? The US isn’t even a signatory to Protocol I so it’s irrelevant.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Orion, is a non-uniformed fighter a lawful combatant?
No, he is a civilian criminal, that is to be treated humane and given a fair trial as soon as possible and can be detained until that happens.
Which in all likelyhood means he will get shot after a rather speedy trial.
So, bombing an Al Qaeda hide out is deliberate targeting civilians? Huh?
Orion, a civilian shooting at a soldier, because he’s angry at his wife, might be a civilian. But, those who act in a concerted effort, with military goals in mind, are enemy combatants, period.
And, Al Qaeda are enemy combatants operating outside of the legal conventions of war. It is mind boggling that you’re attempting to define them as civilians, instead of enemy combatants.
[/quote]
I kid you not under the Geneva convention you are either a soldier or a civilian.
More or less.
A civilian can be an unlawful combatant if you want to call it that, that does not mean however that his case is not covered by the Geneva Convention.
That is a bit exhaustive, it has a nice summary though.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
orion wrote:
If you blow up something or someone while not wearing a uniform you are a civilian committing a crime and laws during war time tend to be harsh.
In the US, laws for civilians are the same regardless of foreign relations. The above would seem to indicate that US law extends to any soil on which US troops are fighting, how very imperialistic and very much against the purpose of the GC itself.
For many countries, there are portions of international war time law that don’t, and shouldn’t, trickle down to civilian courts and to act as though they should automatically shows ignorance of both international and domestic law.
Just because someone puts on a uniform and shoots someone doesn’t mean war were declared much the same way wearing no uniform and shooting at soldiers is not attempted murder.[/quote]
see above
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Friends,
Please don’t get worked up over orion.
His opinions would be completely different if he were placed in the line of fire.
He adopts a holier than thou attitude safe in the knowledge that his country (besides arming the enemy) won’t be overrun anytime soon.
You throw orion or his family near any danger, you’d see a dramatic shift.
Granted, he may be so weak and cowardly that he retreats further into submission. However, I’d bet he’d be much more likely to show some spine.
Oh, the geneva convention doesn’t cover the slime using school children as human shields.
If it did, it would be swiftly changed or ignored.
Poor try.
JeffR[/quote]
I was making the argument that there are people undermining important documents and pillars of our culture by playing stupid word games.
How that leads to your response will fortunately forever remain a mistery to me, I`d fear for my mental health.
[quote]Jamougha wrote:
Why is everyone arguing over the Geneva Convention? The US isn’t even a signatory to Protocol I so it’s irrelevant.[/quote]
The question is if PI Art. 75 created new law or just confirmed and clarified what was allready part of the convention.
So, when we bomb Al Qaeda, we’re bombing civilian targets and not enemy combatants? Are you serious? How can one possibly argue that AL Qaeda does not fit the description of combatant?
Btw, I see nothing stating the US must provide trial through civilian courts. I’m not seeing anything that contradicts our use of military tribunal.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, when we bomb Al Qaeda, we’re bombing civilian targets and not enemy combatants? Are you serious? How can one possibly argue that AL Qaeda does not fit the description of combatant? [/quote]
You are obsessed with the term civilian. I am only using the term civilian in the context of the Convention.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Btw, I see nothing stating the US must provide trial through civilian courts. I’m not seeing anything that contradicts our use of military tribunal.[/quote]
True but your tribunals have to follow certain rules, even for non-POW?s and they arguably do not do that.
My point was however, that there are no mystical creatures called unlawful combatants, goblins or unicorns that were somehow not mentioned in the Convention the Bush administration can do all kinds of shit with.
I do not like the Straussian re-inventing of words until laws mean the opposite of what they were intended to mean.
It seems my basic point is that the rule of law requires that you do not bend a law like a bretzel just because it seems to be convenient at the moment.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, when we bomb Al Qaeda, we’re bombing civilian targets and not enemy combatants? Are you serious? How can one possibly argue that AL Qaeda does not fit the description of combatant?
You are obsessed with the term civilian. I am only using the term civilian in the context of the Convention.
[/quote]
Obsessed? Isn’t it the point we’re debating? If we bomb an Al Qaeda position are we deliberately bombing civilians, or in fact bombing combatants?
[quote]orion wrote:
My point was however, that there are no mystical creatures called unlawful combatants, goblins or unicorns that were somehow not mentioned in the Convention the Bush administration can do all kinds of shit with.
[/quote]
Oh? What would you call a combatant that breaks commits war crimes?
[quote]orion wrote:
You are obsessed with the term civilian. I am only using the term civilian in the context of the Convention.[/quote]
How can you write this and then act like there is no ambiguity?
Seriously, you make quasi-legitimate arguments and then punch yourself in the face with the simplest comments. I can see some of what you’re asserting, and I don’t know how much I like it.
Your assertions either destroy the idea of national sovereignty (domestic US law following soldiers around wherever they go), are tautological (“civilian criminals” redefining the battlefield wherever they go), or both.
Makes me nostalgic for the Cold War when intelligence agencies would just make people disappear without declaring war at all and we both know what a human rights nightmare that is.
Unlawful combatants have been recognized the world over for decades, they weren’t expressly called that, but they are held for the duration of the war (like POWs), denied repatriation (unlike POWs), convicted in domestic court (unlike POWs), and (often) executed (legally, unlike POWs). Even American combatants are/were subject to this.
Also, the idea of the ICRC dictating any international law that in any way overrides even the most trivial of federal legislation is funny.
[quote]orion wrote:
I do not like the Straussian re-inventing of words until laws mean the opposite of what they were intended to mean.
[/quote]
That has nothing to do with Strauss. Please leave Strauss and “Straussianism” out of it.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
orion wrote:
I do not like the Straussian re-inventing of words until laws mean the opposite of what they were intended to mean.
That has nothing to do with Strauss. Please leave Strauss and “Straussianism” out of it.[/quote]
Pseudo Straussian? Poorly received Straussian?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, when we bomb Al Qaeda, we’re bombing civilian targets and not enemy combatants? Are you serious? How can one possibly argue that AL Qaeda does not fit the description of combatant?
You are obsessed with the term civilian. I am only using the term civilian in the context of the Convention.
Obsessed? Isn’t it the point we’re debating? If we bomb an Al Qaeda position are we deliberately bombing civilians, or in fact bombing combatants?
[/quote]
Combatants but not soldiers, yes. If you catch them they are not POWs.
The geneva Convention mentions saboteurs or spys as example.
Whatever you call those, this is what they are.