Where did the "dirty bomb" go?

[okalb 104]

Quote

You made the claim that the term "enemy combatant" was specifically created to bypass the GC and the U.S. Constitution. I have asked for some evidence of this, you refuse to provide any.
How freakin' hypocritical is THAT???

Ok lets try this another way. I made no claims and have not posted in this thread until now. I am asking you a direct question. Are "Enemy Combatants" awarded the protections of the US Constitution or the Geneva conventions?

If POW and Enemy Combatant are one in the same, why the new term? Why not call them POWs which is what they have been called for years?

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Please please please show me where I said that and I WILL answer your question!! Just copy and paste, it's not hard!

FFS!

"I'll worry about that when I'm dealing with known terrorists and plotting to kill dozens or hundreds of people at once. "

A clear implication that only the guilty have anything to worry about.

If that wasn't what you meant and if you do, in fact, agree that innocent people can also be held with no constitutional rights under this "enemy combatant" status then can you please answer my original question!

It's only two pages back, its not hard to find!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Your case is closed? You make accusations and tell people they are wrong yet you fail to provide any facts to support your claims other than your opinion.

You said that enemy combatant is the same as POW. POWs have rights under the geneva convention, enemy combatants do not. Do you agree?

If you do, then you were wrong to say they are the same as POWs. QED.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Please please please show me where I said that and I WILL answer your question!! Just copy and paste, it's not hard!

FFS!

"I'll worry about that when I'm dealing with known terrorists and plotting to kill dozens or hundreds of people at once. "

A clear implication that only the guilty have anything to worry about.

If that wasn't what you meant and if you do, in fact, agree that innocent people can also be held with no constitutional rights under this "enemy combatant" status then can you please answer my original question!

It's only two pages back, its not hard to find!

Holy shit you need to learn how to read! That remark was in reference to Padilla being involved with known terrorists and plotting to kill people. Those are FACTS that you seem to want to just throw away. How in the name of John Wayne's ass can you get the idea I think innocent people cannot be arrested from that statement ????

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Holy shit you need to learn how to read! That remark was in reference to Padilla being involved with known terrorists and plotting to kill people. Those are FACTS that you seem to want to just throw away. How in the name of John Wayne's ass can you get the idea I think innocent people cannot be arrested from that statement ????

I read your comment exactly the same way jakee did.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Your case is closed? You make accusations and tell people they are wrong yet you fail to provide any facts to support your claims other than your opinion.

You said that enemy combatant is the same as POW. POWs have rights under the geneva convention, enemy combatants do not. Do you agree?

If you do, then you were wrong to say they are the same as POWs. QED.

JHC! I honestly don't know how to make it any clearer! I'll try bold type....

YOU CLAIMED THE TERM "ENEMY COMBATANT" WAS INVENTED TO AVOID GC AND U.S. CONSTITUTION. PROVE IT!

What part of that don't you understand? Would you like Mr. Rogers to come over and explain it?

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Holy shit you need to learn how to read! That remark was in reference to Padilla being involved with known terrorists and plotting to kill people. Those are FACTS that you seem to want to just throw away. How in the name of John Wayne's ass can you get the idea I think innocent people cannot be arrested from that statement ????

I read your comment exactly the same way jakee did.

I apologize if you were confused, but here in the SC what somebody thinks is implied doesn't mean squat. I learned that from a professor who frequents these pages.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Holy shit you need to learn how to read! That remark was in reference to Padilla being involved with known terrorists and plotting to kill people. Those are FACTS that you seem to want to just throw away. How in the name of John Wayne's ass can you get the idea I think innocent people cannot be arrested from that statement ????

Because it was the answer to a direct question about how YOU would feel if YOU were arrested and held without charge or access to an attorney for 5 years!

When you answer that question by saying you wouldn't need to worry about it unless you were actually a terrorist it absolutely implies that you think only guilty people would be held as enemy combatants. but hey - whatever, you have stated that this is not the case and that you accept that innocent people could get arrested and have their constitutional rights stripped from them.

Now can you answer the question?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Stop trying to apologize for the unethical use of this substance.

I make no apology.

Many materials and their byproducts are provably toxic, we still use them in munitions and a host of other applications.

We fire DU rounds at an enemy with the intent to kill and the lethality we very intentionally inflict is through the conversion of kinetic energy, not toxicity.

Stop fearmongering and abusing this metal's association with real WMDs.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Holy shit you need to learn how to read! That remark was in reference to Padilla being involved with known terrorists and plotting to kill people. Those are FACTS that you seem to want to just throw away. How in the name of John Wayne's ass can you get the idea I think innocent people cannot be arrested from that statement ????

Because it was the answer to a direct question about how YOU would feel if YOU were arrested and held without charge or access to an attorney for 5 years!

When you answer that question by saying you wouldn't need to worry about it unless you were actually a terrorist it absolutely implies that you think only guilty people would be held as enemy combatants. but hey - whatever, you have stated that this is not the case and that you accept that innocent people could get arrested and have their constitutional rights stripped from them.

Now can you answer the question?

If I were in a position of being suspected of aiding known terrorists then NO I would not be upset if the government felt it was in the best interest of public safety that I be held in custody without specific charges being brought against me. I am realistic enough to know that in order for there to be some kind of security that some sacrifices have to be made. (Go ahead...call bullshit. Try to prove that's not how I feel.)

HOWEVER, Padilla is not some over-aged college student like me who spends his days studying for midterms and trying to figure where the money for next quaters tuition is coming from. He is a guy who joined a known terrorist group, spent time with them training to kill people, and plotted with them to come here and do just that. He isn't some halo-adorned little child!

Now, I have answered your question. Time for you to show me the evidence that "enemy combatant" was coined for the specific purpose of circumventing the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution. You made a claim, said I was wrong when I disagreed with that claim, so PROVE IT!

[billvon 3,111]

>YOU CLAIMED THE TERM "ENEMY COMBATANT" WAS INVENTED TO
>AVOID GC AND U.S. CONSTITUTION. PROVE IT!

Because the administration has stated several times that "enemy combatants" (more specifically "unlawful enemy combatants") are not covered by the US constitution OR by the Geneva Convention. From the 2006 Military Commissions Act signed by Bush:

"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."

This explicitly denies constitutional rights to "enemy combatants."

Rumsfeld later explained how he believes how the US can avoid heeding the Geneva Convention with respect to these people - "as I understand it, technically unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention."

The Fourth Geneva Convention stated clearly that every person in enemy hands must either be a prisoner of war and covered by the Third Convention, or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. From the GC: "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law."

The US has created just that sort of intermediate status to avoid heeding the GC.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Go ahead...call bullshit. Try to prove that's not how I feel.)

I'm not going to try and call bullshit. I just wanted to know.

Quote

You made a claim, said I was wrong when I disagreed with that claim, so PROVE IT!

I said that this statement was wrong;

Quote

Enemy combatant is just another term for prisoner of war.

POWs are protected under the Geneva Convention, "enemy combatants" are not. Enemy combatant is not just another term for prisoner of war, it exists to distinguish between those covered by the GC and those who the gov't does not want the Geneva convention to apply to - namely the folks in gitmo.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

PROVE IT!

{long detailed proof omitted}

Now it's willard's turn. I'm taking bets on how he replies:

A) This isn't proof. It misses on a minor technicality of language.

B) This isn't proof. Your sources are tainted.

C) This isn't proof. You showed that ECs aren't covered by the Convention but you didn't PROVE that was the original intent of the government.

D) I wasn't asking you. I was asking Jakee.

E) ... silence...

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[willard 0]

Interesting, but it falls far short of proving people got together and decided to create that category for the express purpose of avoiding the responsibilities under the mentioned charters. You have not shown intent which is what Jakee claims.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Interesting, but it falls far short of proving people got together and decided to create that category for the express purpose of avoiding the responsibilities under the mentioned charters. You have not shown intent which is what Jakee claims.

What do you want, a secret video tape Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld discussing it in the war room?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

PROVE IT!

{long detailed proof omitted}

Now it's willard's turn. I'm taking bets on how he replies:

A) This isn't proof. It misses on a minor technicality of language.

-That seems to be the MO of everyone here, why fight the system?-

B) This isn't proof. Your sources are tainted.

-Possible, if the sources are indeed tainted-

C) This isn't proof. You showed that ECs aren't covered by the Convention but you didn't PROVE that was the original intent of the government.

-Actually, that is exactly what I am asking for..proof of intent. After all, that was the claim.-

D) I wasn't asking you. I was asking Jakee.

-Nah, I converse with anyone. Sometimes I even agree!-

E) ... silence...

-Nope. As I stated in an earlier post if he can prove his claim then I will admit I was wrong. Unlike some people here I will actually do that from time to time.-

How much did you win? Do I get a cut?

[billvon 3,111]

>You have not shown intent which is what Jakee claims.

The term "enemy combatant" (and more specifically "unlawful enemy combatant") was created to bypass both the Geneva convention and the US constitution, as I explained above.

I don't know what their intent was. Perhaps they hate swarthy looking people. Perhaps Rumsfeld had a bad experience in Geneva when he was a child. Perhaps they hoped to get 72 virgins or a harp when they die. But in the end it doesn't really matter. The term was created to bypass the GC and the US constitution.

(BTW Jakee did not claim to know their intent; he said almost exactly what I did.)

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Interesting, but it falls far short of proving people got together and decided to create that category for the express purpose of avoiding the responsibilities under the mentioned charters. You have not shown intent which is what Jakee claims.

What do you want, a secret video tape Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld discussing it in the war room?

That would be nice, but not needed. A nice tidy document saying, to the effect, "..in order to avoid the hasle of abiding by the GC and Constitution we will be calling all these people "enemy combatants"."

Now go fetch. If you're right it shouldn't be too hard and I will issue an apology right quick.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>YOU CLAIMED THE TERM "ENEMY COMBATANT" WAS INVENTED TO
>AVOID GC AND U.S. CONSTITUTION. PROVE IT!

Because the administration has stated several times that "enemy combatants" (more specifically "unlawful enemy combatants") are not covered by the US constitution OR by the Geneva Convention. From the 2006 Military Commissions Act signed by Bush:

"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."

This explicitly denies constitutional rights to "enemy combatants."

Rumsfeld later explained how he believes how the US can avoid heeding the Geneva Convention with respect to these people - "as I understand it, technically unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention."

The Fourth Geneva Convention stated clearly that every person in enemy hands must either be a prisoner of war and covered by the Third Convention, or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. From the GC: "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law."

The US has created just that sort of intermediate status to avoid heeding the GC.

You need to re-read the 3rd Convention and who is/is not considered a POW.

Also, found this bit from the 4th Convention:

"Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[narcimund 0]

Quote

If you're right it shouldn't be too hard

Nobody with enough brain power to spell as well as you actually could believe that the truth of his statement implies that it "shouldn't be too hard" to find original documents.

I also don't think you actually believe the position you're arguing. I don't think ANYONE believes the designation "enemy combatant" was invented for any reason than as a clumsy slight-of-hand to avoid the rule of law.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

If you're right it shouldn't be too hard

Nobody with enough brain power to spell as well as you actually could believe that the truth of his statement implies that it "shouldn't be too hard" to find original documents.

I also don't think you actually believe the position you're arguing. I don't think ANYONE believes the designation "enemy combatant" was invented for any reason than as a clumsy slight-of-hand to avoid the rule of law.

Whether I believe it or not is not the question. Jakee made a claim as to intent, I am asking for proof of that claim. If he feels there is not sufficient evidence to back his claim he can simply say so and we can end this debate in a draw. I have no problem with that. The only issue I have a problem with is someone saying I am wrong just because I don't agree with their interpretation of something that can be interpreted in more than one way.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Whether I believe it or not is not the question. Jakee made a claim as to intent, I am asking for proof of that claim. If he feels there is not sufficient evidence to back his claim he can simply say so and we can end this debate in a draw. I have no problem with that. The only issue I have a problem with is someone saying I am wrong just because I don't agree with their interpretation of something that can be interpreted in more than one way.

So you're saying that your persistant (or should I say obsessive?) badgering of jakee is solely for the purpose of dispassionately helping him improve his debating skills? That's very generous of you.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,111]

>You need to re-read the 3rd Convention and who is/is not considered a POW.

It's really quite simple. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

If you want to claim that they are POW's, fine. Obey the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. If you want to claim they are citizens, again, fine. Charge them, put them on trial, and if convicted, lock em up and throw away the key.

There is no third option.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

The only issue I have a problem with is someone saying I am wrong just because I don't agree with their interpretation of something that can be interpreted in more than one way.

You said that POWs were the same as enemy combatants. That is not true, as has been demonstrated. All this dancing around the intent of the term "Enemy combatant" has nothing whatsoever to do with you being wrong about this. It is a seperate matter.


On the subject of "intent" (which is completely seperate to you being wrong about POWs and Enemy combatants being the same) you might as well ask for "proof" that Clinton got a blowjob because he wanted to get his rocks off. Would you find me a signed document from Bill Clinton that says "I had sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky because I wanted to cum on her tits" or would you regard it as being perfectly self evident?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[willard 0]

Enemy combatant vs POW
From the postings of a couple people here I can see where I was wrong to say they are one in the same. I offer my apologies for any confusion that may have arisen.

So now the question is...will you admit you were wrong to say that the term was concocted for the sole purpose of getting around GC and Constitution?