Where did the "dirty bomb" go?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>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.

Better talk to Geneva about that...because under the definitions of the 3rd Convention, they are *not* POWs but illegal combatants and as such have no standing under Geneva.

I have no argument against your second point.

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

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

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?

No, because I still think it was. I may not be able to find a document detailing Bush's innermost reasons for first using it but I believe it is self evident.

The term enemy combatant appeared when large numbers of captives were being taken in Afghanistan. The US then has a dilemma. They want to hold them prisoner but don't want to comply with the Geneva convention which demands such pesky things as no torturing of prisoners (remember, the US does not torture prisoners..... but reserves the right to torture prisoners if it wants to) and having to actually release them at some point once the war is over.

The US does not want to do this - the US wants to be able to hold them indefinitely in a legal black hole - hence Guantanamo Bay where (conveniently) the US constitution does not apply either.

The USA's stance on this "enemy combatant" status has been under near continuous legal challenge, both domestically and internationally. If it wasn't important to them, why would they have endureed so much pressure over it?

Look, the US Gov't does not want these people to have the protection of the Geneva convention, true or false?

The US Gov't does not want these people to have the protection of the US constitution, true or false?

The US Gov't asserts that the new term "Enemy combatant" deprives these people of the protection of the GC and Constitution, true or false?

Do you really think I'm clutching at straws here?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

Actually, I'll tell you what - I'll give you "Specifically created" if I can have "Specifically utilised".

What d'ya say?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,111]

>because under the definitions of the 3rd Convention, they are *not*
>POWs but illegal combatants and as such have no standing under Geneva.

Right. The fourth convention supersedes that one, and says specifically that there is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

Provisions of an agreement are often superseded, as slavery was in the US. The original constitution said you had to give back escaped slaves - but a later amendment superseded that.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>because under the definitions of the 3rd Convention, they are *not*
>POWs but illegal combatants and as such have no standing under Geneva.

Right. The fourth convention supersedes that one, and says specifically that there is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

Provisions of an agreement are often superseded, as slavery was in the US. The original constitution said you had to give back escaped slaves - but a later amendment superseded that.

I did a search for your quote in the 4th and couldn't find it...could you clue me in?

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

[Amazon 7]

We have Enemy Combatants.. they have infidels...

Under the Infidel capture act..... you have the right to lose your head in a horrible and as gruesome manner as possible.. You have that right while being videoed so it can be shared with the rest of the believers in the world.
Infidels have no standing under Sharia Law.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

We have Enemy Combatants.. they have infidels...

Under the Infidel capture act..... you have the right to lose your head in a horrible and as gruesome manner as possible.. You have that right while being videoed so it can be shared with the rest of the believers in the world.
Infidels have no standing under Sharia Law.

And that is why we are better than them.

But y'see, the closer we come to fighting on their level, the less the fight is one worth winning.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Wow. Two of a kind. First Kallend says I accused him of being against the second ammendment (which i did not) and now you are trying to claim I said innocent people will nevr get arrested. At least Kallend shut up when he couldn't find where I made the statement he claimed.

.

I suppose someone posing as you wrote about me (in this very thread):

"It's ironic that you complain about this and yet feel a person does not have the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. Who is it that wants to rape the Bill of Rights?"

I wonder who has discovered your password

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

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.

You sure have a hard time with definitions. Reminds me of another thread about units of weight and mass.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Wow. Two of a kind. First Kallend says I accused him of being against the second ammendment (which i did not) and now you are trying to claim I said innocent people will nevr get arrested. At least Kallend shut up when he couldn't find where I made the statement he claimed.

.

I suppose someone posing as you wrote about me (in this very thread):

"It's ironic that you complain about this and yet feel a person does not have the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. Who is it that wants to rape the Bill of Rights?"

I wonder who has discovered your password

As I said, you have an issue with people who want to carry firearms for their protection, concealed in particular. All one has to do is look at any thread about gun control and there is a very good chance you have chimed in decrying anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun. Deny that.
Did I mention the right to keep and bear arms? No. Did I mention the 2nd ammendment? No.
Please refrain from suggesting I did.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

You sure have a hard time with definitions. Reminds me of another thread about units of weight and mass.

I may get confused about things from time to time, but then I'm not perfect. I've made mistakes before and I'm sure I'll make mistakes again. But I learn from those mistakes and move on. And if I can help someone else avoid those same mistakes I try to help them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I may get confused about things from time to time, but then I'm not perfect. I've made mistakes before and I'm sure I'll make mistakes again. But I learn from those mistakes and move on. And if I can help someone else avoid those same mistakes I try to help them.

The HUGE mistake you're making today is believing that it's okay to toss away civil liberties in the pursuit of perceived safety. It's not.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

I may get confused about things from time to time, but then I'm not perfect. I've made mistakes before and I'm sure I'll make mistakes again. But I learn from those mistakes and move on. And if I can help someone else avoid those same mistakes I try to help them.

The HUGE mistake you're making today is believing that it's okay to toss away civil liberties in the pursuit of perceived safety. It's not.

That is your opinion. It is my opinion that the good of the whole demands individuals make sacrifices.
Many freedoms and liberties are compromised for the common good, i.e. you are free to own a rifle and you are free to target practice with it, but you are not free to target practice with that rifle in the median of an interstate highway.

[willard 0]

Quote

Actually, I'll tell you what - I'll give you "Specifically created" if I can have "Specifically utilised".

What d'ya say?

I'd say that is acceptable.

BTW, I agree 100% that the Bush-heads "Specifically utilised" the term for the purposes you stated.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

It is my opinion that the good of the whole demands individuals make sacrifices.

Looks like you and Kim Jong Il agree on this point!

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

It is my opinion that the good of the whole demands individuals make sacrifices.

Looks like you and Kim Jong Il agree on this point!

That may be. Does that make me a tyrant? If it does than I must be a Saint also because I agree with the Pope on a lot of issues as well.

Anyone who truly believes that a society of any kind can exist without it's citizens giving up even a small bit of their personal liberty is, sadly, very mistaken.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

>And if you don't have solid evidence of a crime?

Then you go to court and try to prove your case. A jury will decide if it's in our best interests to let him go or keep him in jail.

If you have NO significant evidence of a crime? Then you let him go.

We did that type of thing prior to 9/11. Hell, we didn't even have the intelligence ops in place to let us know guys like Padilla were here or coming here. I for one am not ready to just let him wander around free to do his deeds. I still say you have to grab guys like that and detain them for however long it takes.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[NCclimber 0]

At my age, farting has a degree of uncertainty.

Dirty bombs, indeed.

[billvon 3,111]

>I for one am not ready to just let him wander around free to do his deeds.

He who would sacrifice essential liberties for temporary safety deserves neither.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That is your opinion. It is my opinion that the good of the whole demands individuals make sacrifices.
Many freedoms and liberties are compromised for the common good, i.e. you are free to own a rifle and you are free to target practice with it, but you are not free to target practice with that rifle in the median of an interstate highway.

So...US citizens get due process at home, but not when driving on freeways?

In the list of really crappy analogies, the right to shoot into active traffic is pretty high up on the list. Somehow I don't see it as equilivent to being jailed for years without being charged.

The right to a speedy and public trial was one of the more important rights guaranteed by the Founding Fathers.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

That is your opinion. It is my opinion that the good of the whole demands individuals make sacrifices.
Many freedoms and liberties are compromised for the common good, i.e. you are free to own a rifle and you are free to target practice with it, but you are not free to target practice with that rifle in the median of an interstate highway.

So...US citizens get due process at home, but not when driving on freeways?

In the list of really crappy analogies, the right to shoot into active traffic is pretty high up on the list. Somehow I don't see it as equilivent to being jailed for years without being charged.

The right to a speedy and public trial was one of the more important rights guaranteed by the Founding Fathers.

So I oversimplified it for you. My point is, no matter what you want to do there is almost certainly sure to be restrictions of some kind imposed by society. The difference between your opinion and mine is just how far we are willing to let those restrictions go for the common good. Padilla's actions, when combined with his past, are, to me (and obviously others) a valid reason for holding him in a Navy brig until prosecutors could prepare a case against him.
You and others don't agree with that and that is your right.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So I oversimplified it for you. My point is, no matter what you want to do there is almost certainly sure to be restrictions of some kind imposed by society. The difference between your opinion and mine is just how far we are willing to let those restrictions go for the common good. Padilla's actions, when combined with his past, are, to me (and obviously others) a valid reason for holding him in a Navy brig until prosecutors could prepare a case against him.
You and others don't agree with that and that is your right.

Why do I get that right, but not the right to a speedy public trial if I'm a suspect like he was?

Not very comforting. I'm sure you've heard of the slippery slope. This one is more like the side of a building.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

So I oversimplified it for you. My point is, no matter what you want to do there is almost certainly sure to be restrictions of some kind imposed by society. The difference between your opinion and mine is just how far we are willing to let those restrictions go for the common good. Padilla's actions, when combined with his past, are, to me (and obviously others) a valid reason for holding him in a Navy brig until prosecutors could prepare a case against him.
You and others don't agree with that and that is your right.

Why do I get that right, but not the right to a speedy public trial if I'm a suspect like he was?

Not very comforting. I'm sure you've heard of the slippery slope. This one is more like the side of a building.

Lets see....
have a person running around free as a bird who had spent years training to kill people using terrorist methods and was known to be plotting such an act or...
take him into custody and make sure he can't follow through.
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Of course, maybe you are willing to live with a serious threat like that, but I'm not. There is another way to look at it. If he had not been arrested and had managed to follow through with his plans, then people found out the the government knew about it and did nothing, where would that put us? Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it? (Think 9/11. Some feel the gov. should have/could have done more to prevent it)

But, once again, it's all just speculation and opinion, nothing more.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Lets see....
have a person running around free as a bird who had spent years training to kill people using terrorist methods and was known to be plotting such an act or...
take him into custody and make sure he can't follow through.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.

You're exactly right. Take him into custody, CHARGE HIM WITH THE CRIMES, and then convict him.

Totally clear cut.

By your standards, it was and would be perfectly appropriate to jail indefinitely any members of the communist party.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Lets see....
have a person running around free as a bird who had spent years training to kill people using terrorist methods and was known to be plotting such an act or...
take him into custody and make sure he can't follow through.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.

You're exactly right. Take him into custody, CHARGE HIM WITH THE CRIMES, and then convict him.

Totally clear cut.

By your standards, it was and would be perfectly appropriate to jail indefinitely any members of the communist party.

Nah - we need at least a *few* Dems for balance...

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