T Nation

More Misuse of Gov't Power

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070502b.html

I think it might be time to go buy another thousand rounds before I’m on some damned list for quoting Jefferson some day.

mike

Good find. The gun grabbers are relentless.

Silly us, thinking all men were created equal, and that they were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Apparently we keep forgetting that “Rights” are in reality a function of a benevolent Government, rather than a byproduct of Humanity. Gee, we’re dumb.

On the plus side, this should earn Gonzalez some brownie points with the dems. And Authoritarians. And criminals of every stripe.

This is just a logical extension of our current anti-terror laws, increasing government powers without judicial review or oversight. I hope the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretap supporters are happy.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070502b.html

I think it might be time to go buy another thousand rounds before I’m on some damned list for quoting Jefferson some day.

mike[/quote]

I long for true conservative leadership in Washington.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Good find. The gun grabbers are relentless.[/quote]

So I’m guessing you hate the whole Patriot act too? Something about being imprisoned tells me your not going to be able to get your firearms.

[quote]etaco wrote:
This is just a logical extension of our current anti-terror laws, increasing government powers without judicial review or oversight. I hope the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretap supporters are happy.[/quote]

What? Did you sleep through the last five years?

The USSC issued a ruling on both Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush. No judicial oversight my ass, they’re grabbing oversight that’s not theirs to grab.

And which amendment guarantees me the right to use a phone in complete secrecy?

There is judicial review and this is not a logical extension.

Edit: I even forgot the big one; Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
etaco wrote:
This is just a logical extension of our current anti-terror laws, increasing government powers without judicial review or oversight. I hope the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretap supporters are happy.

What? Did you sleep through the last five years?

The USSC issued a ruling on both Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush. No judicial oversight my ass, they’re grabbing oversight that’s not theirs to grab.

And which amendment guarantees me the right to use a phone in complete secrecy?

There is judicial review and this is not a logical extension.

Edit: I even forgot the big one; Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.[/quote]

How about the presidents ability to imprison anyone who is a possible terrorist (read: anyone) without bail or trial?

Has there been a court case on this? If there has been, how the hell don’t I know about it?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
lucasa wrote:
etaco wrote:
This is just a logical extension of our current anti-terror laws, increasing government powers without judicial review or oversight. I hope the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretap supporters are happy.

What? Did you sleep through the last five years?

The USSC issued a ruling on both Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush. No judicial oversight my ass, they’re grabbing oversight that’s not theirs to grab.

And which amendment guarantees me the right to use a phone in complete secrecy?

There is judicial review and this is not a logical extension.

Edit: I even forgot the big one; Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

How about the presidents ability to imprison anyone who is a possible terrorist (read: anyone) without bail or trial?

Has there been a court case on this? If there has been, how the hell don’t I know about it?[/quote]

Did you mean anyone? Or, alien unlawful combatants?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Did you mean anyone? Or, alien unlawful combatants?

[/quote]

This whole “let`s re-write Webster” has to stop.

Oh no, he is not a x,y or z this document meant or mentioned and has specific instructions for, instead he is a brand new extra-legal allmost-but-not-quite weapon carrying something.

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Did you mean anyone? Or, alien unlawful combatants?

This whole “let`s re-write Webster” has to stop.

Oh no, he is not a x,y or z this document meant or mentioned and has specific instructions for, instead he is a brand new extra-legal allmost-but-not-quite weapon carrying something. [/quote]

What? I have no idea what the point of your response was supposed to be. He said the president was capable of having ANYONE arrested as a terrorist without the possibility of trial. I’m asking if he misspoke.

If you’ll look at the military commissions act of 2006 it defines, in very specific terms, who is subject to detainment and military tribunal. Unlawful alien combatants.

As far as alien enemy combatants are concerned, when have they ever been put on trial? They’re not being detained because of a crime per say, but to keep them off the battlefield. Did they convict every German and Japanese prisoner during WW2 just to detain them as the war went on?

Now, if we’re speaking of unlawful enemy combatants, they have been and are, subject to military courts. Roosevelt, for example, had non uniformed German saboteurs tried in a military court, and some were executed. Frankly, these non-uniformed terrorists should be thanking Allah for Bush’s mercy. Roosevelt probably would have had them shot for being out of uniform without even a military insignia.

Basically, I’m giving Beawolf the opportunity to clarify if truly meant ‘anyone’. If he did, I’d like to know what legislation, or whatever else, he bases this on. It would be new to me.

And again, as for your response. I have n’t a clue what you were getting at.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Did you mean anyone? Or, alien unlawful combatants?

This whole “let`s re-write Webster” has to stop.

Oh no, he is not a x,y or z this document meant or mentioned and has specific instructions for, instead he is a brand new extra-legal allmost-but-not-quite weapon carrying something.

What? I have no idea what the point of your response was supposed to be. He said the president was capable of having ANYONE arrested as a terrorist without the possibility of trial. I’m asking if he misspoke.

If you’ll look at the military commissions act of 2006 it defines, in very specific terms, who is subject to detainment and military tribunal. Unlawful alien combatants.

As far as alien enemy combatants are concerned, when have they ever been put on trial? They’re not being detained because of a crime per say, but to keep them off the battlefield. Did they convict every German and Japanese prisoner during WW2 just to detain them as the war went on?

Now, if we’re speaking of unlawful enemy combatants, they have been and are, subject to military courts. Roosevelt, for example, had non uniformed German saboteurs tried in a military court, and some were executed. Frankly, these non-uniformed terrorists should be thanking Allah for Bush’s mercy. Roosevelt probably would have had them shot for being out of uniform without even a military insignia.

Basically, I’m giving Beawolf the opportunity to clarify if truly meant ‘anyone’. If he did, I’d like to know what legislation, or whatever else, he bases this on. It would be new to me.

And again, as for your response. I have n’t a clue what you were getting at.

[/quote]

It is the fact that the term “unlawful” enemy combatants did not exist or, if it did, was never taken seriously before this administration.

The Geneva Convention, flawed as it may be and signed by the US as it surely is, pretty much describes and takes care of all cases.

To invent a whole new category of people for who no legal exception exists is up to par with Thunderbolts reasoning that Habeas Corpus could be suspended because a few dozen terrorists that may or may not be infiltrating the US equal an “invasion”.

Now I do know that lawyers love to play with words, but once we do this to rob the basic funding documents of our civilization of their meaning we might as well burn them, because at least the ashes would warn people instead of the empty husks that give them the false security of still living in free society ruled by law.

Legal experts dispute the accuracy of the position taken by the US administration regarding the definition of unlawful combatant, and that such prisoners could be held incommunicado and without legal representative.

Also, it has been pointed out that, until now, the term “[illegal] enemy combatant” as used by the US administration, "appeared nowhere in U.S. criminal law, international law, or the law of war.

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Did you mean anyone? Or, alien unlawful combatants?

This whole “let`s re-write Webster” has to stop.

Oh no, he is not a x,y or z this document meant or mentioned and has specific instructions for, instead he is a brand new extra-legal allmost-but-not-quite weapon carrying something.

What? I have no idea what the point of your response was supposed to be. He said the president was capable of having ANYONE arrested as a terrorist without the possibility of trial. I’m asking if he misspoke.

If you’ll look at the military commissions act of 2006 it defines, in very specific terms, who is subject to detainment and military tribunal. Unlawful alien combatants.

As far as alien enemy combatants are concerned, when have they ever been put on trial? They’re not being detained because of a crime per say, but to keep them off the battlefield. Did they convict every German and Japanese prisoner during WW2 just to detain them as the war went on?

Now, if we’re speaking of unlawful enemy combatants, they have been and are, subject to military courts. Roosevelt, for example, had non uniformed German saboteurs tried in a military court, and some were executed. Frankly, these non-uniformed terrorists should be thanking Allah for Bush’s mercy. Roosevelt probably would have had them shot for being out of uniform without even a military insignia.

Basically, I’m giving Beawolf the opportunity to clarify if truly meant ‘anyone’. If he did, I’d like to know what legislation, or whatever else, he bases this on. It would be new to me.

And again, as for your response. I have n’t a clue what you were getting at.

It is the fact that the term “unlawful” enemy combatants did not exist or, if it did, was never taken seriously before this administration.

The Geneva Convention, flawed as it may be and signed by the US as it surely is, pretty much describes and takes care of all cases.

To invent a whole new category of people for who no legal exception exists is up to par with Thunderbolts reasoning that Habeas Corpus could be suspended because a few dozen terrorists that may or may not be infiltrating the US equal an “invasion”.

Now I do know that lawyers love to play with words, but once we do this to rob the basic funding documents of our civilization of their meaning we might as well burn them, because at least the ashes would warn people instead of the empty husks that give them the false security of still living in free society ruled by law.

Legal experts dispute the accuracy of the position taken by the US administration regarding the definition of unlawful combatant, and that such prisoners could be held incommunicado and without legal representative.

Also, it has been pointed out that, until now, the term “[illegal] enemy combatant” as used by the US administration, "appeared nowhere in U.S. criminal law, international law, or the law of war.
[/quote]

Actually, the Geneva Conventions did 'categorize people." It too describes what a lawful enemy combatant is. Refer to the passages requiring uniform or at the least clearly displayed military insignias. You’re wrong here man.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Actually, the Geneva Conventions did 'categorize people." It too describes what a lawful enemy combatant is. Refer to the passages requiring uniform or at the least clearly displayed military insignias. You’re wrong here man. [/quote]

Did you read the Wikipedia bit?

There are privileged people, call them lawful combatants if you will, that have special rights under the convetion.

That does not mean that other people have no rights under it or are in some sort of legal limbo.

You are a soldier or a civilian. Period.

Now this is, more or less, the stance of the UN, the ICRC commentary on the COnventions and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Until the Bush administration brought it up ,nobody seriously believed that there was a gap between Convention III and IV, and if there is, why are they in Guantanamo and not on US soil?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Actually, the Geneva Conventions did 'categorize people." It too describes what a lawful enemy combatant is. Refer to the passages requiring uniform or at the least clearly displayed military insignias. You’re wrong here man. [/quote]

Exactly. The Geneva Convention creates a simple quid pro quo - you get POW status if you fulfill the requirements. If the requirements were meaningless, the language would not have been inserted - the conditional phrasing must mean something.

That said, an obvious “loophole” emerges - what about people who don’t fulfill the conditions (insignia, etc.) but who are still shooting at you or trying to blow you up?

If we pretend the loophole doesn’t exist, here is the basic question: what incentive do soldiers have to abide by the human rules of war if they get POW privileges no matter how they act?

We want soliders to distinguish themselves from civilians - that is why the Geneva Convention POW privilege reads like a quid pro quo: if you want POW status, you must fulfill your conditions. Otherwise, you play nasty, and you don’t get the protections.

Otherwise, there is the “race to the bottom” - there would be no incentive for soldiers to observe the rules of war.

“Unlawful combatants” arose because someone was bright enough to exploit the loophole for gain. The category wasn’t created as a hypothetical exercise just for kicks - the situation played out exactly as expected with the rise of asymmetric warfare.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

How about the presidents ability to imprison anyone who is a possible terrorist (read: anyone) without bail or trial?[/quote]

Depending on what you’re talking about, no one has that right. The police or a black ops “extraction team” can show up at any minute now and detain you or I. In this country conditionally for 24 hrs., in others longer.

Bail is a retarded idea in cases involving enemy combatants of any sort for all sorts of reasons.

Now, if you’re talking about protracted detention without any trial I refer you to the cases presented. I assume by the “(read: anyone)” comment you mean even US citizens. Hamdi was a US citizen and the courts ruling says that he gets to contest his detention before an impartial judge.

I can’t be culpable for your lack of knowledge, especially at this point.

[quote]orion wrote:
Did you read the Wikipedia bit?

There are privileged people, call them lawful combatants if you will, that have special rights under the convetion.

That does not mean that other people have no rights under it or are in some sort of legal limbo.

You are a soldier or a civilian. Period.

Now this is, more or less, the stance of the UN, the ICRC commentary on the COnventions and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Until the Bush administration brought it up ,nobody seriously believed that there was a gap between Convention III and IV, and if there is, why are they in Guantanamo and not on US soil?

[/quote]

Bullshit. The Geneva conventions state very specifically what someone has to do to be covered by the articles contained in the conventions.

People who break these rules are not subject to the convention, at all. The argument that they are is specious.

This was the whole point of writing and signing the Geneva Conventions, for anyone that can read or has a brain. It set down rules for what was acceptable conduct in war and what was not. If people obeyed the rules, they were required by treaty to get treated a certain way.

If they broke the rules, the were “beyond the pale”, enemies of humanity, barbarians, Austrian Nazis, war criminals, unlawful enemy combatants, what have you.

This is all written out in plain language. Even orion could understand it if he bothered to read the conventions instead of reading something some dimwit wrote on wikipedia.

Now, seeing as most Europeans with balls killed each other off, this is seen in places like orion’s Austria as: "Well, if you behead civilians on TV, attack troops from behind civilian shields, blow up people going to worship, etc. the mean and nasty USA should read them their rights (just give them the same rights as US citizens).

Of course, you can count on Austria’s help in rounding up these criminals, just as soon as the trial is over, they’re disarmed, and you make them stop giving mean looks to us."

As usual Eurocowards like Orion save their moral outrage for the USA, not the people targeting girls’ schools and blowing up shopping markets and mosques. Your moral compass is as faulty now as it was when you welcomed the Nazis. You suck.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Actually, the Geneva Conventions did 'categorize people." It too describes what a lawful enemy combatant is. Refer to the passages requiring uniform or at the least clearly displayed military insignias. You’re wrong here man.

Exactly. The Geneva Convention creates a simple quid pro quo - you get POW status if you fulfill the requirements. If the requirements were meaningless, the language would not have been inserted - the conditional phrasing must mean something.

That said, an obvious “loophole” emerges - what about people who don’t fulfill the conditions (insignia, etc.) but who are still shooting at you or trying to blow you up?

If we pretend the loophole doesn’t exist, here is the basic question: what incentive do soldiers have to abide by the human rules of war if they get POW privileges no matter how they act?

We want soliders to distinguish themselves from civilians - that is why the Geneva Convention POW privilege reads like a quid pro quo: if you want POW status, you must fulfill your conditions. Otherwise, you play nasty, and you don’t get the protections.

Otherwise, there is the “race to the bottom” - there would be no incentive for soldiers to observe the rules of war.

“Unlawful combatants” arose because someone was bright enough to exploit the loophole for gain. The category wasn’t created as a hypothetical exercise just for kicks - the situation played out exactly as expected with the rise of asymmetric warfare.

[/quote]

If a civilian is shooting at you he is trying to kill you without being a soldier.

That is simply a crime to deal with later.

It does not really change anything, kill him or detain him and if a military tribunal does not give him POW status convict him of attempted murder.

There is no legal problem here.

The privilege of a POW is that he cannot be tried for things that are normal in wartime, i.e shooting at other soldiers.

Have no insignia and you lose that right .

The other people that were kidnapped somewhere, for whatever reasons are yet another problem because their probably are no laws how people are to be treated that were just plain kidnapped.

For kidnappers however, there are plenty.

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:

Bullshit. The Geneva conventions state very specifically what someone has to do to be covered by the articles contained in the conventions.

People who break these rules are not subject to the convention, at all. The argument that they are is specious.

This was the whole point of writing and signing the Geneva Conventions, for anyone that can read or has a brain. It set down rules for what was acceptable conduct in war and what was not. If people obeyed the rules, they were required by treaty to get treated a certain way.

If they broke the rules, the were “beyond the pale”, enemies of humanity, barbarians, Austrian Nazis, war criminals, unlawful enemy combatants, what have you.

This is all written out in plain language. Even orion could understand it if he bothered to read the conventions instead of reading something some dimwit wrote on wikipedia.

Now, seeing as most Europeans with balls killed each other off, this is seen in places like orion’s Austria as: "Well, if you behead civilians on TV, attack troops from behind civilian shields, blow up people going to worship, etc. the mean and nasty USA should read them their rights (just give them the same rights as US citizens).

Of course, you can count on Austria’s help in rounding up these criminals, just as soon as the trial is over, they’re disarmed, and you make them stop giving mean looks to us."

As usual Eurocowards like Orion save their moral outrage for the USA, not the people targeting girls’ schools and blowing up shopping markets and mosques. Your moral compass is as faulty now as it was when you welcomed the Nazis. You suck.[/quote]

What a bunch of idiotic drivel…

If you had actually read the Convention you moron, you`d have notice that people who are not soldiers under the convention still have rights.

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.

That should be enough to ensure that people want to wear a uniform.

The term unlawful combatant is simply not needed, there are no gaps.

Either you are a regular soldier or you aren`t, the Conventions have rules for both.

The whole idea that non-uniformed combatants simply dropped out of the sky surprising the shit out of the makers of international law, though that has been standard for the last 300 years or so is of course horseshit and oh so convenient for the Bush administration.

[quote]orion wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:

Bullshit. The Geneva conventions state very specifically what someone has to do to be covered by the articles contained in the conventions.

People who break these rules are not subject to the convention, at all. The argument that they are is specious.

This was the whole point of writing and signing the Geneva Conventions, for anyone that can read or has a brain. It set down rules for what was acceptable conduct in war and what was not. If people obeyed the rules, they were required by treaty to get treated a certain way.

If they broke the rules, the were “beyond the pale”, enemies of humanity, barbarians, Austrian Nazis, war criminals, unlawful enemy combatants, what have you.

This is all written out in plain language. Even orion could understand it if he bothered to read the conventions instead of reading something some dimwit wrote on wikipedia.

Now, seeing as most Europeans with balls killed each other off, this is seen in places like orion’s Austria as: "Well, if you behead civilians on TV, attack troops from behind civilian shields, blow up people going to worship, etc. the mean and nasty USA should read them their rights (just give them the same rights as US citizens).

Of course, you can count on Austria’s help in rounding up these criminals, just as soon as the trial is over, they’re disarmed, and you make them stop giving mean looks to us."

As usual Eurocowards like Orion save their moral outrage for the USA, not the people targeting girls’ schools and blowing up shopping markets and mosques. Your moral compass is as faulty now as it was when you welcomed the Nazis. You suck.

What a bunch of idiotic drivel…

If you had actually read the Convention you moron, you`d have notice that people who are not soldiers under the convention still have rights.

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.

That should be enough to ensure that people want to wear a uniform.

The term unlawful combatant is simply not needed, there are no gaps.

Either you are a regular soldier or you aren`t, the Conventions have rules for both.

The whole idea that non-uniformed combatants simply dropped out of the sky surprising the shit out of the makers of international law, though that has been standard for the last 300 years or so is of course horseshit and oh so convenient for the Bush administration. [/quote]

Orion, is a non-uniformed fighter a lawful combatant?