Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

[Raz]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Good call. But what choice did we have really?

How about the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party?

They're not perfect, but it sure was a sounder, more principled exercise that voting Demonrat or Repukelican.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

They are covered by the Geneva Conventions

No.

More or less all of the prisoners of this current war on terror are not "prisoners of war" under these Geneva Conventions, because they (deliberately, I presume) fail one or more of the following conditions, quoted directly from the above link:

* Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In other words, those who hide in civilian clothes behind the skirts of women and children do not qualify. This was quite intentional from what I understand. The creators of these Geneva Conventions intended to reward those "conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" by granting them special consideration when taken prisoner.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Good call. But what choice did we have really?

A good single malt whiskey?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

A good single malt whiskey?

On second thought, the Russians have more experience in these matters and apparently go with ordinary vodka. It costs less.

[Rajiv]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

But then they are NOT "prisoners of war" and would be considered common criminals and treated as such.

Thus it was far more dangerous to be a member of the French Resistance during World War II than an allied soldier, because the Geneva conventions did not apply to them. The third geneva convention on "Prisoners of War" was signed in 1929 - the latest revision being in 1949

In reprisal for resistance activity, the authorities established harsh methods of collective punishment. The increased militancy of communist resistance in August 1941 led to thousands of hostages being taken from among the general population,[26] of whom "at each further incident a number reflecting the seriousness of the crime shall be shot."[27] Over the course of the occupation, 30,000 French civilians were shot as hostages for acts of resistance.[28] Occasionally, German troops would engage in massacres, such as the destruction of Oradour-sur-Glane, where an entire village was razed and the population killed for resistance activities in the vicinity.[29][30]

In early 1943, the Vichy authorities established a paramilitary group, the Milice, to combat the resistance alongside the German forces that were stationed in all of France by the end of 1942.[31] The group collaborated closely with the Nazis and was the Vichy equivalent to the Gestapo security forces in Germany.[32] Their actions were often very brutal and included the torture and executions of suspected resistance members. After the liberation of France, many of the estimated 25,000 to 35,000 miliciens[31] were themselves executed for collaboration. Many of those who escaped arrest fled into Germany, where they were incorporated into the Charlemagne Division of the Waffen SS.[33]

Also according to Protocol I adopted in 1977 -- This is where all the contoversies come from.

The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) is an amendment to the Geneva Conventions. Adopted on June 8, 1977 by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts presided over by Pierre Graber of Switzerland. The protocol entered into force on December 7, 1979 (six months after its adoption by the conference) and is binding for a country six months after it has ratified it. As of 14 January 2007 it had been ratified by 167 countries, with the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Iraq being notable exceptions. However, the United States, Iran and Pakistan signed it on 12 December 1977 with the intention of ratifying it.

The international community outside of the U.S., generally accepts that the additional Geneva Conventions protocols are obligatory on all parties worldwide, as they have become part of customary law.
.
.
.
.
The U.S. has to date not ratified Protocol I although much of its central precepts have been incorporated into the U.S. Army's Field Manual, The Law of Land Warfare.

Full Text of Protocol - I

.
.
.
.
3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to those Conventions.

4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
.
.
.
.

Art 43. Armed forces

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.


Art 44. Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

[GRG55]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

"Rules" by which to conduct war. How nice...:rolleyes:

[Judas]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night
because rough men stand ready
to do violence on their behalf."

-George Orwell

This causes a conflict for me. I earned my crossed rifles at Ft. Benning, but oppose this kind of government doubletalk and abuse.

Am I one of the lesser men or one of the rough men?

[flintlock]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

How about the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party?

They're not perfect, but it sure was a sounder, more principled exercise that voting Demonrat or Repukelican.

I actually voted for Libertarian Bob Barr, ha. Purely a symbolic gesture, because I didn't particularly like Barr when he was in Congress here in GA.

I did prefer Obama over McCain though.

[cjppjc]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

This causes a conflict for me. I earned my crossed rifles at Ft. Benning, but oppose this kind of government doubletalk and abuse.

Am I one of the lesser men or one of the rough men?

Yes, this is the conundrum many feel. The place where our highest "Christian ideals meet reality. IMO it is a good thing when we take the time to look in that place.

[cjppjc]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

I actually voted for Libertarian Bob Barr, ha. Purely a symbolic gesture, because I didn't particularly like Barr when he was in Congress here in GA.

I did prefer Obama over McCain though.

I know I mentioned this before. I was fortunate to write in Ron Paul. I tell anyone who doesn't know we well, how good I feel about that vote. Those who do know me well, already know this and say they wish they had wrote him in as well.

[Munger]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

When Jefferson became President, he did not deal with the Barbary pirates by arresting them and bringing them back to stand trial. He dealt with them by use of and threat of deadly force. The Barbary pirates had no legal protections under our Constitution; neither do the Islamic terrorists at Club Gitmo.

Dealing with an armed combatant in the middle of a conflict is completely dissimilar to dealing with an unarmed prisoner in custody on land in American control. This is well-settled U.S. and international law.

If you are interested in more than chest-pounding and would like to develop an informed opinion of whether these enemy combatants are actually entitled to legal protections, I suggest you read and consider:

Ex parte Quirin, 1942.
The Supreme Court ruled that Roosevelt was acting under the authority of formal congressional Articles of War (as required by the constitution). We have no such articles for the "war" on terror. Note also that these non-citizen, unlawful combatants, who had come onto U.S. soil, without uniform, were entitled to trial by military tribunal and were represented by counsel. They were not held indefinitely without review.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004.
The Supreme Court ruled that a U.S. citizen captured in Yemen, detained at Gitmo and deemed an "illegal enemy combatant" was entitled to habeas corpus. The important thing to consider is that this ruling applies specifically to a U.S. citizen; how far does the Court imply this ruling goes to non-U.S. citizens? It is also interesting that Justice Scalia's opinion contains the most striking rebuke of Bush's claims of executive authority. Also note that O'Connor's opinion states that U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens alike have the right to habeas corpus under the Geneva conventions.

Rasul v. Bush, 2004.
A short and sweet opinion in which the Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have the jurisdiction to determine the legality of holding prisoners indefinately in Guantanimo Bay.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2006.
The U.S. government claims that, by congressional act, no detainee in Gitmo is entitled to habeas corpus review of their detention. The Supreme Court patently disagrees, reaffirms the precedent of ex parte Quirin and strengthens it by ruling that a detainee held in Guantanimo has a right to review of the legality of their detention and to trial (albeit by military commission). The Court further held that this trial must conform with the laws of war, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. This is a very interesting case in that there are at least six opinions as to what is required for Gitmo detainees in various concurrences and dissents.

[Master Shake]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

This causes a conflict for me. I earned my crossed rifles at Ft. Benning, but oppose this kind of government doubletalk and abuse.

Am I one of the lesser men or one of the rough men?

What kind of doubletalk and abuse?

Do you believe that the terrorists being held at Gitmo should be given court appointed lawyers and be tried in a US criminal court?

[Rajiv]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

So are you saying that if you were, say detained in Malaysia on trumped up charges, it would be okay for them to torture you to extract a confession?

you may want to read - UAE royal family torture video about how charges can be trumped up!

Nabulsi, in his lawsuit, says he was falsely arrested on narcotics trafficking charges by Abu Dhabi police when he refused to turn over the tapes and mistreated in prison, where he was held for three months.

"They would stick a finger up his anus and say, 'this is from Sheik Issa, are you going to give us the tapes,'" said Nabulsi's Houston lawyer, Tony Buzbee.

"They would keep him from sleeping, deny him his medications, tell him they were going to rape his wife, kill his child. They made him pose naked while they took pictures," the lawyer alleges.

The UAE government said its review "also confirmed that Mr. Nabulsi was in no way mistreated during his incarceration for drug possession."

After a short trial, Nabulsi was convicted of having prescription medicine without a prescription from a local doctor. Evidence at the trail showed his doctor in Houston had prescribed the medicine.

See also 'Framed' Briton is cleared of drug charge -- So a person can get falsely framed'.

A British man sentenced to death by a court in Malaysia for drug smuggling was freed yesterday after being cleared of any wrongdoing.

David Chell, a psychiatric nurse from Stoke-on-Trent, has spent two and a half years in prison. He was arrested at Penang airport in October 1998 during a working holiday in Asia. He was convicted of possessing 190 grams of heroin in 133 filled condoms, a crime for which he was sentenced in July last year to death by hanging.

But yesterday the Malaysian Court of Appeal accepted his lawyers' arguments that there had been a miscarriage of justice. Mr Chell has consistently claimed he was framed by local custom officials.

[flintlock]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

So are you saying that if you were, say detained in Malaysia on trumped up charges, it would be okay for them to torture you to extract a confession?

you may want to read - UAE royal family torture video about how charges can be trumped up!



See also 'Framed' Briton is cleared of drug charge -- So a person can get falsely framed'.

I never said that. I said elsewhere only in worst case. Meaning dire emergency. I'm totally against what has been going on at Gitmo. Everything isn't all black and white. To rule torture out completely is foolish as you don't know what circumstance MAY occur in the future.

[flintlock]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

I know I mentioned this before. I was fortunate to write in Ron Paul. I tell anyone who doesn't know we well, how good I feel about that vote. Those who do know me well, already know this and say they wish they had wrote him in as well.

If Paul would have made the cut, he had my vote.