Oh, please do Matt, I BEG!!!! you to have the Republicrats start the process of removing us from the GCs, and afterwards, lets just remove ourselves form the UN. I am sure the rest of the world will empathise with the world hyper-power and our plight of not being able to ignore international conventions with impunity.

Please!, I would love to hear the explainations for why America is removing itself from the greatest civilizing-tool of war that humanity has ever devised.

So can we only ask captured terrorists their name, rank and serial number now?

Maybe Congress should pass a law outlining what an enemy combatant is, and is not. And a terrorist is not.

Our system of checks and balances working to a "T" is a victory for terrorists? Man, you have a f#cked up view of things.

Again, Mark won't understand this because his principles change with the weather, but you don't change your principles based on who your enemies are.

OUr nation has dedicated itself to treating enemy combatants fairly, humainly and justly. No reason to change that stance.

The greatest civilizing tool of war, maybe, but only in conventional wars. Fighting an enemy that refuses to wear a uniform or be identifiable is not conventional, and really is not covered. You truly do qualify as third eye blind.

Tom,
Do you know the difference between?

1. Enemy combatant

2. Unlawful combatant

According to the Geneva Conventions.

Please do the research and find the definition for both and get back with us.

The way I see it, the War on Terror has been largely outlined as a conflict between good and evil, presumably with us playing the role of the former and the terrorists in the role of the latter.

For us to be truly the "good guys" in the classic sense, we must always adhere to our principles, even when it is neither popular nor convenient.

It takes strength to do what it is necessary to combat terrorists, it takes more strength to do so in accordance with the principles that this great country was founded on.

Nebraska & KJS,

The term unlawful combatant doesn't appear in the GCs, it is a made-up status, like "Compassionate Conservatives".

The GCs had a very black and white view of war, you're either an enemy combatant, or you're a civilian criminal, there is no 'third option'. We can't go around deciding that anyone we decide is somehow connected with "terrorism" can be dissapeared without giving them the basic right to refute the charges against them.

If the Administration and the bright folks in Congress can get us into war, im sure they can figure out a way to setup thresholds of civilized court proceedures...i would hope so atleast, but nowadays, nothing surprises me about these folks.

for all of you grammar fanatics...

"It takes strength to do what is necessary to combat terrorists; it takes more strength to do so in accordance with the principles upon which this great country was founded.

Tom Shipley, at the very least, from my perspective, I see these terrorists/insurgents as criminals not "enemy combatants." They do not fight as solders, they commit criminal acts. To apply Geneva Conventions to these criminals is appalling. If anyone, foreigner or citizen, committed these acts here they would be treated as a criminal. But because they are committing these criminal acts in Iraq or elsewhere they are suddenly being treated as “enemy combatants”, it does not make sense to me. We are not at war with Iraq, we are fighting these criminals. The Geneva Convention was meant to be applied to solders of an enemy country. What country are they fighting for? My understanding is the 94% of the terrorists/insurgents are not Iraqi and none of the terrorists are solders. They do not represent any country as solders, they are there on their own. They are not fighting America so much as fighting the infidel in the land of Allah. The Supreme Court made a mistake in voting the way they did, in my opinion.

KttR,

As I said earlier in this thread, the GCs apply to 'criminal civilians', I think everyone would agree that they should be treated as such.

Secondly, where the hell are you getting your "facts" from? 94% of the insurgents in Iraq aren't Iraqi? That is BS of the stinkiest variety.

Read the numbers from the military, at most they quote the numbers of foreign fighters to be around 10% (IMO that is high).

Hey Tom. your right about the GC...it was the SCOTUS who ruled on unlawful combatants in 1942

Wikipedia...In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin the court used the following characterizations to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:

Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

A combatant is a person who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict who upon capture qualifies for prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unlawful combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who take a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.[1]

To qualify for Prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
3. That of carrying arms openly;
4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So Tom,

Does Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist respect the "laws and customs of war"? Do they qualify for POW status?

"I see these terrorists/insurgents as criminals not "enemy combatants." They do not fight as solders, they commit criminal acts."

Keep to the Right

If you classify the terrorists as criminals. Do they have the same rights as common criminals under the U.S. legal system; right to a lawyer, etc., etc.?

TEO, frankly I don't remember where I got the number 94%. On this point I am trusting your right on this point. Assuming my memory or my source is wrong. My bad, excuse me. As long as I do not have a verifiable and reliable source that I can link to etc. I will humbly concede

Nebraska,

I don't think you 'quite' grasp the discussion here.

No one said they don't get tried by tribunals, but they have to be what is referred to in the GCs at "competant tribunals" which are responsible to determine their status as either "civilian criminals" or POWs. The crux of the issue comes as to what evidence the criminals are to be entitled to in their defense. As it stands now, nothing more than utterances under torture is enough to keep someone holed up in GITMO indefinately; even with a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

I don't think anyone says we need to allow these folks POW status, but you can't just make them disapear, and never have to let their families or a lawyer have access to them, that is tyrannical.

Canadian Observer, I am not that well acquainted with American law. I don't know what rights are given to foreigners who commit crimes. Sorry, I can’t give you a better answer. If someone could give us an answer I wouldn’t mind knowing.

TEO, my reply to you is coming. I submitted it outside of Typekey, so it will take a little longer in coming. Ooops.

The way to stop all this foolishness is to just kill them on the battlefield.

The Geneva Conventions are outdated. We need a new policy which reflects the reality of the Global War on Terrorism/Radical Islam/Islam. We need a policy that defines what a terrorist is and how to treat a terrorist. We need to recognize that in 2006, there are weapons of mass destruction-nuclear, biological, chemical-that can potentially kill hundreds of thousands, even millions in one strike. We need to do it now. But, more realistically, we won't do anything until a WMD attack occurs and tens of thousands die.

Eight bombs detonated in Mumbai, India killing over 140 civilians and wounding 400 people. How many bodies does it take to recognize that terrorists are a threat who need to be dealt with seriously.

Freedom, the Geneva Conventions may well be outdated, I have not read them. If nothing else is done they should be ammended to reflect today's world. If the GC can become outdated sooner or later they may be as outdated as pickett line battles. If that is right the world will need to see this and somebody to get it done.

I don't get what the big deal is. The press secretary says this is not a reversal in policy. That means that nothing has changed. If you don't trust the word of the President's hand-picked spokesman, go join the Democrats or something, OK?

Freedom1 said:
The Geneva Conventions are outdated. We need a new policy which reflects the reality of the Global War on Terrorism/Radical Islam/Islam. We need a policy that defines what a terrorist is and how to treat a terrorist.

Exactamundo. This whole stink is just a fight over semantics. It is so freaking obvious what needs to be done about captured terroists. Being men of action, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al. just go ahead and do it. Being weak whiny liberals, they cry a river about what the dictionary should say.

Darby said: "This whole stink is just a fight over semantics. It is so freaking obvious what needs to be done about captured terroists. Being men of action, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al. just go ahead and do it. Being weak whiny liberals, they cry a river about what the dictionary should say."

Strength of purpose, character, even vision should not be measured by the willingness to stoop to the basest examples of the behavior of your enemies, but on the ability to resist same.

Darby said: "This whole stink is just a fight over semantics. It is so freaking obvious what needs to be done about captured terroists. Being men of action, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al. just go ahead and do it. Being weak whiny liberals, they cry a river about what the dictionary should say."

Strength of purpose, character, even vision should not be measured by the willingness to stoop to the basest examples of the behavior of your enemies, but on the ability to resist same.

For us to be truly the "good guys" in the classic sense, we must always adhere to our principles, even when it is neither popular nor convenient.

It takes strength to do what it is necessary to combat terrorists, it takes more strength to do so in accordance with the principles that this great country was founded on.

Posted by: Georgia Frawg at July 11, 2006 03:16 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this is ridiculous...these peole are barbarians, and to treat them any different is a sure fire why to defeat

You know, I've never had a problem with treating our prisoners fairly. I believe we treat our prisoners better than any other nation on the planet. Bar none. With all these rules and regs we put on OURSELVES I don't see a problem with how we hold them. We basically give them GC rights as it is, my only problem is that now we're giving them more than that.

Sure, let's be the "good guys" and treat our prisoners fairly. But if all of a sudden we're going to start holding trials and pulling all the legal mumbo jumbo that happens what's the point in taking prisoners? So I'm a bit jaded but if I knew that every prisoner I took would just be treated with kid gloves and then released why would I go through the extra effort to take prisoners? Easier to kill them in the field than worry about them later on. Sure, surrender is fine and all but I wouldn't go out of my way to send myself or my troops to capture guys.

Just my two cents.

Has anyone considered the possibility that many of the prisoners are neither terrorists or combatants - cf Tipton Three? Or is this still semantics?

Ricorun said
Strength of purpose, character, even vision should not be measured by the willingness to stoop to the basest examples of the behavior of your enemies, but on the ability to resist same.
Yeah, if they won't spill the beans when we ask them nicely, let's just release them and give them cabfare home. Great plan, Rico!

Guys/Girls,

Lets be honest with eachother here. folks captured on battlefields are not going to get miranda rights or the legal niceties our system allows for citizen criminals; to conflate the argument to make it out that these people will somehow get the legal basics we afford indicted people in this country is disingenuous at best.

The argument is over basic rights that are as relevant today, as they were in the 40's. Insurgent warfare existed prior to WWII, aswell as during it, and I would guess far past whenever we get around to "winning" the WOT (if that ever happens); So we have to realize that we need a viable system for determining who did what, when, and where. Fog of war is not an excuse to throw people into a hole somewhere and forget about them, or worse. We are bigger than these animals, and we need to prove it.

I was perusing LGF (I read more than 10 blogs a day from both sides of the spectrum) and the whine du jour seems to be that since they have no respect for the 'rules of war' then we shouldn't either, but that logic brings us full circle to 1917. No matter what anyone says on a blog, 21st century warfare is as much about winning hearts and minds, as it is about putting a round through them. The basic truth here is that there isn't a missle which can kill an idea, and I fear that we won't recognize this fact until we find ourselves in a full blown war of civilizations. While I feel it is absolutely neccessary to fight the fight, that we need to be addressing the root causes and justifications that allow these thugs to enlist their cannon fodder. We need an alternate world-view that makes the option of building a functioning democracy much more appealing than martyrdom; This IMO isn't going to be accomplished by playing the "crusader" part and forcing "civility" on a country at the barrel of a gun. Never forget that fascism saw its roots because of economic reasons, and much less because of the ideology of their leaders.

Scrap the principles of the Constitution and international law just because these are particularly foul criminals?

Never let me hear another rightwinger wheedle about "moral relativism" again.

Darby said: "Yeah, if they won't spill the beans when we ask them nicely, let's just release them and give them cabfare home. Great plan, Rico!"

I don't recall mentioning anything about releasing them and certainly nothing about cab fare. But I do find it rather sad that you could manage to conflate what I said into that.

Let me ask you Darby... what are we fighting for? What do you see as the goal? And if you abandon all of the principles intrinsic to that goal while pursuing it, how do you expect to attain it? To the extent that you do, the goal becomes nothing more than a mirage.

The fact is, Darby, when properly considered freedom, justice, and democracy are not goals at all, but processes. It's not like you can attain them, then sit back and rest on your laurels. It requires eternal vigilance to maintain them because, well, they are processes, not goals.

The title of the topic is "Victory for Terrorists". The argument is that because the executive branch's opinions and unilateral decisions on what constitutes a legal process is not condoned by either the legislative or the legal branches of government, that somehow constitutes a victory for terrorists. Forgive me, but I fail to see the logic in that argument. It's not like either the legislative or legal branches are saying "release them and give them cab fare home", they are merely saying the executive branch can't make up its own rules as it goes along. I don't see that as a victory for the terrorists. I see it as a victory for our form of government. And it's about freakin' time.

Shorter TEO: ....

Real American:

Five ropes, five robes, five trees.
Some assembly required.

'nuff said.

Bob,

It is great thinkers such as yourself who make me proud to wear condoms.

'nuff said

Thank God there won't be any TEO, jrs running around. So. There.

Thank God there won't be any TEO, jrs running around. So. There.

Thank God there won't be any TEO, jrs running around. So. There.

Thank God there won't be any TEO, jrs running around. So. There.

Thank God there won't be any TEO, jrs running around. So. There.

NOTE: This is the fourth time I've tried to post this. Moonbat hackers?

Phooey. It was an important point. If posting it five times results in One Eye not procreating, it was worth it.

Sorry, everybody! Server's funky this morning.

BA