So.....you have laid yourself down and allow the state to provide even the most basic protections for you. No responsibilty unto yourself or your family, you are not responsible the state is. They have conviced you that these social programs have negated the need for personal responsibility even against those who do not follow the rules. You rely completely on the hope that the police will be there when the boogieman trys to take your life or the life of a loved one. I sure am glad I live in the US. Here personal responsibility usurps all. I would rather die than to trust my personalc protection to someone else especially the government.
You have to remember that the US is in a lot of ways like the EU. We are 50 states that are bound together only by our constitution. We require nothing to go from New York to California, just like you have to provide nothing to go to for instance between Germany and Denmark.
Even after they have declared war on you? This was Bill Clintons position, he considered it a law enforcement matter. It took attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, over 3000 dead people for us to wake up and realize that when someone declares war on you it is important to listen up..It is them declaring war on you...
Absoloutely. BTW how did you master the english language so well? You certainly have my compliment. I think your spelling is even better than mine!
Those are very laudable examples of how the police provide mentoring and leadership to the general public and specifically to youth. Some of our police departments in the US provide very similar services. It's not clear though that the people they are reaching are those that would be considered criminals.
1) Chances are really good that will happen if you subcontract your personal protection to someone other than yourself.
2) If that's the case, why are you trusting the US Government to bring protection and security to Iraq? Some inconsistencies in your arguments, Cliff.
The key term is personal protection which I only trust with myself. I leave national security issues/foreign issues to those that have the means to implement them. I guess I would have looked pretty silly taking on Saddam and his army with my meager collection of weapons. I have not yet convinced the government that I am trustworthy with 500 lb bombs and Abrams tanks.....darn.....
Wrong. The Constitution is a political document and the rights set forth in the BOR are political rights. The 2nd amendment is intended to give you the final right to protect yourself from government tyranny. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with protection from criminals or shooting Bambi in the woods.
IMO, it is a bit quaint and outdated, given the sorts of weapons a modern military will bring to the fight, but that was the intent back in the 18th century.
So how are giving him all this credit for the tactical success in Iraq? The field commanders did their best with the situation they were handled and for the most part did a damn fine job of it. But they simply didn't have the resources to do the job right because Bush and Rummy knew they needed to do this on the cheap to sell it to the American public.
Osama bin Laden wasn't a member of the Taliban. And anyone other than Afghanis captured on the field of battle would have a questionable status. But Afghani citizens attempting to repel our invasion would have to be considered soldiers under the GC and accorded the rights of POWs.
Further, ANY fighters captured on the field of battle are to be accorded POW status until such time as a competent tribunal determines their status. There were no such tribunals until the Supreme Court forced the issue.
The terrorists who committed the atrocities of 9/11 are high-level criminals, not soldiers. And one of them is very near to getting a needle in his veins for the trouble.
There is no definition of "illegal combatants" in the GC, which is the controlling authority in international law concerning war.
My conclusions are far from ludicrous. They are shared by a great many people and organizations including Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch. No less authority than the Supreme Court of the US has weighed in on the matter and found the Bush administration to be breaking the law in holding the Gitmo detainees indefinitely without status hearings as prescribed by the GC.
This is far from a slam dunk on your side.
It's a negative definition, like "None of the Above" or "Other". AFAICT, you end up as either a POW, a Protected Person, or a War Criminal according to the GC. POWs have rights, Protected Persons have rights, and War Criminals finally have the rights of the accused under the US Constitution.
The BA is attempting an end run around this through the use of the facilities at Gitmo, basically contending that Gitmo isn't the sovereign territory of any Nation other than the US, and that it isn't part of our sovereign territory either. It's sort of like putting them on the Moon or something and then saying they have no rights because of where they are.
Is that what I said? That I give him all the credit? No that is not what I said. I said he did a good job. He did a good job as Sec Def. not a field commander which he isn't.
An exceptional job.
Have you read the recent comments by Tommy Franks? Apparently not. How about Richard Meyers? Apparently not. I bet you have read the comments of Richard Clarke and Wesley Clark however.....they seem to get the most press...
The facts are according to the commanders that actually developed and implemented the strategy they got everything they asked for. Bar room commanders like Clark and Clarke are only furthuring their political futures. Why would you take the word of people who are politicizing the issue?
I think I would put much more faith in the comments of retired Chief of Staff (2001-2005) Richard Meyers than Wesley Clark as Meyers was Chief of Staff and Wesley Clarke is a politician running for office.........
The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. "Prisoner of war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant." Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration in particular has suggested that those who do not meet this definition should be determined to be "unlawful combatant." It is opined that by this definition legal protection under the Geneva Conventions is not warranted. By declaring that some detainees do not merit the protections of criminal law, because of their combatant activities, and that they do not merit the protections of jus in bello due to the unlawful nature of their combat, the use of the term in current legal discourse seems designed to put detainees beyond the reach of any law.[1]
also:
Should there be doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a "competent tribunal" and until such time they are to be treated as prisoners of war.[2] After such "competent tribunals" have determined their status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord detained unlawful combatants the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. Unlawful combatants do retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".[3] This latter Convention also applies to civilian non-combatants who are affected by the conflict and due special protections as "protected persons."[4]
Where the Bush administration has fallen down is on two points.
Contrary to your vehement declarations, the term "unlawful combatant" (or any synonym thereof) doesn't actually appear anywhere in the GC. At best the term is defined only in the negative sense of persons not fulfilling the requirements to be considered POW's, Protected Persons, or other classes.
The GC requires that all persons taken prisoner on the battlefield be accorded POW status until their true status is determined by a competent tribunal. This only happened now 3 years later after a determination by SCOTUS that the administration was breaking the law.
No, it's not. It's only defined in the negative sense as in "None of the Above" or "Other".
It's absolutely unnecessary. Germany is an ally and would undoubtedly cooperate in apprehending persons for which we can show solid evidence of complicity in terrorism.
The taliban protected osama bin laden while he was in afghanistan you can say that he wasn't a "member" your only playing with words.
No they would not have. The GC is pretty darn clear on who is and isn't an illegal combatant. Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
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.
What flag or "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" did these fighters use?
Article 5 The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
The key element in article 5 is: "Should any doubt arise". I and many other say "there is no doubt".....
And BTW SCOTUS has not made ANY decisions concerning the status of these people. The case was just heard and a decision will not be until probably the end of summer......maybe wishful thinking on your part?
And just what does this have to do with the Geneva conventions?
After osama bin ladens declaration of war against the US there is no question that they were either illegal combatants, spies or saboteurs take your pick, any one of the above means they are not afforded the protections of the GC. Moot point, all are dead except for one.....
It does not matter what you call them, they are not entitled to the protections of the GC so let's just change that name shall we? Lets call them "people who do not warrant the protection of the Geneva Convention"...does that make you feel better?
It is certainly ludicrous. Maybe it wouldn't be if you could not read.
Remember the little bit of text that says "Should any doubt arise". Still means the same thing in this context....
You read the text of the GC and the comments above and tell me what their fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance was. Maybe their turbans? White good? Black bad? Checkerboard maybe?
It seems to me your problem is with the GC itself not our interpretation of it then. Laws are black and white not shades of grey either the laws apply or they do not. In this case it is obvious that they do not apply and that means that the GC does not apply. It is really simple.
Gitmo has nothing to do with the legality of it. Where they are held is a moot point.
administration seems to want it both ways.
For one example can you explain what the taliban used as a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance?
Many many reports. Any of the older generals that were considered "the cold warrior" have a different mindset than Rumsfeld. they have fought with him all the way. Rumsfeld believes in a light, fast army with good use of special forces instead of battalions fighting it out in open warfare. The "old guard" believes in a massive miltary and overwhelming superiority of numbers which just does not fit into todays scenarios.
Many many predicted means little if those people were not in the position to know. I still think that we would not be much better off with a million more troops.
Oh boy another navy vet.......one thing you find out about navy vets is that most of them are full of shit :) I bet you were a chief to boot....the worst of the worst :)
Seeing how the captain is a commissioned officer in charge of a ship he would take the blame. But in the same respect did the captain of the ship that the two sailors were on that raped the two Guamanian girls a while back take any blame for their rape? Not one bit. He was not complicit in their rape. Same goes for those in charge of the soldiers at abu gharaib......
Rod, you're correct about the historical reasons for the 2nd amendment. But, it's moot because the right to bear arms has become an institution. And even law enforcement professionals in the US have come to terms with the fact that citizens have a right to self protection using firearms, under extraordinary conditions.
Copy and paste snipped, I was not looking for other peoples interpretations especially wikipedia.... I try to think for myself. Next time post the relavent portions of the GC not someone elses interpretation
And that means that the law does not apply. Again laws are black and white they either apply or they do not.
And what is the time frame set forth in the GC????? And just what was this "determination"? I have yet to see SCOTUS rule on this. Can you provide a link possibly?
onventions, the term "illegal combatants" is
Simply put.......It means "IT DOES NOT APPLY". Is that such a hard concept to understand? It is a very sound legal principle.
Which they did........in the recent renditions discussed in this thread......
this predates the current conflict and owes a lot to Boyd's influence.
a lot of anecdotal accounts have John Boyd being responsible for the battle plan in the earlier Iraqi conflict (in quite a bit of conflict with the old guard) .. an older post
formatting link
If you're going to bullshit, eschew moderation
a couple articles from around the web:
formatting link
How Col. John Boyd Beat the Generals, August 12, 2002
formatting link
Insight on the News: How Col. John Boyd beat the generals
there were supposedly subsequent comments about the biggest problem with the current conflict is that John Boyd had died in 1997.
a few recent posts mentioning John Boyd:
formatting link
Votes are coins stamped with the Red Queen's head
formatting link
The Pankian Metaphor
formatting link
The Pankian Metaphor
formatting link
The Pankian Metaphor
formatting link
The Pankian Metaphor
Another conflict involves the Crusader. a couple posting/articles on the subject
formatting link
Dangerous Hardware
formatting link
There are similar issues for both Abrahms and Crusader with regard to rapid air deployment and transition to Boyd's maneuver warfare.
another article on the paradigm change:
formatting link
although Boyd was extremely instrumental in the F16 ... he was a strong proponent behind the principles involved in the F20/Tigershark, which significantly reduced the maint. requirement per hour flown as well as level of technology and skill level needed to support the F16.
Well......from what I have seen, we lost a good one when we lost John Boyd. Forward thinkers in an era of leadership that was trained to fight massive land battles is a good thing as times have certainly changed. Hopefully he had enough effect for the younger generation to pick up his sword and run with it. Thanks for the great info.....very informative.
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
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, fulfill 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.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
Members of crews [of civil ships and aircraft], who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country...
...
Article 5
...
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
The time frame is immediately upon capture until such time as a determination has been rendered. So if the administration sought to classify these prisoners as anything other than POWs it would have been best to simply do that immediately through the proper channels.
Instead they labeled them "illegal combatants" immediately upon capture without the benefit of "competent tribunal", stuck them on in an island prison, and claimed that no one, not even the US court system had any jurisdiction because of the location.
Knock yourself out...
formatting link
Basically, the administration's position was that the prisoners at Gitmo had no right to access to the US court system to appeal their status. The US Supreme court held otherwise and subsequently the military commenced status hearings in which 38 prisoners were released.
My point is that it didn't have to be this way. We are a civilized nation with a highly developed legal and judicial system. The administration could have gone about all this in a fashion consistent with US law and International Treaty obligations and we wouldn't be facing criticism from our international allies.
I proudly wore the uniform of our armed services for 9 years because I believe in the principles that our country espouses. Fair trials, everything in the open and above-board. No secret prisons, kangaroo trials, or torture. It distresses me to see our country's reputation by needlessly sullied in this fashion.
Contrary to the opinion of some, all is *not* fair in love and war. We distinguish ourselves from our enemies by being better than them, not by proving who's bigger.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.