S.1867 is the end of America

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dubyamn

Sara_2814 said:
An American joins the German army in WWII and there is no distinction made on the battlefield: they are treated as any other German soldier. Why should an American who joins al-Qaeda be treated as anything other than a member of al-Qaeda? Why should there be a distinction made between citizen and non-citizen when dealing with al-Qaeda? Like the guy who joined the German army, the American in al-Qaeda made his choice to "switch sides".
Click to expand...
It is odd how you decided to respond to the single sentance rather than the actual question which is where the fuck your non sequitor came from.

And no I don't think the Americans captured fighting along side the Nazi forces were treated the same as the Germans. You know since they were probably tried for treason while the Germans were probably held till the end of WWII and then released. So even you bullshit metaphor is wrong.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Sara_2814 said:
TitleX, SubtitleD, Section 1031.c -
Click to expand...
You do realise that's a reference to another law, right?

But ok, until end of hostilities can be considered indefinite, and the actual problem comes from the difference between aregular war and something as generic as "the war on terror"...

But there is a difference between actual officially identified troops and "terror suspects", otherwise they wouldn't need a new law for it... you know, they already had the ones they used for all those previous wars.
 
Sara_2814

Sara_2814

@Li3n said:
You do realise that's a reference to another law, right?
Click to expand...
I linked to H.R.1540, which is the House of Representatives version of S.1867 (the Senate version). The House is where the bill originated and that link has the most recent version of the bill. Actually, now that it's been signed it is Public Law No: 112-81 (but they don't yet have the text uploaded on Thomas under that title).

But ok, until end of hostilities can be considered indefinite, and the actual problem comes from the difference between aregular war and something as generic as "the war on terror"...

But there is a difference between actual officially identified troops and "terror suspects", otherwise they wouldn't need a new law for it... you know, they already had the ones they used for all those previous wars.
Click to expand...
That's why we have to put this stuff into defense bills. Because combatants who aren't acting on behalf of a state is a situation that laws and treaties need to be updated for. Are we supposed to just give al-Qaeda a free pass until we work it out?

Since this bill section is specifically aimed at al-Qaeda and Taliban (not a generic "war on terror"), wouldn't agreements with either party bring an end to hostilities? There are talks amongst the U.S., Afghanistan, and Taliban being worked out now.
 
Sara_2814

Sara_2814

@Li3n said:
Doesn't the Geneva Convention cover guerrillas?
Click to expand...
Wikipedia has an article on "unlawful combatants" that goes into that.
The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more sovereign states. Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."
Click to expand...
The rest of the article goes into more detail of defining "unlawful combatants" and the various legal challenges and rulings.

It seems the US Supreme Court did rule on the Geneva Conventions being applied to detainees:
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (29 June 2006) the US Supreme Court did not rule on the subject of unlawful combatant status but did reaffirm that the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions. Most notably it said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of detainees, applies to all prisoners in the War on Terror.
Click to expand...
And also:
On 12 June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, 5-4 that Guantanamo captives were entitled to access the US justice system
Click to expand...
And regarding U.S. Citizens:
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.
Click to expand...
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

As for foreigners: Red Cross worker held in Guantanamo for seven years, no trial, no explanation.

So yeah, steinman has a point; they're codifying shit they already do. Woo-fucking-hoo, applause all around, what a great job everyone's doing. Bet you'll never see this happen again, or to an American citizen--it's going to happen. Great work, Congress, President. You shitheads keep patting yourselves on the back, just like with Iraq, just like with Katrina. Oh, that was the Bush era? We switched Presidents in 2008? Could've fucking fooled me. The only difference is that with Bush, we knew what we were getting. I honestly believed in Obama. I was wrong.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Sara_2814 said:
It seems the US Supreme Court did rule on the Geneva Conventions being applied to detainees:
Click to expand...
Weird, i'm pretty sure waterboarding isn't allowed by the Geneva Convention...


But hey, i was right, they convention already had rules for detaining them... but i guess the word "trial" showed up too much for the goverments tastes...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top