Originally posted by zeeblebotBut they weren't "engaged in a military deployment". They were/are (allegedly) terrorists engaged in criminal activity - mass murder, attempted mass murder, and all manner of conspiracies leading up to it. To call their crimes a "military operation" is daft.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Protocol_I
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 ther ...[text shortened]... ged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Originally posted by FMFhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_military
But they weren't "engaged in a military deployment". They were/are (allegedly) terrorists engaged in criminal activity - mass murder, attempted mass murder, and all manner of conspiracies leading up to it. To call their crimes a "military operation" is daft.
Irregular military
Irregular military refers to any non-standard military. Being defined by exclusion, there is significant variance in what comes under the term. It can refer to the type of military organization, or to the type of tactics used.
An irregular military organization is a military organization which is not part of the regular army organization of a party to a military conflict. Without standard military unit organization, various more general names are used; such organizations may also be called a "troop", "group", "unit", "column", "band", "rebel", or "force".
Irregulars are soldiers or warriors that are members of these organizations, or are members of special military units that employ irregular military tactics. This also applies to irregular troops, irregular infantry and irregular cavalry.
Irregular warfare is warfare employing the tactics commonly used by irregular military organizations. This involves avoiding large-scale combats, and focusing on small, stealthy, hit and run engagements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_warfare
Irregular warfare (IW) is warfare in which one or more combatants are irregular military rather than regular forces. Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare, and so is asymmetric warfare.
Irregular warfare favors indirect and asymmetric warfare approaches, though it may employ the full range of military and other capabilities, in order to erode an adversary’s power, influence, and will. It is inherently a protracted struggle that will test the resolve of a nation and its strategic partners.[1][2][3][4][5] Concepts associated with irregular warfare are not as recent as the irregular warfare term itself.[6][7]
Regular vs. irregular
The word "regular" is used in the term "regular armed forces" which comes from the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a non-governmental organization primarily responsible for, and most closely associated with, the drafting and successful completion of the Third Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (“GPW&rdquo😉. The ICRC provided commentary saying that "regular armed forces" satisfy four Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) (Hague IV) conditions.[8] In other words, "regular forces" must satisfy the following criteria:
* being commanded by a person responsible for his to a party of conflict
* having a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance
* carrying arms openly
* conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war
On the other hand, Irregular Forces is a term in international humanitarian law referring to a category of combatants consisting of individuals forming part of the armed forces of a party to an armed conflict, international or non-international, but not belonging to that party's regular forces and operating in or outside of their own territory even if the territory is under occupation.[9] As such, it is implicit that irregular warfare is warfare where a major party in the conflict is part of Irregular Forces.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2002/pub-artc4potusdetermination.pdf
STATUS OF TALIBAN FORCES UNDER ARTICLE 4 OF
THE THIRD GENEVA CONVENTION OF 1949
The President has reasonable factual grounds to determine that no members of the Taliban
militia are entitled to prisoner of war status under Article 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention (III) Relative
to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
February 7, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
You have asked for our Office’s views concerning the status of members of the Taliban
militia under Article 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of
Prisoners of War (“GPW&rdquo😉. Assuming the accuracy of various facts provided to us by the
Department of Defense (“DoD&rdquo😉, we conclude that the President has reasonable factual grounds
to determine that no members of the Taliban militia are entitled to prisoner of war (“POW&rdquo😉
status under GPW. First, we explain that the Taliban militia cannot meet the requirements of
Article 4(A)(2), because it fails to satisfy at least three of the four conditions of lawful combat
articulated in Article 1 of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws
and Customs of War on Land (“Hague Convention&rdquo😉, which are expressly incorporated into
Article 4(A)(2). Second, we note that neither Article 4(A)(1) nor Article 4(A)(3) apply to
militia, and that the four conditions of lawful combat contained in the Hague Convention also
govern Article 4(A)(1) and (3) determinations in any case. Finally, we explain why there is
no need to convene a tribunal under Article 5 to determine the status of the Taliban detainees.
...
From an earlier quote:
People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system. They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice.
Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings.
The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London.
Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali.
India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents.
Meanwhile, in the U.S.A... self-righteous, unprincipled, self-terrifying...
Originally posted by FMFDon't be so ridiculous.
From an earlier quote:
People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system. They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice.
Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country' ...[text shortened]... of residents.
Meanwhile, in the U.S.A... self-righteous, unprincipled, self-terrifying...
Originally posted by zeeblebotDon't be silly.
no, he'd be deported after sentence. not given citizenship.
You can't imprison a non-citizen. Much as you can't peel a Banapple or fly a submarine.
So, he's either a citizen or he's not. And if he's not, then he's deported BEFORE sentencing.
That's international law.
Originally posted by shavixmirwrong! They do this w/mexicans all the time who commit felonies here. They do their time, then they are deported afterwards
Don't be silly.
You can't imprison a non-citizen. Much as you can't peel a Banapple or fly a submarine.
So, he's either a citizen or he's not. And if he's not, then he's deported BEFORE sentencing.
That's international law.
Originally posted by utherpendragonSo the US is breaking international law.
wrong! They do this w/mexicans all the time who commit felonies here. They do their time, then they are deported afterwards
Doesn't surprise me, what after Afghanistan, Serbia, Iraq, Guatomala, their embargo on Cuba... doesn't surprise me at all.
Originally posted by shavixmirWhat??
Don't be silly.
You can't imprison a non-citizen. Much as you can't peel a Banapple or fly a submarine.
So, he's either a citizen or he's not. And if he's not, then he's deported BEFORE sentencing.
That's international law.
If I fly to Paris and blow up the Eiffel Tower, killing 117 people, the French are required to deport me back to the US before sentencing under international law?
Where did you pick up this little nugget?
Originally posted by generalissimothe govt tortured him. what happens to an inmate in Podunk, USA, who was tortured by the local police, after the judge finds out? will the judge throw out the case based on violation of the defendant's rights?
yes, it is possible, but lets be realistic, what are the chances of this happening?
and why do you think the outcome is predetermined?
OJ was SO guilty ....