25 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's semantics. In 2001, AQ had de facto control of Afghanistan. So, if Bush would have called it a "war against Afghanistan" and would have referred to KSM and the others as agents of the entity controlling Afghanistan (or later, "agents of the entity formerly controlling Afghanistan), would have have made you feel better about the legality of calling the captured AQ soldiers "prisoners of war" and denying them things like civilian trials?
It is impossible for an organization to be "at war" with a country in a legal sense.
25 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Nonsense; AQ never had "de facto" control of Afghanistan- the Taliban (an entirely different organization) was in "de facto" control. Are you seriously claiming that 9/11 was an attack by Afghanistan against the US? If so, you really need to review the facts after removing your emotional and ideological blinders. It is true that the US attacked Afghanistan ostensibly because of 9/11 but that doesn't change the fact that it is impossible to be at war with an organization which doesn't even claim to be the government of anything.
That's semantics. In 2001, AQ had de facto control of Afghanistan. So, if Bush would have called it a "war against Afghanistan" and would have referred to KSM and the others as agents of the entity controlling Afghanistan (or later, "agents of the entity formerly controlling Afghanistan), would have have made you feel better about the legality of calling the captured AQ soldiers "prisoners of war" and denying them things like civilian trials?
What Bush could, would or did call it is legally irrelevant; virtually every one of his assertions regarding these issues have been rejected by US courts including the SCOTUS. KSM was not a soldier, is not "at war" (in a legal sense) with the US and wasn't captured on a battlefield (my recollection is he was captured in a house in Pakistan), so his status to me should have always been a criminal suspect (once he was under US control).
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by no1marauder===Are you seriously claiming that 9/11 was an attack by Afghanistan against the US?===
Nonsense; AQ never had "de facto" control of Afghanistan- the Taliban (an entirely different organization) was in "de facto" control. Are you seriously claiming that 9/11 was an attack by Afghanistan against the US? If so, you really need to review the facts after removing your emotional and ideological blinders. It is true that the US attacked Afghanist ...[text shortened]... status to me should have always been a criminal suspect (once he was under US control).
It was an attack by an organization that was harbored and protected by the then ruling government of Afghanistan against the US. Harboring a group that attacks a different country is also an act of war; as I was telling Gavrilo Princip just the other day.
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76It's interesting to note that your whole point here depends on you changing the 'facts' as you see them, form post to post.
It was an attack by an organization that was harbored and protected by the then ruling government of Afghanistan against the US.
Al Qaeda controlled Afghanistan, one moment.
The Taliban controlled Afghanistan, the next.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban were not one in the same, one moment.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban were one in the same, the next.
Well, at least you're talking about going to war with Afghanistan being "war" and apparently dropping the arrant nonsense about "being at war" with a criminal organization.
26 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I missed the declaration of war against Afghanistan.
===Are you seriously claiming that 9/11 was an attack by Afghanistan against the US?===
It was an attack by an organization that was harbored and protected by the then ruling government of Afghanistan against the US. Harboring a group that attacks a different country is also an act of war; as I was telling Gavrilo Princip just the other day.
In any event, whether the US would have been legally justified to declare war against Afghanistan because of the Taliban's alleged "harboring and protecting" of AQ (a dubious proposition under present IL regarding use of force which is largely governed by the UN Charter), is quite irrelevant to whether KSM was an "enemy combatant". The assassins at Sarajevo were not considered enemy combatants; in fact they were tried in an Austrian-Hungarian court under civilian law; Princip was spared the death penalty because he was under the age of 20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_in_Sarajevo#Trials
Of course, your implication that Austria-Hungary was justified in going to war against Serbia because of the 1914 assassination was rejected by the Allies, including, ultimately, the US and the "war guilt" of the Central Powers was incorporated into the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. That has, of course, been criticized, but the treatment of the precedent you obliquely cited refutes rather than supports your claim.
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76Do you mean in the same way that the IRA was 'harboured and protected' by the US?
===Are you seriously claiming that 9/11 was an attack by Afghanistan against the US?===
It was an attack by an organization that was harbored and protected by the then ruling government of Afghanistan against the US. Harboring a group that attacks a different country is also an act of war; as I was telling Gavrilo Princip just the other day.
Perhaps the Brits should have launched an attack on the US.
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by no1marauderlooks like serbia offered austria-hungary a pretty good deal.
I missed the declaration of war against Afghanistan.
In any event, whether the US would have been legally justified to declare war against Afghanistan because of the Taliban's alleged "harboring and protecting" of AQ (a dubious proposition under present IL regarding use of force which is largely governed by the UN Charter), is quite irreleva ...[text shortened]... e treatment of the precedent you obliquely cited refutes rather than supports your claim.
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Serbian_Response_to_the_Austro-Hungarian_Ultimatum_(English_translation)
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotboing
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 ...[text shortened]... d to convene a tribunal under Article 5 to determine the status of the Taliban detainees.
...
26 Nov 09
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unprivileged_combatant
Unlawful combatant
An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.[1]
Contents
* 1 Introduction
* 2 International law and practice
o 2.1 Prisoners of war
+ 2.1.1 Persons who are not prisoners of war in an international conflict
+ 2.1.2 Persons who are not prisoners of war in an internal conflict
+ 2.1.3 Combatants who do not qualify for POW status
o 2.2 Parole violation
o 2.3 Mercenaries
o 2.4 Child soldiers
* 3 Municipal law
o 3.1 United States
+ 3.1.1 1942 Quirin case
+ 3.1.2 2001 Presidential military order
+ 3.1.3 Legal challenges
+ 3.1.4 Combatant Status Review Tribunal
+ 3.1.5 Military commissions
+ 3.1.6 Supreme Court ruling on Military Commissions Act of 2006
+ 3.1.7 2009
o 3.2 Other countries
* 4 International criticism of unlawful combatant status
* 5 See also
* 6 References
* 7 Further reading
* 8 Footnotes
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotUtter hogwash.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unprivileged_combatant
Unlawful combatant
An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.[1]
Contents
...[text shortened]... mbatant status
* 5 See also
* 6 References
* 7 Further reading
* 8 Footnotes
There is no international basis for this.
It's not in the Geneva convention and it's not upholdable in the international court in the Hague.
Again, you're referring to the banapple cause. Just because some moron screams "Banapple", doesn't actually mean it exists.
And if you look through your link, you'll find I'm right.
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76Uh... The higgins particle?
How am I supposed to find something that I don't believe exists?
If you make an assertion of law, the burden is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.
If you don't believe me on an internet forum... WHO THE HELL CARES???
See. And if I don't have time to go meandering around for you, WHO THE HELL CARES???
Look at it simply, for example.
Most people's passports expire within a 5 year time-frame. Some a 10 year time frame.
If you imprison me in country X for 15 years and then set me free... I don't have a passport to travel with. And why on Earth would country Y accept me back then?
That is the whole issue with refugees as well (you can't just deport people without a passport, no matter how hard the tories or Dutch right-wing parties scream and ball about it).
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by shavixmirthe [1] in the "utter hogwash" is from the Intl Red Cross:
Utter hogwash.
There is no international basis for this.
It's not in the Geneva convention and it's not upholdable in the international court in the Hague.
Again, you're referring to the banapple cause. Just because some moron screams "Banapple", doesn't actually mean it exists.
And if you look through your link, you'll find I'm right.
1. ICRC official statement: The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism, 21 July 2005
...
Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status. Their situation upon capture by the enemy is covered by the Fourth (Civilian) Geneva Convention if they fulfil the nationality criteria and by the relevant provisions of the Additional Protocol I, if ratified by the detaining power.
This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.
...
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotunlawful = criminal
Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status.
Criminals should receive a civilian trial. They do not qualify for prisoner of war status and it strikes me as silly and self-defeating to hand them to the military when they are not lawful combatants.
How were Spain, U.K., Indonesia and India, for example, able to manage to try terrorists without wading through all this counter-intuitive redefining of criminals and brazen contortion of legal principle?
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotSo, they are criminals. Exactly.
the [1] in the "utter hogwash" is from the Intl Red Cross:
1. ICRC official statement: The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism, 21 July 2005
...
Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status. Their situation upon capture by the enemy is covered by the Fourth (Civilian) Geneva Convention if they fulfil the nationality crite ...[text shortened]... ngth of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.
...
Your point being?
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFWhy not just let the Yanks get on with it their way?
unlawful = criminal
Criminals should receive a civilian trial. They do not qualify for prisoner of war status and it strikes me as silly and self-defeating to hand them to the military when they are not lawful combatants.
How were Spain, U.K., Indonesia and India, for example, able to manage to try terrorists without wading through all this counter-intuitive redefining of criminals and brazen contortion of legal principle?