Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Drops 'enemy Combatant' Term  
User currently offlineTristarAtLCA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 616 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1241 times:

The US DoJ has announced they will no longer use the controversial term and will hold people in accordance with International law standards for war.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7943114.stm


If you was right..................I'd agree with you
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1204 times:

Detainees will instead be held according to legal standards set by the international laws of war, it says.

If that is the case then article 84 of the Geneva Conventions applies and they should be tried by a military court.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 84

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1187 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 1):
If that is the case then article 84 of the Geneva Conventions applies and they should be tried by a military court.

Article 84 only applies if there is a specific war crime to charge them with, generally only true for senior AQ leaders. Otherwise they are kept as POWs without trial, until the war is over. No lawyers, but they will be visited by the Red Cross.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1826 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1146 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Article 84 only applies if there is a specific war crime to charge them with, generally only true for senior AQ leaders. Otherwise they are kept as POWs without trial, until the war is over. No lawyers, but they will be visited by the Red Cross.

in otherwords they could potentially be held for the rest of their lives, that seems like kind of a slap in the face to everything we as americans stand for. IMO, we need to either try them in open criminal court, or let them go, because this war against terrorism really will be no different than the war on drugs or the Johnson era war on poverty, basically it'll never end.



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1130 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 3):
in otherwords they could potentially be held for the rest of their lives, that seems like kind of a slap in the face to everything we as americans stand for.

What's unamerican about it? Don't we lock up other killers for life? Are we to treat them any different than any other POWs? We kept Germans, Japanese, and Italians until the war was over. The whole purpose of holding POWs is keeping them from rejoining the fight, and now we have a track record showing a large number of former detainees released into the wild and doing just that, and then going out and killing innocent Iraqis, Afghans, or American troops. I consider the blood of those people to be on the hands of those who insisted on "try them or let them go". That standard is an impossible one. Soldiers are not cops. They don't collect forensic evidence and so on.

The other solution is to order our troops not to ever take prisoners any more. However history has shown that such a solution only causes the enemy to fight more fanatically.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8135 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1118 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
I consider the blood of those people to be on the hands of those who insisted on "try them or let them go". That standard is an impossible one. Soldiers are not cops. They don't collect forensic evidence and so on.

Except that the DoD itself was trying to forge its own way through the mire until civilians stepped in and started telling them how to run the show. The blame for those who were released ultimately falls on the Bush administration and Don Rumsfeld specifically for laying down a detention system without giving the military a clear directive on how to implement the system until it had already been in place for a year - at which time they created a convoluted duality where the mission itself was difficult for commanders to achieve.

"We are writing the book as we go," one officer said at the time. Lehnert said he had been told by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the Geneva Conventions would not technically apply to his mission: He was to act in a manner "consistent with" the conventions (as the mantra went) but not to feel bound by them. The Joint Task Force, advised by U.S. Southern Command, was essentially left on its own to improvise a regime of care and custody for the allegedly hardened al-Qaeda terrorists -- whom the Bush administration famously called "the worst of the worst" -- who would be coming their way. The idea, as Lehnert told me he understood it, was to detain them and wait for a legal process to begin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2009/01/23/AR2009012302313_pf.html



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8838 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1113 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 5):
The blame for those who were released ultimately falls on the Bush administration and Don Rumsfeld specifically for laying down a detention system without giving the military a clear directive on how to implement the system until it had already been in place for a year - at which time they created a convoluted duality where the mission itself was difficult for commanders to achieve.

I agree with that. Though to be fair, it was a kind of warfare that the Geneva Conventions and other international law never anticipated.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Has The US Now Made An Eternal Enemy In The Arabs? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 04:56:41 by Derico
One Term Limit For US Presidents? posted Sat Nov 5 2005 16:51:30 by TPASXM787
Outsourcing In The US - Long Term posted Tue Jun 28 2005 08:24:39 by AirxLiban
Poll: Opinion Of US Global Role Drops In Europe posted Sat Sep 6 2003 01:16:21 by PHX-LJU
As Tax Hikes Loom, US Capital Flees Nation posted Thu Mar 12 2009 09:04:53 by PPVRA
China Harasses US Navy Ship. 9 Mar 2009 posted Mon Mar 9 2009 07:36:10 by Mirrodie
Where To Exchange 45,000 Fcfa In The US? posted Fri Mar 6 2009 08:15:27 by MaverickM11
All-New 2011 VW Polo To Be Launched In US/Canada! posted Mon Mar 2 2009 15:27:15 by StasisLAX
US Army Email posted Mon Mar 2 2009 12:54:35 by Chi-town
Hot US TV Stars! posted Wed Feb 25 2009 09:37:21 by CHRISBA777ER