TristarAtLCA
Topic Author
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

US Drops 'enemy Combatant' Term

Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:20 pm

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
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: US Drops 'enemy Combatant' Term

Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:08 pm

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.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9803
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: US Drops 'enemy Combatant' Term

Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:33 pm



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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
NorthstarBoy
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:53 pm

RE: US Drops 'enemy Combatant' Term

Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:31 am



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.
Yes, I'd like to see airbus go under so Boeing can have their customers!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9803
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: US Drops 'enemy Combatant' Term

Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:31 am



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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8527
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: US Drops 'enemy Combatant' Term

Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:52 am



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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9803
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: US Drops 'enemy Combatant' Term

Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:17 am



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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Braybuddy, coolian2 and 28 guests