 |
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Sorry Skywalker, but your quote is out of context, and can only be misinterpreted in the fashion that you have chosen if you replace 'is' with 'as', and even then, it doesn't make sense. Furthermore:
quote:
In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.'' 5 |
|
"the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme"
Thus the treaty isn't supreme over the act of Congress - it is at the same leve.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Why would it apply to noncitizens? I understand it applying to residents, but foreign nationals? |
Foreign nationals who visit the US are protected by it. If I visit New York and am accused of committing a robbery then I have the same right to a lawyer etc. as you do.
In addition I have the treaty right to see a representative of my government on demand.
The same is true were you to visit Toronto and be arrested.
EDIT: changed "representative of government" to read "representative of my government"
Last edited by KrazyHorse on 22-07-2003 at 05:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
But they must prove that they are unlawful combatants, and then try them for the crimes committed while under that status. So far, the US has done neither, except spuriously claim the former to be true.
|
My dear sir, you are quite full of shite on this subject. There is no standard regarding "proof" of unlawful combatant status at all - the only requirement, is that a military tribunal, of unspecified form or composition, must determine the status of each individual.
Once an individual is determined to be an unlawful combatant, they essentially have no rights. Read the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
quote:
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
|
If you don't fit into those categories (the Gitmo *******s don't fall under 4A1, 3, 4, 5 or 6, and they fail to satisfy at least two of the four (in some cases, three or all four) of the criteria needed to meet 4A2.
Their status as not falling under the GC was determined before they were ever shipped, and it has been reviewed subsquently, so that a handful who were misidentified or misclassified were repatriated early on. IIRC, that was four individuals or so, out of a little under 1,000 sent to Gitmo, out of some 15,000-20,000 total prisoners processed.
quote:
Prove it! Theres no evidence of that, certainly none that will stand up in a court of law.
|
Prisoners of war have no legal rights to courts of law, why should unlawful combatants?
quote:
Lets not forget that these people are human first, possibly terrorists later.
|
Let's not forget that these *******s weren't entitled to more than a quick bullet in the head, yet we're releasing some as we deem them no longer a thread, and may get around to trying and sentencing a small minority.
quote:
I disagree with the US and sympathise with the Arabs, does that make me a terrorist? 
|
If you get caught with weapons in someplace like Iraq or Afghanistan, without distinguising markings, ignoring the laws and customs of war, and hanging out with like-minded, similarly armed folks, yes. And in that hypothetical, if you didn't end up dead on the spot, anything that happened subsequently is pretty much a bonus, so don't *****.
quote:
So not only have they failed to show that they are unlawful combatants, they have failed to show they are Al Qaeda members, and they have failed to show they are guilty of supposed crimes for which they are incarcerated now!!  |
Believe it or not, honeybuns, but international law does not require that the United States of America put on a show for you personally, or for every other little whiner out there who thinks you're entitled to proof. Unless you personally are a contracting party to any relevant international agreement? 
The first two were determined in a manner that meets the standards required of the Geneva Convention, and since they were determined to be unlawful combatants consistent with that convention, they are entitled to none of it's protections.
If you don't like that, TFB.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
My dear sir, you are quite full of shite on this subject.
|
Thats not very nice is it? *runs crying into toilet*
quote:
There is no standard regarding "proof" of unlawful combatant status at all
|
There is no standard for proof full stop! Beyond reasonable doubt, good evidence for the proposition etc etc. Usual stuff.
quote:
Prisoners of war have no legal rights to courts of law
|
They have no right to a fair trial? That sounds fishy.
quote:
Let's not forget that these *******s weren't entitled to more than a quick bullet in the head
|
My dear sir, you are negating your right to be taken seriously with **** like that.
quote:
If you get caught with weapons in someplace like Iraq or Afghanistan, without distinguising markings, ignoring the laws and customs of war, and hanging out with like-minded, similarly armed folks, yes
|
Theres no legal barrier to that being the case for me, yet I can be captured and placed in terrible conditions like Guantanamo, tried under an unfair military tribunal and if found guilty (unfairly), executed, yet I have committed no crime?? It may be legal, but it sucks!!
quote:
Believe it or not, honeybuns, but international law does not require that the United States of America put on a show for you personally, or for every other little whiner out there who thinks you're entitled to proof.
|
Then they cannot expect me to take them seriously. Of course, they say big deal, but wait 20 years 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
MtG,
quote:
(a) Warfighting is an executive branch business (since the President is also Commander in Chief) and is not otherwise regulated by the Constitution. |
Except, of course, insofar that Congress has the sole authority to declare war and the sole authority to either fund it, or not to fund it. Because of this, Congress can also extract varying amounts of oversight.
And for everyone,
Wouldn't a better question be whether the treatment of the prisoners is RIGHT, rather than wheter it is LEGAL?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Why would it apply to noncitizens? I understand it applying to residents, but foreign nationals? |
Because, my dear Watson, at the time the Constitution was ratified, it enacted the United States of America as a distinct sovereign state, essentially consisting of a federation (or Confederation  ) of previously existing sovereign states. The Constitution expressly acknowledges duality of citizenship, in the form of citizenship of a state, and of the United States.
Prior to ratification, there was no vslifly existing "United States of America" and thus no citizenship thereof. The Framers were also smart enough to figure that in the course of commerce, trading or acquiring territory, banking, etc., that non-citizens might become citizens, and that non-citizens would also have normal contact with the US government and legal system.
It's generally much simpler to have one recognized legal system with uniform rules for all before it - the two areas of exception that have long been recognized are military law and admiralty or maritime law.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Because, my dear Watson, at the time the Constitution was ratified, it enacted the United States of America as a distinct sovereign state, essentially consisting of a federation (or Confederation ) of previously existing sovereign states. The Constitution expressly acknowledges duality of citizenship, in the form of citizenship of a state, and of the United States.
Prior to ratification, there was no vslifly existing "United States of America" and thus no citizenship thereof. The Framers were also smart enough to figure that in the course of commerce, trading or acquiring territory, banking, etc., that non-citizens might become citizens, and that non-citizens would also have normal contact with the US government and legal system.
It's generally much simpler to have one recognized legal system with uniform rules for all before it - the two areas of exception that have long been recognized are military law and admiralty or maritime law. |
Ok, thanks.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-07-2003 05:30
).
MtG
|