• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees

Ethereal said:
Show me the exact text to which you're referring.

Also, I noticed you omitted any Constitutionally-based argument; wise choice.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Article 3...

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. . ."
 
dragondad said:
Best legal practices! That's funny. The Supreme Court effectivley but the kabash on these illegal show trials...

Do you know anything about the Law or Constitution?
Click to expand...

What follows is a quote from the NPR site paraphrasing Justice Stevens in the finding that the Bush administration exceeded its authority:

"The president, Stevens wrote, is required both by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions to use regularly constituted military courts, not special courts with special rules, to try accused war criminals."

"The court said that military commissions have historically been conducted within the confines of the rules laid down under the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- the UCMJ. The glaring exception to this rule, the court noted, was the trial of Japanese General Tomoyuki Yama****a after World War II for failing to control his rampaging troops."

"Partly because of the subsequent criticism of that trial, the court said, the UCMJ was expanded to cover those who, like Yama****a, are accused of war crimes. Thus, war crimes trials must be conducted under the same rules as courts martial, with some flexibility permitted to meet exigent circumstances."

So, as you can see, it was a structural and technical issue, not totally bogus. It's okay to have tribunals but they have to be structures like courts martial with some flexibility. Well now, that's perfectly clear.
 
JakeFromWI said:
Sorry, Article 3...

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. . ."
Click to expand...

Non-uniformed combatants do not garner recognition from the GC.
 
In accordance to Article 4, you are correct however Article 3 pertains to exactly what were talking about, non-uniformed combatants and civilians...
 
Here's some comment, again from NPR, on the dissenting opinions from that Supreme Court finding. I don't think they thought their counterparts were being judicial rather than political.

"Dissenting were Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Scalia and Thomas each delivered impassioned dissents from the bench, castigating the court majority for substituting its judgment for the president's."

"Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate in the decision because, as a lower court judge, he joined a decision upholding the military commission trials. That decision was reversed by Thursday's ruling."

Open and shut...no doubt!
 
JakeFromWI said:
In accordance to Article 4, you are correct however Article 3 pertains to exactly what were talking about, non-uniformed combatants and civilians...
Click to expand...

I see no indication in the language of that article which would suggest non-uniformed combatants are even acknowledged, let alone protected.
 
Ethereal said:
I see no indication in the language of that article which would suggest non-uniformed combatants are even acknowledged, let alone protected.
Click to expand...

Non-uniformed combatants aren't protected by the GC. They're considered to be nothing more than common criminals and can be shot on sight.
 
apdst said:
Non-uniformed combatants aren't protected by the GC. They're considered to be nothing more than common criminals and can be shot on sight.
Click to expand...

Actually, common criminals cannot be shot on sight.
 
stekim said:
Actually, common criminals cannot be shot on sight.
Click to expand...

Uh, yes they can. That's the reason that the Geneva Convention took special care to say that mercenaries can be regarded as common criminals, in a combat theater. In military operations, looters and other common criminals can be shot on sight. Therein lies the difference between lawful combatants who rate the protections described by the GC and non-uniformed, or illegal combatants who do not. Lawful combatants cannot be summarily executed, common criminals, illegal combatants, spies and mercenaries can.
 
dragondad said:
Sound like you are outraged that laws were broken?

Finally! We have a true law and order Conservative! I thought they were extinct!

Or do we?

Tell us! Are you concerned when anyone breaks the law or only when the "bad guys" break the law?

Also please post threads started by yourself that expressed outrage or concern for lawbreaking under the Bush Administration?

I'll glady send you $10 per link for your time!

It's worth it to me to show this forum that we still have a true law and order Conservatives who stand for the Rule of Law in our midst rather than some typical right wing Authoritarian who only cares about laws when the other side is doing the law breaking.

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

who the **** are you, and what makes you think you got everybody here figured out already?

sockpuppet?
 
dragondad said:
Sound like you are outraged that laws were broken?

Finally! We have a true law and order Conservative! I thought they were extinct!

Or do we?

Tell us! Are you concerned when anyone breaks the law or only when the "bad guys" break the law?

Also please post threads started by yourself that expressed outrage or concern for lawbreaking under the Bush Administration?

I'll glady send you $10 per link for your time!

It's worth it to me to show this forum that we still have a true law and order Conservatives who stand for the Rule of Law in our midst rather than some typical right wing Authoritarian who only cares about laws when the other side is doing the law breaking.

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Attention-Caution.jpg
 
Redress said:
Let's not jump the gun here. From your source:
Click to expand...

The Post is being cautious because they don't know for sure which agents were photographed and what was said. That doesn't make what these people did any less despicable.

There are some real questions here, and I stick with my consistent point in any case of possible wrongdoing, since there is evidence of possible wrongdoing, investigate and if there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing, prosecute. Right now, all we have is vague accusations, which is not enough to convict on, so let's back off the over the top rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I'm not just talking about criminal wrongdoing - this appears to be unethical at the least.
 
dragondad said:
Sound like you are outraged that laws were broken?

Finally! We have a true law and order Conservative! I thought they were extinct!

Or do we?

Tell us! Are you concerned when anyone breaks the law or only when the "bad guys" break the law?

Also please post threads started by yourself that expressed outrage or concern for lawbreaking under the Bush Administration?

I'll glady send you $10 per link for your time!

It's worth it to me to show this forum that we still have a true law and order Conservatives who stand for the Rule of Law in our midst rather than some typical right wing Authoritarian who only cares about laws when the other side is doing the law breaking.

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...dnt-require-reporting-fraud-while-abroad.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/14434-ney-pleads-guilty-will-resign-u-s-congress.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/21896-senator-sorry-after-number-appears-d-c-madams-list.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...e-special-treatment-us-lawmakers-reports.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ilty-following-incident-airport-restroom.html

Five of my threads describing wrongdoing on the part of Republicans.

Send that $50 right here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/payments.php
 
RightinNYC said:
The Post is being cautious because they don't know for sure which agents were photographed and what was said. That doesn't make what these people did any less despicable.



I'm not just talking about criminal wrongdoing - this appears to be unethical at the least.
Click to expand...

I know I would not have done it, but if it is not illegal, there really isn't anything we can do about it.
 
 
Redress said:
I know I would not have done it, but if it is not illegal, there really isn't anything we can do about it.
Click to expand...

Even if the government doesn't end up determining that any laws were broken, there are still ethical considerations to be brought up to the judge or to the state bars.
 
RightinNYC said:
Even if the government doesn't end up determining that any laws were broken, there are still ethical considerations to be brought up to the judge or to the state bars.
Click to expand...

So they could still be punished even if it is not actually illegal? If the rules are there, I got no problem with that, though you probably could have guessed that.
 
Redress said:
So they could still be punished even if it is not actually illegal? If the rules are there, I got no problem with that, though you probably could have guessed that.
Click to expand...

Yea, it would be a punishment by the state bar association or by the judge if they find that their actions violate legal ethics rules. Not a criminal thing.
 
Redress said:
I know I would not have done it, but if it is not illegal, there really isn't anything we can do about it.
Click to expand...

Exposing the identity of covert operators is illegal. There was a Congressional act passed in 1982 that made such exposures illegal. There's very little question about this being illegal.
 
The only thing amazing about this is the reaction of the hyper-partisan liberals. :shock:

Even I did not expect that kind of reaction. Wow.

They need to investigate and then punish the guilty party's.
 
JakeFromWI said:
Thier status as "unlawful combatants" with no right to habeus corpus and detainment without probable cause or further rights is also unlawful.
Click to expand...

Labeling them unlawful combatants and denying them Habeus Corpus is not unlawful. They are not citizens, they are not civilians, they are not common criminals, and they are not soldiers as codified under the Geneva Conventions, so what are they? Clearly they are unlawful combatants. They have the rights to be tried by military tribunal, and if convicted imprisoned or executed, the same as FDR did with the German Saboteurs who were actually captured on American soil, actions which were found completely Constitutional under the Ex Parte Quirin decision of the SCOTUS. The only difference in these cases is that FDR was smart enough not inform the public and get them high priced ACLU lawyers.
 
JakeFromWI said:
I say we look to our Constitution and to International law for an answer. It is understood that it's easier said than done. Thank you kindly for the clarifications though.
Click to expand...

Yes check out the preamble of the Constitution first, these are non-citizens, whereas the Constitution was created by the "People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," so first of all the Constitution doesn't even apply to these people, but let's assume falsely that the founders ever intended the Constitution to apply to foreign war criminals, next we can go to Article 1 Section 9 which reads: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it," now foreign jihadists crossing our borders posing as average innocent foreign nationals going about murdering U.S. civilians by the thousands would certainly constitute as both an invasion and an insurrection.

Now we can move onto international law, the Geneva Conventions are quite clear on who is and who is not entitled to POW status and Geneva Convention protections:

"Art 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."

Oops they don't fall under a,b,c, or d.
 
JakeFromWI said:
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention
Click to expand...

I suggest you read it they clearly don't fall under the conditions necessary to be labeled POW's, they are not commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, they do not have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, they do not carrying arms openly and they sure as hell do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Tell me what subsection of Article 4 do you believe they fall under?
 
JakeFromWI said:
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. . ."
Click to expand...

The military commissions became regularly constituted courts as soon as the MCA was passed by Congress.

Regardless the SCOTUS's reading of Common Article 3 is a bold faced farce, "not of an international character" is in clear reference to a civil war, by definition these are international terrorists. :roll:
 
RightinNYC said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...dnt-require-reporting-fraud-while-abroad.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/14434-ney-pleads-guilty-will-resign-u-s-congress.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/21896-senator-sorry-after-number-appears-d-c-madams-list.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...e-special-treatment-us-lawmakers-reports.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ilty-following-incident-airport-restroom.html

Five of my threads describing wrongdoing on the part of Republicans.

Send that $50 right here: Debate Politics Forums
Click to expand...

Here is what I wrote.

""please post threads started by yourself that expressed outrage or concern for lawbreaking under the Bush Administration?"

Unable to do this....you go off and list 5 lame links where you were criticizing Congress as a whole (your number #1 link) or GOP Congressman after they admitted or were found guilty of wrongdoing (links #2-5)

I'll ask you again!!! Can you please post a link where you were critical or questioning of the Bush Administration for alleged lawbreaking?

Here is you questioning whether it is OK for Government to lie to the public.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/6023-does-government-have-right-lie-its-citizens.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom