• 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!

Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

Based on what?

Based on the Third Geneva Convention:

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces

4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);

that of carrying arms openly;

that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.

4.1.5 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.

4.1.6 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.

4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

The Tallies don't follow the international rules of war, carry ID cards, nor wear uniforms, or insignia distinguishing themselves as combatants and not civilian non-combatants.
 
Article 47.-Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

( a ) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

( b ) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

( c ) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

( d ) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

( e ) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

( f ) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)

===========================
 
I agree that we shouldn't de-citizen people under any circumstances. That would be completely unprecedented in the United States, and I *really* don't think we should go down that path. I could easily see this being abused.

And it would violate Article 15 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, to which the United States is a signatory.

Not to mention the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments.

But don’t worry about our constitution, the way it’s upheld these days, we may as well not have one.
 
Based on the Third Geneva Convention:

The Tallies don't follow the international rules of war, carry ID cards, nor wear uniforms, or insignia distinguishing themselves as combatants and not civilian non-combatants.

....do you know what "to include" means?
 
....do you know what "to include" means?

Do you know what, "provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions", means?

4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
 
Do you know what, "provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions", means?

Wow you really can not read :

4.1.1

is not

under

4.1.2.

Get it now?

Here I'll put it in a quote so you understand :

4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
 
Last edited:
Wow you really can not read :

4.1.1

is not

under

4.1.2.

Get it now?

Under 4.1.2 enemy combatants who are, "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements", rate protections as legal combatants under the Geneva Convention if they,

fulfill all of the following conditions:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);

that of carrying arms openly;

that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The Taliban doesn't fulfill all of those provisions. As far as I know, they don't fulfill any of them.

Get it now?
 
Under 4.1.2 enemy combatants who are, "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements", rate protections as legal combatants under the Geneva Convention if they,

The Taliban doesn't fulfill all of those provisions. As far as I know, they don't fulfill any of them.

Get it now?

That is because they would fit under 4.1.1 - Wow. This is really tedious. The Taliban are a party to the conflict. They do not fit under 4.1.2 they fit under 4.1.1
 
Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists | TPMCafe




I am really, really not comfortable with revoking citizenship under any circumstances. Even if they are standing in the middle of a terrorist training camp teaching people how to shoot a rifle. Nor am I comfortable with "kill orders" being issued for any Americans.

I mean, if an airstrike hits the camp and an American happens to be there, well, it's their own damn fault for being there. But deliberately targeting Americans for assassination? Argh.

"Capture if able" orders are fine. Bag em and tag em, stick them on a plane and send them home to answer for their crimes to a jury of their peers. If a guy shoots at the soldiers trying to apprehend him, well, that's a dumbass idea and he'll probably get killed for it.

I voted for change. I got Bush III.
What the hell good is this going to do, Obama will still try them in court like they were citizens.
 
Any American citizen whom engages in armed conflict against the United States is guilty of treason. There's no technicality, according to the law.

Just because someone is guilty of treason doesn't mean they stop being a citizen of the United States.
 
That is because they would fit under 4.1.1 - Wow. This is really tedious. The Taliban are a party to the conflict. They do not fit under 4.1.2 they fit under 4.1.1

Either way, they aren't following the rules set about by the GC. It's already assumed in 4.1.1 that they

fulfill all of the following conditions:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);

that of carrying arms openly;

that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Again, the Taliban doesn't meet any of these provisions.
 
Just because someone is guilty of treason doesn't mean they stop being a citizen of the United States.

No, but if they serve with a foreign army and take up arms against the United States, it is legal to revoke their citizenship.
 
No, but if they serve with a foreign army and take up arms against the United States, it is legal to revoke their citizenship.

Which would just end up being used to vilify those who might be trying to protect U.S.A. from private armies, if they go unchecked by our government or friendly foreign armies to our complacent government that are being used for wrong purposes. I cant imagine many people crossing over and chosing to lose their US status for some enemy. But, I could imagine people getting tired of their government and starting New America. Looks like this is a nip in the butt to any future civil wars that might ever start.

I think America will never fall so long as the people keep it peaceful. Once new age Paul Reveres cross America instead the controlling fear mongers will have met their match.
 
This isn't something that someone just dreamed up in the past few years. It's the law.

The fact that something has been on the books doesn't mean it's automatically legal.

Because according to the Geneva Convention, they don't fall under the definition of a legal combatant, nor is the Taliban a signatory of the Geneva Convention and only signatories of the Geneva Convention rate protections under the articles of the Geneva Convention

But Afghanistan was, and as you pointed out, the Taliban was Afghanistan.

Either way, they aren't following the rules set about by the GC. It's already assumed in 4.1.1 that they...

No, it's not already assumed in 4.1.1 that they do anything.

The law says:

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, fulfill 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.

Subcategories (a)-(d) apply only to category 2. That's just how things work.
 
The fact that something has been on the books doesn't mean it's automatically legal.

It's automatically legal, until the Supreme Court overturns it.











No, it's not already assumed in 4.1.1 that they do anything.

If it wasn't already assumed that they would be the official armed forces of a recognized state that already meets the requirements of the GC, i.e. wearing uniforms, then those provisions in 4.2.1 wouldn't need to be mentioned in the text of the law. Unless you're suggesting that resistance fighters and other irregular forces have to meet these requirements and regular government forces do not.
 
It's automatically legal, until the Supreme Court overturns it.

1) It doesn't have to be the Supreme Court
2) This depends on your theory of judicial review, but that's not really relevant
3) Even if everything you said were true, that doesn't do anything to advance the ball. The fact that the court has not yet ruled on something does not bear on the status of that law going forward.

If it wasn't already assumed that they would be the official armed forces of a recognized state that already meets the requirements of the GC, i.e. wearing uniforms, then those provisions in 4.2.1 wouldn't need to be mentioned in the text of the law. Unless you're suggesting that resistance fighters and other irregular forces have to meet these requirements and regular government forces do not.

I'm suggesting that you're grossly misreading the Convention. What you're arguing is just completely illogical.

Imagine this law:

"The following people get jury trials:

1) All US citizens

2) Non-citizens who are:
a) accused of murder, and
b) over 6 feet tall"


Now imagine a US citizen who is 5 foot 9 and accused of shoplifting. Is he entitled to a jury trial under this law?

Of course. The fact that he doesn't meet the qualifications of section 2 is of no relevance, since he meets all the qualifications of section 1.

If they wanted those requirements to apply to everyone, they would have said so.
 
1) It doesn't have to be the Supreme Court
2) This depends on your theory of judicial review, but that's not really relevant
3) Even if everything you said were true, that doesn't do anything to advance the ball. The fact that the court has not yet ruled on something does not bear on the status of that law going forward.



I'm suggesting that you're grossly misreading the Convention. What you're arguing is just completely illogical.

Imagine this law:

"The following people get jury trials:

1) All US citizens

2) Non-citizens who are:
a) accused of murder, and
b) over 6 feet tall"


Now imagine a US citizen who is 5 foot 9 and accused of shoplifting. Is he entitled to a jury trial under this law?

Of course. The fact that he doesn't meet the qualifications of section 2 is of no relevance, since he meets all the qualifications of section 1.

If they wanted those requirements to apply to everyone, they would have said so.

I'm misreading the GC and nowhere does it require legal combatants to carry there arms in the open, nor wear uniforms? That's basically how you're interpretting Article 4.

Let's take another look at Article 4, specifically parapraphs 1 and 2:

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, fulfill the following conditions:

Why would it be necessary to note that , "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps" meet those specific provisions, if it wasn't already understood that regular forces already do meet those provisions?
 
I'm misreading the GC and nowhere does it require legal combatants to carry there arms in the open, nor wear uniforms? That's basically how you're interpretting Article 4.

Let's take another look at Article 4, specifically parapraphs 1 and 2:



Why would it be necessary to note that , "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps" meet those specific provisions, if it wasn't already understood that regular forces already do meet those provisions?

You've just highlighted the answer to your question:

Section 1 covers the regular armed forces of a party (e.g. the US Army) as well as any militias or volunteer corps that are recognized as part of the armed forces (e.g. a less formal version of the National Guard). Groups under Section 1 are automatically covered.

Section 2 covers other militias and other volunteer corps (e.g. Joe's White Pride Traveling Militia). Groups under Section 2 are only covered if they meet the additional requirements listed.

edit: If you go back and actually bother to read the example I provided for you in my last post, you'll understand why you're reading this incorrectly.
 
Last edited:
First the Patriot Act that makes it legal to arrest anyone and hold them forever by simply stating they are a suspected terrorist. The arrested person has no rights to trial or no rights to due process of the law.

Then the new and seperate "security" force called "Homeland Security" that takes orders only from the Whitehouse that uses the Patriot Act...When we already have the FBI, etc...

Now talk of getting a law in place to make it legal to "strip" citizenship of these accused terrorists and make it legal to kill them.


Anyone see a pattern here or are you all frogs in a pot of water?
 
You've just highlighted the answer to your question:

Section 1 covers the regular armed forces of a party (e.g. the US Army) as well as any militias or volunteer corps that are recognized as part of the armed forces (e.g. a less formal version of the National Guard). Groups under Section 1 are automatically covered.

Section 2 covers other militias and other volunteer corps (e.g. Joe's White Pride Traveling Militia). Groups under Section 2 are only covered if they meet the additional requirements listed.

edit: If you go back and actually bother to read the example I provided for you in my last post, you'll understand why you're reading this incorrectly.

So, you're telling me that regular forces aren't required by the international rules of war to wear uniforms and carry their weapons in the open during operations?
 
So, you're telling me that regular forces aren't required by the international rules of war to wear uniforms and carry their weapons in the open during operations?

I'm telling you that regardless of what they wear or how secretive they are, members of a signatory state's regular forces are unquestionably covered by the Geneva Conventions. Even John Yoo, as narrow a reader of the GC as you'll find, acknowledges the distinction (although he argues that the Taliban should not be covered for entirely different reasons).

http://www.antiwar.com/rep/020109_yoomemo_21-30.pdf
 
Back
Top Bottom