Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

  1. #41
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    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.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #42
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,598

    Re: Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    Which would just end up being used to vilify those who might be trying to protect U.S.A. from private armies,
    How so?................
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #43
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,598

    Re: Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #44
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    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.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #45
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,598

    Re: Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #46
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    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 by RightinNYC; 02-17-10 at 05:23 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #47
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,028

    Re: Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    How so?................
    By blaring propaganda on the news for a few years and highlighting lose connections.
    I'm Finding it Harder to be a Gentleman, White Stripes ~ "You think I care about me and only me. When every girl needs help climbing up a tree."

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Timbuktu
    Last Seen
    01-30-12 @ 08:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,730

    Re: Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

    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?

  9. #49
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,598

    Re: Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #50
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    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
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •