Talk:Unlawful combatant/Archive 4

message: * Talk:Unlawful combatant/Archive 1
* Talk:Unlawful combatant/Archive Illegal enemy combatant
* Talk:Unlawful combatant/Archive 2
See Archive 2 for the history of talk page before this time stamp Philip Baird Shearer 16:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: (Part II) Now regarding fundementalist crazies. Yes, they are deluded by religion, hence therefore we must treat them as children. We must in essence, create conservators or guardianships, administrated by secular rulers in cahoots with the Western forces of Dar al Harb because they are incapable of making decisions for themselves.  We can speak lofty of human rights, but in this particular case, we adjudge them as being incapable of negotiating and playing by the same rules as the civilized world does.  Their refusal to abide by the Laws of Civilized Nations ( as referenced in the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, renders them "uncivilized", and we can only pretend their alliegence to Islam is not what it is).  This creates a politically incorrect problem for International Law, cause the true interpreation of Islam appears "uncivilized", under our own Western dictatated definitions of International Law.
They are at war with the enemies of God.  The United States Constitution, the United Nations Charter, and the Geneva Convention, are all blasphemous against Allah, presupposing that man can take Allah's place. They seek to destroy all these infidel insitutions and replace it with Shar'ia (the way, or path).  We, in our arrogance, deem them unfit to exercise their own God-given rights, because of course, we are enemies of Allah.  Hence we seek to impose the Geneva Convention upon them, an institution they themselves are at war with. (Save all the arguements about how we really seek to impose its restraints upon ourselves til later, irregardless of whether these legally incapacitated children agree or not).  The problem is, we are not dealing with children here.  These persons know and understand full well the issues involved, and better, I might say, than the average Western does.  They may even interpret enforcement of the Geneva Convention on them as violation of their rights, cause it once again imposes a system of Western hegemony (i.e., the encrouchment of the forces of Dar al Harb within the historical lands of Dar al Salam) upon them. (end Part II) Nobs01 17:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum. I suggest trying www.blogger.com --Ben 00:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page 3

message: *Unlawful combatants may retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention in that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".
*However as the United States' courts have not yet ruled that any of the detainees have faced a "competent military tribunal", this phrase is not a legal description of the detainees' status.
:These sentences in the opening of article seem contradictory, but it may be that I am misreading them, can someone give a clarification, or possibly reword it.  Where does the idea that they must face a "competent military tribunal" before they are labeled come from? Can we get a reference or a link there? -bro 172.172.94.62 05:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we can assume then that the supreme court provided this 'doubt'.  I'm not all too familiar with that particular ruling, I'll try to give it a read over, or perhaps someone who has already might be able to shine a light on it.  The wording of article 5 itself doesn't lend itself to the idea that they must face a tribunal to be classified as an unlawful combatant, but I've certainly seen stranger rulings.  Regards. -bro 172.164.13.81 10:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: I added the Reuters report to the paragraph which used the DoD Combatant Status Review Tribunals Updates, to present a more NPOV to the paragraph and I am going to revert the change to the paragraph to keep the NPOV. To explain why I will answer the two points raised by GPS Pilot in the history:
:The Reuters article contains two comments in favour of the tribunals, and one critical comment. Selectively, only the critical comment had been reproduced here. Now all three appear. 05:57, 29 June 2005 GPS Pilot
There is no need to mention the two DOD official to because to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies "Well, they would, wouldn't they"? and the first half of the paragraph reports that the DoD has stated that their internal procedures have met the criteria for GCIII art 5 for a "competent tribunal". But as they were forced to do this by the U.S. Supreme Court, many (not just thoses sympathetic to the detainees alledged cause,) are not sure that the tribunals were fair and impartial and they will continue to think that until the Supreme Court rules on them.  The comment by one of the detainees lawyers is a way to balance the DoD statement.
:What is the point of reporting that only four unlawful combatants have been charged? Prisoners of war are not charged with crimes, and unlawful combatants have fewer rights then prisoners of war. 05:34, 29 June 2005 GPS Pilot
Yes they do have fewer rights than POWs but if they were unlawful combatants then they should be charged with war crimes or crimes against humanity. That so few have been charged suggests that the DoD's case of them being war criminals may not be very strong, or that the punishment for the crimes that they have committed would not produce very long sentences. For example if a person was fighting out of uniform, but had not killed anyone, then given the length of sentences issued in the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse the might well walk free given the time they had already spent in prison.  Either way that so few have been charged is note worthy. --Philip Baird Shearer 4 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)
::I don't see that as true. There is no need to be charged with anything. Engaging in combat is sufficient alone to detain for the duration of the conflict. Engaging in combat unlawfully is suffficent to strip you of Convention protection as I read it, same as being a national not covered by the Convention. So there is no need to charge with war crimes or otherwise. Also, the Supreme Court ruling is not apropo because Gitmo is under US control such that additional military tribunalsand due process is afforded Gitmo prisoners, including habeas corpus. The ruling is not based on Gen. Con.. Cyferx 05:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reuters report

message: I am reverting the introduction back to a simpler one used earlier in the year because the current one is full of inaccuracies. For example "is a spy, saboteur or a terrorist" This is just not true. The SAS are saboteurs but they fight in uniform so are not unlawful combatants. What is a terrorist? There is no mention of them in the Geneva conventions. What about unlawful combatants who are mercenaries, or soldier who have breached the law of war through perfidy? etc, etc.
:There are many special cases, as well, including those in recent years of armed militants who are deemed not to enjoy protection of the Geneva Convention (GC) on the grounds that they are not part of any country which is a treaty signator.
This has not changed in recent years and is a POV statement. (It might be a American legal POV but that does not make it any less true under international law). What has changed in recent years is the introduction of the International Criminal Court and that more countries have signed up for Protocol I which will become part of international law binding on all eventually if enough sign up to it. See Judgement : The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity: Several of the belligerents in the recent war were not parties to this Convention [ Hague Convention of 1907]. In the opinion of the Tribunal it is not necessary to decide this question. The rules of land warfare expressed in the Convention undoubtedly represented an advance over existing international law at the time of their adoption. But the Convention expressly stated that it was an attempt "to revise the general laws and customs of war," which it thus recognised to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in Article 6 (b) of the Charter.
:Nevertheless, many Western advocates who oppose America's conduct in the War on Terrorism advocate extension of combatant status to unlawful combatants, claiming various humanitarian, legal and political grounds. There is the humanitarian idea that everyone should get a fair trial. There is the legal theory that the Geneva Convention automatically applies to all enemies of treaty signatories. There is the political idea that requiring America to extend GC protection to its detainees is good, because it will otherwise undermine its military strategy.
This is just US specific and should go in "United States" section if anywhere.
--Philip Baird Shearer 09:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: *Keeping only the Israel reference, which has source. The UK doesn't use this concept, as you can read in this 2002 Parliament report. I'm also removing the Boer War reference, where the term doesn't appears either (or i missed it). Tazmaniacs 02:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, were they officially designated "unlawful combatant?" We are not to speculate or interpret what might be, just report.--Nomen Nescio 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK do not use "unlawful combatant" new concept 

message: Please discuss your POV edits. Altering quotations from legal scholars into your POV does not constitute a good faith edit. You help is welcome but you might first want to read WP:POINT, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:Civility. Nomen Nescio 16:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PeaceThroughStrength

message: It is clear that there is a single person running this page as a personal political attack page.  This needs to stop.  He overrides the edits of others on a regular basis.  He makes ad-hominem attacks against others; assumes that the US violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (without reliable backing), and considers articles 2&4 of the Geneva conventions III and IV "loopholes", and hence, refuses to discuss them in detail in "his" page, even though they are central to the discussion, and were written for a good reason which is applicable.  He cites his references from one side.  He claims more in the citation than the citation actually says.  He does not note the long history of military tribunals for and executions of those fighting in the war who do not meet the definition of lawful combatants, such as  (execution of Israelis by the British as unlawful combatants), and , and going back into the 18th century and beyond .
On top of that, he shows his bias in:
Adding a bizarre paragraph stating that those who wrote legal opinions based upon articles 2&4 of the Geneva conventions have committed war crimes, and goes on to imply that I should be tried for war crimes in the discussion, for noting that the Geneva Conventions have limiting clauses stating where they apply.  Not a big fan of free speech, evidently.
Assuming that the US stance on the Geneva Conventions has no basis in law, where the US difference from european countries is primarily due to not being a signatory to the additional protocol Protocol I.  Some of his citations try to say it applies anyway, even though the US is not a signatory.  The US didn't sign it for this reason, among others that would limit its ability to effectively fight wars.
As this person has shown his extreme bias and resistance to a neutral point of view, I will offer to protect the edits of others from his depredations.  
If any of you will listen, I will also offer a case-by-case refutation of his sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceThroughStrength (talk • contribs) 
: Of course I will listen, you might even start by answering the questions in the previous paragraph, and stop misrepresenting my comments. Don't forget Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, dispute resolution, WP:Civility, WP:POINT, WP:TIGERS, WP:NPA. Do explain why Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UN, the Council of Europe, the American Bar Association, several law professors are all wrong, but you are capable of making the only correct interpretation.  Nomen Nescio 19:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep forgetting to sign. It is easy just use four tildes. As to mediation, as long as we can discuss the matter in a civil manner I don't see the need. Let's start with the definition you offered. In what Textbook of law can I find it? Nomen Nescio 09:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defend your edits! 

message: Here's a point of view from 2 former Justice Department lawyers:
:the Supreme Court has not required that the Geneva Conventions be applied in the war on terror; neither members of al Qaeda nor their allies, including members of the Taliban, must be granted POW status because of the Hamdan decision. 
Rivkin and Casey suggest that Bush opponents are misreading Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. I'd like to see their POV included in the article, to balance out the anti-Bush POV. --Wing Nut 13:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not relevant since this ruling says nothing about POW/unlawful combatant status. What exactly is it you want to mention?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POW, civilian, or what?

message: This article appears to put in a few token comments of the basis of the theory of what an unlawful combatant is, and then has about ten times as much content claiming to disprove it.  I do not consider that a neutral point of view.  In addition, I have found in the past significant citation errors, and I am sure there are more in the citations I haven't read all the way through.  I am not impressed by large numbers of false or exaggerated citations, though those with less time to read them carefully might be.  I think it's critical to note these facts: 
1) an illegal combatant is a combatant who isn't a legal combatant; this is an ancient and easily understood definition.
2) Article 2 and 4 of GCV III & IV clearly limit who is provided the protections of the conventions.  This is so there aren't free-rider nations who ignore the conventions in carrying out war crimes, but whose nationals then claim the protections of the conventions when captured.  If this wasn't the case, it would mean that nations would have absolutely no incentive to abide by the conventions.
3) It can be useful to differentiate here between US law and international law; some citations mention protocols the US isn't signatory to, which can cause confusion.  If the US hasn't ratified a law, how is it in violation of said law?  International treaties do not have automatic sovereignty.PeaceThroughStrength 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view?