I don't believe Ashcroft (the Attorney General) has the say on when POW's get released...but he has a lot to do with many individuals in this country being locked up indefinitely with no charges ever having been filed against them....
Politics of SB Members?
- Thread starter drbill
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
IndigoBlue
Contributor
The U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule on that issue soon.
As far as my own opinion goes, it does not really matter, in the grand scheme of things; except on election day.
Sorry if I misunderstood your original allusion to GitMo. Your allusion was brief and subject to lots of interpretation. Brief statements are like that.
- Messages
- 53,682
- Reaction score
- 7,862
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
:cyborg: With California electing Hollywood governors :bshades: I am relieved that the U.S. constitution prevents new one from running for president.
:shaking:
don
:shaking:
don
Bob3
Contributor
Whats the matter, afraid of "Schwartzennegeromics"?
Yep, done that way on purpose, political topics are rarely a matter of black & white, running down all the various paths often leads to an expanded view on things.
- Messages
- 53,682
- Reaction score
- 7,862
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
Bob3 once bubbled...
Whats the matter, afraid of "Schwartzennegeromics"?
I'm waiting to see if anyone asks why :shades: he can't run...? ":google:
don
SharkOfBonaire
Registered
The US has this funny way of crying foul whenever some "evil" state tramples on international treaties, while going "comfortably numb" when they do the same to suit their needs: human rights, environment, United Nations... who cares, right?
adder70
Contributor
The Geneva convention, not the US government, defines soldiers, and who has rights as POW's under the convention. Soldiers are defined in some detail, including basic codes of conduct and, most importantly for this situation, wearing some sort of uniform identifying them. Combatants attempting to hide among civilians are not covered under the Geneva convention as soldiers.
This is why special forces often train local militias or infiltrate wilderness compounds, and "contractors" infiltrate populated areas. This keeps actual US military personnel covered under the Geneva convention. "Spies", "agents", and "officers" infiltrating groups of foreign nationals are not covered under the Geneva convention, nor are those who engage in combat activities while attempting to be mistaken for noncombatants. So the US was not "trampling on international treaties" but rather applying the full language of a treaty rather than just a small portion of it.
Remember, the Geneva convention is not a one page document. I think I will do a bit of searching and see if I can find it somewhere.
adder70
Contributor
THis is a link to the full text of the fourth Geneva convention. Feel free to trudge through this diplomatic quagmire. The one releveant statement I did find was in artcile 4 stating that nationals of a belligerent or co-belligerent country are not covered, as well as nationals of a country that did not sign. I have no idea if Iraq agreed to the convention, or the exact definition of a belligerent country, but I believe there is a strong possibility that Iraq has been declared to be a belligerent country.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html
This is a cut and paste from www.genevaconventions.org concerning the definition of soldiers according to the Geneva conventions.
International Rules About Soldiers
The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians. The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians. Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.
For example, a civilian who shoots a soldier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.
In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.
The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.
The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.
Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups and thus endanger the civilian population are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.
Combatants who do fall within the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions enjoy the following protections:
Prisoners of war must be treated humanely. Specifically, prisoners must not be subject to torture or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind. They must also be protected against violence, intimidation, insults and public curiosity. The public display of POWs is also prohibited.
When questioned in the prisoner's native language prisoners of war must only give their names, ranks, birth dates and serial numbers. Prisoners who refuse to answer may not be threatened or mistreated.
Prisoners of war must be immediately evacuated away from a combat zone and must not be unnecessarily exposed to danger. They may not be used as human shields.
Finally, and most importantly, prisoners of war may not be punished for the acts they committed during the fighting unless the opposing side would have punished its own soldiers for those acts as well.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html
This is a cut and paste from www.genevaconventions.org concerning the definition of soldiers according to the Geneva conventions.
International Rules About Soldiers
The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians. The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians. Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.
For example, a civilian who shoots a soldier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.
In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.
The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.
The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.
Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups and thus endanger the civilian population are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.
Combatants who do fall within the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions enjoy the following protections:
Prisoners of war must be treated humanely. Specifically, prisoners must not be subject to torture or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind. They must also be protected against violence, intimidation, insults and public curiosity. The public display of POWs is also prohibited.
When questioned in the prisoner's native language prisoners of war must only give their names, ranks, birth dates and serial numbers. Prisoners who refuse to answer may not be threatened or mistreated.
Prisoners of war must be immediately evacuated away from a combat zone and must not be unnecessarily exposed to danger. They may not be used as human shields.
Finally, and most importantly, prisoners of war may not be punished for the acts they committed during the fighting unless the opposing side would have punished its own soldiers for those acts as well.
- Messages
- 53,682
- Reaction score
- 7,862
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
I ran for President once... :froggy:
But I didn't win. ;-0
don
But I didn't win. ;-0
don
Just a thought:
If the Constitution, as generally interpreted today..
I have such a low estimation of common men such as GW Bush that I think he would crown himself king if he could (it's not just G.W., I feel there are few people who could resist the influence of power). Give them more power and they'll take more power.
Here's an example of potential for abuse. Say I was a known environmentalist and I was going to organize a protest at Bush's visit to some state. Well, Rove decides that having protesters at this speech would really be inconvient with the elections so close so he gives Ashcroft a call who calls a buddy at the FAA (who owes his job to the Bush administration) and has my name (and the names of some of my key supporters) placed on one of those mysterious no-fly lists. I go to the airport, show my ID (because of an unwritten FAA directive) and to my suprise, I am not allowed to board the plane. How do I get my name off of this list? I can't, it wasn't a criminal judgement against me so there is no appeal to the courts, I just have to submit an appeal to the FAA and FBI to show that I am not a terrorist and am above suspect of being a terrorist. After several weeks of phone calls and submitting paper work, I'm removed from the list with a sincere apology (we can't imagine how you got there, must have been a clerical error) but it's too late, I've missed the speech.
Can anyone say that they trust the administration enough not to do something like this? Guess what, it's already happening:
http://www.counterpunch.org/tripp1001.html
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/09/151823.php
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0927-01.htm
If the Constitution, as generally interpreted today..
Freedom of speech (flag burning and all that good stuff)
Seperation of Church and State (10 Comandments in court rooms, etc)
Due process under law (just because you know someone did someting doesn't mean you can throw them in a hole)
Implied right to privacy (if you haven't done anything wrong, why do you care about the FBI taping your phone?)
Equal protection under the law (just because they aren't citizens doens't mean you can round them up, detain them or anything else)
I have such a low estimation of common men such as GW Bush that I think he would crown himself king if he could (it's not just G.W., I feel there are few people who could resist the influence of power). Give them more power and they'll take more power.
Here's an example of potential for abuse. Say I was a known environmentalist and I was going to organize a protest at Bush's visit to some state. Well, Rove decides that having protesters at this speech would really be inconvient with the elections so close so he gives Ashcroft a call who calls a buddy at the FAA (who owes his job to the Bush administration) and has my name (and the names of some of my key supporters) placed on one of those mysterious no-fly lists. I go to the airport, show my ID (because of an unwritten FAA directive) and to my suprise, I am not allowed to board the plane. How do I get my name off of this list? I can't, it wasn't a criminal judgement against me so there is no appeal to the courts, I just have to submit an appeal to the FAA and FBI to show that I am not a terrorist and am above suspect of being a terrorist. After several weeks of phone calls and submitting paper work, I'm removed from the list with a sincere apology (we can't imagine how you got there, must have been a clerical error) but it's too late, I've missed the speech.
Can anyone say that they trust the administration enough not to do something like this? Guess what, it's already happening:
http://www.counterpunch.org/tripp1001.html
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/09/151823.php
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0927-01.htm
- Status
Similar threads
