- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
The Tallies would still have to qualify as a legal combatants, which they do not.
Signatory status matters not:
The Tallies would still have to qualify as a legal combatants, which they do not.
Based on what?
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.
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.
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?
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?
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
Wow you really can not read :
4.1.1
is not
under
4.1.2.
Get it now?
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.
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?
What the hell good is this going to do, Obama will still try them in court like they were citizens.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.
Any American citizen whom engages in armed conflict against the United States is guilty of treason. There's no technicality, according to the law.
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
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.
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.
This isn't something that someone just dreamed up in the past few years. It's the law.
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
Either way, they aren't following the rules set about by the GC. It's already assumed in 4.1.1 that they...
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.
Which would just end up being used to vilify those who might be trying to protect U.S.A. from private armies,
The fact that something has been on the books doesn't mean it's automatically legal.
No, it's not already assumed in 4.1.1 that they do anything.
It's automatically legal, until the Supreme Court overturns it.
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.
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.
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:
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?
How so?................
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?