Holy ****! (Iraq) Helo shot down, up to 35 aboard, 20+ casualties

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by uh Clem
lord of the mark --


Here's a misuse of powers:
PATRIOT ACT: Law's use causing concerns
Use of statute in corruption case unprecedented, attorneys contend

("The law was intended for activities related to terrorism and not to naked women..." )

I've seen other instances of the USA Patriot act being misused recently. DOJ says they should be free to use all tools available to them.

After Bush's tough talk aboout Cuba several weeks ago, DOJ said they would use anti-terrorist powers against people traveling to Cuba, including tourists. You may believe they're not authoritarians, but there's little evidence to justify that view.

using the patriot act in a corruption case sounds like a mistake, and will undercut support for the Patriot act. But its hardly equivalent to the notion that Gitmo
is the first step toward authoritarianism.

[Ned]

The Patriot Act will expire in a couple of years unless renewed. Abuse of the Act will cause it not to be renewed. Ashcroft much be aware of the politics of this. Otherwise, he is a complete idiot.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ambush is murder and murder is fun...

(motto from a training program at MCB Camp Pendleton)

Originally posted by Spiffor
I haven't followed the whole thread, far from it, but I'd have a little quibble about the "murder" thing.
To shot down a military helicopter is an act of war. Even though the passengers of the helo had no chance to defend themselves. The only way you could call it "murder", is if you call surgical strikes on Iraqi barracks during the war "murder" as well. Most dead Iraqis, civilians and soldiers alike, had little to no chance to defend themselves from the American attacks. Exactly like the passengers of the helo.

"Murder" in a legal sense, and "murder" in a rhetorical sense are two different things. War isn't sporting, it's about killing those mother****ers so many different ways that they have no chance to do the same to you. End of story.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


using the patriot act in a corruption case sounds like a mistake, and will undercut support for the Patriot act. But its hardly equivalent to the notion that Gitmo
is the first step toward authoritarianism.

It depends on what provision of the law is used, and the wording of that provision. It may or may not be an abuse, but a lot of PATRIOT consisted simply of common sense streamlining and updating of procedural issues for searchs, wiretaps, and the like.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, do you think we should go to 12 divisions now?

In theory, the Stryker brigades are supposed to provide the equivalent manpower, with more flexibility in deployment as each brigade is independent. But you know what I think of the Stryker concept.

Whether we go to more divisions or not (and I think we could conceivably go as high as 16, with a different TO&E from existing heavy and light division TO&Es) really depends more on the political intent, and how long of a training and migration cycle we want. Even going to 12 divisions will thin out senior NCO's if it's done over a one year timeframe.

There has to be some serious thought, beyond this administration's lifespan (regardless of reelection or not), as to what we really intend to do with the Army. The worst thing is to go through a cycle of RIFfing and expansion, RIFfing and expansion, so we need to set a realistic level of mission capability and stick with it for a while.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Ignorance. Appalling, unbearable ignorance.

Techumseh, you don't know the first thing about the Geneva or Hague conventions do you?

1. You're going to have to be more specific.

I truly think universal compulsory military service would improve the citizenry; one reason is because while in basic training you are forced to read, memorize, and understand all of the basic tenants of both of those treaties. You clearly do not have any of those things.

2. See 1. above.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by techumseh


1. You're going to have to be more specific.



2. See 1. above.

Under the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War, status as a POW for irregular forces of a combatant power is determined based on four main criteria:

1 - Being part of an organization with a fixed command structure (individual and small group freelancers with no accountability don't cut it)

2- Openly carrying arms (dressing as women in burqa or dressing as civilians and hiding amongst them doesn't cut it)

3- Wearing a distinguishing marking visible at a distance (uniform is not required, in the case of the Taleban, their black turbans were enough - the key is to be identifiable from the noncombatant population)

4 -The irregular organization must generally adhere to the laws and customs of war.

These criteria apply to irregular forces such as militias, etc., and all must be met for these irregular forces and their members to be considered lawful combatants subject to the protections of Prisoner of War status.

Al Qaeda members engaged in fighting in Afghanistan fail to qualify according to anywhere from two to all four criteria, depending on their specific situations. It's nothing personal, Mad Mike Hoare's "Wild Geese" wouldn't qualify either.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Ignorance. Appalling, unbearable ignorance.

Nahhh.....

I just don't have the patience to wait for your moronic rant in lieu of a reply.

Let's review, shall we?

I said "Conditions at Gitmo - people held without charges, no rights, denied the status of Prisoners of War, under threat of execution by military tribunal - has produced many attempted suicides. The American government will not dissavow the use of torture there. It is noteworthy that these conditions would not be considered legal within the US proper."

You said: "Ignorance. Appalling, unbearable ignorance.

Techumseh, you don't know the first thing about the Geneva or Hague conventions do you? I truly think universal compulsory military service would improve the citizenry; one reason is because while in basic training you are forced to read, memorize, and understand all of the basic tenants of both of those treaties. You clearly do not have any of those things."

You quoted only this portion on my comment: "denied the status of Prisoners of War"

So I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that based on your reading of these conventions, the US is justified in denying POW rights to these prisoners. Right?

Except that I never said anything about either the Geneva or the Hague Convention, now did I? You were going to (again, correct me if I'm wrong) conveniently ignore the international debate about whether or not these conventions cover the prisoners at Gitmo, or whether the Convention should be amended to cover them explicitly, or just that the US Bush regime had conveniently found a place beyond it's own constitution's protection, where ALL legal norms could be violated.

And having read far more into my statement than was justified or reasonable, you were going (CMIIW) to set yourself up a THE expert on both the aformentioned conventions AND the inexcusible actions of the regime now in power in Washington.

And for good measure, you were going to draft me into some countries' army (mine, I hope), not just so I could learn as much as you about these conventions, but maybe learn to follow orders as well as you can?

Here's a few links for you, so you can broaden your education beyond the basic training level:

A resolution of the European Parliament asking for the Geneva Convention to be broadened to include the prosoners at Gitmo: http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/...0219/004EN.pdf

Here's a quote from the web page of Human Rights Watch:

"The Geneva Conventions permit the extended detention of civilians captured in a war zone only after criminal prosecution or for “imperative reasons of security.” To invoke the security rationale, a decision must be made for each individual civilian in a regularized process that includes appeal and a review every six months."

Here's the link: http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/03/us030603.htm


And here's a quote from the BBC World Service:

Numerous governments and organisations have condemned the US' actions in regards to the prisoners. They have criticised the physical conditions of the camp and the staff's treatment of the prisoners, as well as the overall legality of the men's imprisonment under international law.


And here's the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art10.shtml

To conclude, the US regime is operating in a legal grey area, and it's interpretaion that people who are not specifically covered by the Geneva and Hague Conventions have absolutely NO legal rights is the subject of considerable political and legal international debate. Many nations, and international legal and human rights organizations have protested the Bush regime's actions and proposed extending POW status to the Gitmo prisoners. Since you apparently have the benefit of a miltary education, you may wish to use the links I've provided, and set everyone straight.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So some European leftists have whinged. OK, I'm impressed now.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So some European leftists have whinged. OK, I'm impressed now.

But am I getting the hang of OT?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes, you're fitting in perfectly.

[Dinner]

Techumseh: I actually have a very good understanding of both the Geneva and Hague conventions which well exceeds the basic training level. In fact I took an entire class on it at the University of of California Santa Barbara as a part of that school's ROTC course.

Now, in response to my claim that you are ignorant of the provisions of the laws of war you posted a series of links in which people whined and complained about the people in Gitmo being declared to be unlawful combatants. Forther, most of them claimed the people in Gitmo should be considered POWs. I briefly considered posting an equally long though equally worthless list of links supporting my side but, being experienced in the ways of the OT, I know that would do no good. Instead I find it instructive to go back to the original wording from the treaties in question so that we can get facts instead of opinions. What do the treaties say? Here is article 4 section 2 of the 3rd Geneva convention which occured in 1949; it concerns who is and who isn't a POW:

(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, fulfil 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.

The four requirements are 1) have a fixed chain of command 2) wear a distinctive military uniform which clearly distinguishes them from the civilian population 3) Carry there arms openly and not hiding them 4) Cunduct themselves according to the laws and customs of war; meaning abide by the Geneva convention and other normal niceities.

The treaty goes on to say that people who don't follow these rules are considered unlawful combatants and are specificaly excluded from any and all protections provided by Geneva or Hague convention treaties.

So I will let you connect the dots. Did the AQ or even most of the taliban wear military uniforms? Did the terrorists carry weapons out in the open? They most certainly did not conduct themselves according to the rules and laws of war which requires them to protect unarmed civilians. So you tell me Techumseh why we should ignore the treaties direct requirements and declarations? Now that I have quoted the treaty and it's requirements as well as shown that the people who don't meet those requirements are specifically excluded from the treaty's protections how am I wrong? I suspect you will avoid these question and instead post yet more opinion pieces instead of real legal wording from the treaty but you might surprise me.

[Ned]

If the Guantánamo prisoners are deemed to be POWs, would America's detention of these prisoners (without trial) pending the final resolution of the war be in accord with international law?

[Dinner]

Difficult to say since there has been no declaration of a war. If a definate beginning and end of the war could be determined then yes the prisoners can be held for the duration of hostilities without trial. If they were considered POWs then they would have to be granted all the rights, privilages, and obligations which POWs recieve under the rules of war.

[Ramo]

yeah i got the idea. I dont happen to believe that they are using this as a first step to an authoritarian system. If I did I would oppose it right now. But I dont. I think they sincerely are using it as a weapon against terrorism, and thats all. I dont say this out of love for the admin - I voted against Bush in 2000. But I dont think they are authoritarians. You may disagree.

If you really doubt Ashcroft's ability to abuse laws to persecute political dissidents, witness the recent insane charge of sailormongering on the Greenpeace members.

Or more directly related to the Patriot Act itself, take a look at its use in the persecution of the "LA 8."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20031027&s=cole