Pelosi caught in bold faced lie!!

[2minkey]

How soon before someone calls for her to step down?

let's hope soon. she needs to go away.

 

[catocom]

yeah, she can't do any good now for sure.

 

[2minkey]

it's truly amazing how both parties cling to their dirtbutt members. shit gets flushed. if not, it just stinks up the house.

 

[catocom]

been stinkin' on both sides for decades at least, but has gotten real stinky with that first paulson bailout - on..

 

[Frank Probity]

You do realize that the term "illegal combatant" is in the GC, right?

Really? I must have missed that terminology when reading the GCs. SUre would appreciate it if you post here where in the GC, the specific term, "illegal combatant" can be found?

You also realize that an "illegal combatant" has no rights under the GC, and is treated any way the capturing agency wishes, right?

No rights under the Geneva Conventions? I didn't know that either! Did I miss that as well? Please direct me to the portion of the GC where all rights are stripped from "illegal combatants."

 

[randomJACKASS]

There ought to be a damn law declaring all combatants that combat the good ole US-of-A illegal! God knows in the entire history of this nation we have never once been wrong nor have we ever made a mistake, nor will we ever. God almighty has charged us with dominion over the lesser peoples of the world and by God to challenge that should be ill-eagle! Can I get an amen now?!?

 

[catocom]

you've been listening to the wrong preacher(s) like obama IMO

 

[randomJACKASS]

 

[jimpeel]

SOURCE

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).[1] However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status; and there are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children. In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of this term and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant under United States law. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgment quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[4] because in the opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".[1][5]

The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all the other Articles. But each one of them is completely free -- and should be encouraged -- to apply all or part of the remaining Articles of the Convention.[6]

FOOTNOTES

[1] ^ a b c d ICRC official statement: The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism, 21 July 2005


[4] ^ The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia "Celebici Judgment: Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic, and Landzo, Case No." IT-96-21-T seems to return the Appeal Judgment instead of the Trial Judgment. However, the relevant section of the Judgment is available from the University of the West of England Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) "Celebici" 16 November 1998 Part III B, Applicable law 2. Status of the Victims as "Protected Persons." See: Para. 271:

In addition, the evidence provided to the Trial Chamber does not indicate that the Bosnian Serbs who were detained were, as a group, at all times carrying their arms openly and observing the laws and customs of war. Article 4(A)(6) undoubtedly places a somewhat high burden on local populations to behave as if they were professional soldiers and the Trial Chamber, therefore, considers it more appropriate to treat all such persons in the present case as civilians.
It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that;​

[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view." Jean Pictet (ed.) – Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958) – 1994 reprint edition.​

[5] ^ Geneva Conventions Protocol I Article 51.3 also covers this interpretation "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities."
[6] ^ Commentary for Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions

 

[Gato_Solo]

Really? I must have missed that terminology when reading the GCs. SUre would appreciate it if you post here where in the GC, the specific term, "illegal combatant" can be found?

Tell you what. You can start here.

No rights under the Geneva Conventions? I didn't know that either! Did I miss that as well? Please direct me to the portion of the GC where all rights are stripped from "illegal combatants."

That's correct. If they are not a lawful combatant, as defined by the Geneva Convention, then they are not protected by the Geneva Convention, hence an 'illegal combatant'. You can persist on denying that one fact, but its there in front of you.

 

[Frank Probity]

Tell you what. You can start here.

I started there and it isn't in the Geneva Conventions. Taking your quote from an earlier post: "You do realize that the term "illegal combatant" is in the GC, right? "
Wrong! The term "illegal combatant" is not in the Geneva Conventions. There is a BIG difference between saying "You do realize that the term "illegal combatant" is in the GC, right?" and later wiggling in the wording, "as defined by the Geneva Convention."

If they are not a lawful combatant, as defined by the Geneva Convention, then they are not protected by the Geneva Convention, hence an 'illegal combatant'. You can persist on denying that one fact, but its there in front of you.

No one is denying anything but asking a question. If you have the answer, please show me exactly where it is.
Now, I must admit there are times I am a little bit slow about understanding things so bear with me. Because the way I understand the Geneva Conventions, all prisoners or detainees are afforded rights at some point in time. If you Post the Article and section number, it would be a big help.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I started there and it isn't in the Geneva Conventions. Taking your quote from an earlier post: "You do realize that the term "illegal combatant" is in the GC, right? "
Wrong! The term "illegal combatant" is not in the Geneva Conventions. There is a BIG difference between saying "You do realize that the term "illegal combatant" is in the GC, right?" and later wiggling in the wording, "as defined by the Geneva Convention."



No one is denying anything but asking a question. If you have the answer, please show me exactly where it is.
Now, I must admit there are times I am a little bit slow about understanding things so bear with me. Because the way I understand the Geneva Conventions, all prisoners or detainees are afforded rights at some point in time. If you Post the Article and section number, it would be a big help.

So you admit that there is a such thing as an illegal combatant?

 

[Frank Probity]

So you admit that there is a such thing as an illegal combatant?

In response to your words: "You do realize that the term "illegal combatant" is in the GC, right?".

My reply was;
"Wrong! The term "illegal combatant" is not in the Geneva Conventions. There is a BIG difference between saying "You do realize that the term "illegal combatant" is in the GC, right?" and later wiggling in the wording, "as defined by the Geneva Convention."

What part of this is confusing you? It is very simple. You made a challenge and I called you on the challenge. You could not support your challenge.
End of story.

 

[catocom]

Weather I like the results or not, as far as I could see, the process by which
the military, and cia, and the admin at that time, when by the laws and proper procedures.

It's a matter of record that Pelosi signed off on it.

Now totally beside the point, she lies.
Either she did what her constituents didn't want, or she lied.
We the US don't need either of those in that position. Time to go.

 

[Gato_Solo]

In response to your words: "You do realize that the term "illegal combatant" is in the GC, right?".

My reply was;
"Wrong! The term "illegal combatant" is not in the Geneva Conventions. There is a BIG difference between saying "You do realize that the term "illegal combatant" is in the GC, right?" and later wiggling in the wording, "as defined by the Geneva Convention."

What part of this is confusing you? It is very simple. You made a challenge and I called you on the challenge. You could not support your challenge.
End of story.

And you still cling to the false belief that there is no such thing as an illegal combatant. Here's a really good contextual clue for you. If there is a such thing as a 'legal combatant', then, by default, there is a such thing as an 'illegal combatant'. What you are trying to do is parse words to prop up your fallacy. Typical when you have no real argument.

 

[Frank Probity]

And you still cling to the false belief that there is no such thing as an illegal combatant.

Did I say that? Show me where.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Did I say that? Show me where.

If the term does not exist, and according to your posts it does not,then the definition does not exist. Keep parsing, though, if it makes you feel better...

 

[jimpeel]

If the term does not exist, and according to your posts it does not,then the definition does not exist. Keep parsing, though, if it makes you feel better...

Here is what you have to deal with:

The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgment quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[4] because in the opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".

So in the Celebici Judgment they directly indicated that if someone is not a lawful combatant, the antonym for their status must be "unlawful combatant". They are "unprivileged" under the provisos of the Third and Fourth Convention and may be prosecuted by the detaining state. The detaining state in this case is the United States.

Your problem is that you believe that if the verbatim language -- in this case "unlawful combatant" -- is not used in the wording of the law that the term does not exist prima facie.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Let it go, jim. Its not that he doesn't understand. Its that he won't. It looks like his argument is that if I'm wrong about wording, then my entire argument is wrong. Its a typical fallacious argument that I see coming from him if I am correct in my assumption...