2minkey
bootlicker
let's hope soon. she needs to go away.
Pelosi caught in bold faced lie!!
- Thread starter Cerise
- Start date
let's hope soon. she needs to go away.
Frank Probity
New Member
randomJACKASS
Banned
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?!?
randomJACKASS
Banned
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
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:
[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
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;
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
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Frank Probity
New Member
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Frank Probity
New Member
catocom
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Frank Probity
New Member
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
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...