05 March 2005

Answering Comments

I have received a comment from "Notes From The Underground". First I'd like to say thank you for reading and your comment. This comment was received in response to my criticism of the ACLU. Notes cited several documents to contradict my viewpoint. But Notes obviously didn't read the correct documents or when Notes did, they read the documents incorrectly. The Department of Defense has posted the following: "The law of armed conflict governs this war between the US and al Qaida and establishes the rules of detention of enemy combatants. These rules permit the U.S. to detain enemy combatants without charges or trial for the duration of hostilities. Detention prevents combatants from continuing to fight against us." "We have no interest in holding people who are not enemy combatants. To do so would be inconsistent with the deeply held values in which the American people believe and to which we as a nation have long been committed." "An elaborate process is in place to identify enemy combatants to be held at Guantanamo, assess the threat they pose to the U.S. and the international community, and regularly review all available information to make sure that their continued detention is necessary." "Detainees have been released when it is believed they no longer pose a significant threat, and they have been transferred to the custody of their governments when those governments are prepared to assume responsibility for ensuring that the detainees will not pose a threat to the United States." "Guantanamo detainees include many rank-and-file jihadists who took up arms against the U.S., as well as senior al Qaida operatives and leaders, and Taliban leaders. The type of enemy combatants captured during the course of hostilities include:..." "Terrorists linked to major al Qaida attacks, including the East Africa U.S. embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack." "Terrorists who taught or received training on arms and explosives, surveillance, and interrogation resistance techniques at al Qaida camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere." "Terrorists who continue to express their commitment to kill Americans and conduct suicide attacks if released." "Terrorists who have sworn personal allegiance to Usama bin Laden." "Terrorists linked to several al Qaida operational plans, including possible targeting of facilities in the United States." "Members of al Qaida's international terrorism support network, including financiers, couriers, recruiters, and operatives." "Terrorists who participated in attempted hijacking incidents." What needs addressing is the facts. Notes cited the 3rd Geneva Conventions of 1929. Well, Notes should have taken a gander at the 4th Geneva Conventions adopted 12 August, 1949. Article 4, section A, subsections 1 & 2, "Article 4 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. " I will not dispute that al Qaida would qualify as a resistance movement in it's broadest terms, but 2(b) having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, I think they fell short on that one. And 2(d), conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. I know they fell short on that one. Hijacking airplanes and deliberately crashing them into civilian buildings to intentionally kill civilians is not in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Taking hostages, which is in violation of the Conventions, is not in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Beheading hostages is not in accordance with the laws and customs of war. But yet the ACLU wishes to provide Constitutional protections to them. Next Note cited Ex Parte Quirin. Did Note read it? I don't think so. Ex Parte Quirin was an application for relief to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of German POWs who were captured in the United States after landing via submarine to conduct commando style raids in the United States. The application was for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus. The application was denied. On top of everything, one of the German POWs was a naturalized US Citizen, and the others had lived in the United States and returned to Germany in 1933. The detainees at Guantanamo, have never been to the United States. Try again. Blind faith in liberal organizations will be the downfall of you. You stated, "The PATRIOT Act, which the ACLU is fighting, is closer to Orwell's nightmare..." The ACLU should be focused on protecting the rights of US citizens not foreign nationals. The Dumocratic party and their policies is Big Brother. Government regulation is the enemy in my example. Big Government Is Big Brother. Less government involvement in the lives of American Citizens is the goal. Get a life. Help pass the Social Security Reform package. You can help by signing the online petition. http://www.preservingsocialsecurity.com http://www.blogsforbush.com/

1 Comments:

Blogger Adam Faanes said...

Gribbit said:

" I have received a comment from "Notes From The Underground". First I'd like to say thank you for reading and your comment."
Thank you for responding.

Gribbit said:

What needs addressing is the facts. Notes cited the 3rd Geneva Conventions of 1929. Well, Notes should have taken a gander at the 4th Geneva Conventions adopted 12 August, 1949. Article 4, section A, subsections 1 & 2, "Article 4
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. "
You neglected the first category which contains no reference to a fixed distinctive sign.

You will observe in Article 5:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Gribbit said:

"I will not dispute that al Qaida would qualify as a resistance movement in it's broadest terms, but 2(b) having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, I think they fell short on that one. And 2(d), conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. I know they fell short on that one. Hijacking airplanes and deliberately crashing them into civilian buildings to intentionally kill civilians is not in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Taking hostages, which is in violation of the Conventions, is not in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Beheading hostages is not in accordance with the laws and customs of war. But yet the ACLU wishes to provide Constitutional protections to them."
Constitutional protections are distinct from Geneva Convention protections.

The reason that the first category exists separate from the second category is so that armed forces which do not obey the laws of war will still be entitled to the Geneva Conventions just as parties who do not sign to them are still protected.

Gribbit said:

Next Note cited Ex Parte Quirin. Did Note read it? I don't think so. Ex Parte Quirin was an application for relief to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of German POWs who were captured in the United States after landing via submarine to conduct commando style raids in the United States. The application was for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus. The application was denied. On top of everything, one of the German POWs was a naturalized US Citizen, and the others had lived in the United States and returned to Germany in 1933. The detainees at Guantanamo, have never been to the United States.
I cited Ex Parte Quirin because it is the core of the President's case.

Ex Parte Quirin is distinctive because, you'll notice, the petitioners were able to appeal to the Supreme Court. They were given a civilian appeal and, indeed, legal counsel. In an adjunct opinion four members of the court cited this as relevant.

For this idea to be put in starkest relief, we can look at a case from 2001, Zadvydas v. Davis, which holds that indeed aliens on American soil are entitled to all constitutional protections. This is the modern stance and develops from the harsh line of Ex Parte Quirin.

It remains peculiar that we would have established categories for prisoners of war, and for criminals, and that we would for the purposes of this war create a third category somewhere between the two that has fewer rights than either extant category.

With respect, for all the animosity that the Right has for lawyers, I can imagine nothing more lawyer-like than placing people out of American territory simply because they would be entitled to uncomfortable constitutional protections and human rights if they were placed on American soil. Nor can I imagine anything more lawyer-like than to try to invent a third category between criminal and prisoner of war by twisting the Geneva Conventions, and the Constitution to specify a category where none has jurisdiction. I think that this offends the letter of these laws, but far more clearly, it offends the spirit of them.

Gribbit said:

"Try again. Blind faith in liberal organizations will be the downfall of you. You stated, 'The PATRIOT Act, which the ACLU is fighting, is closer to Orwell's nightmare...' The ACLU should be focused on protecting the rights of US citizens not foreign nationals."
It would be ignorant to say that the PATRIOT act has no impact on the rights of US citizens.

The ACLU in this case is interested in advocating the case of people who have no advocates. That is a noble cause in this country, and it is a tradition that goes back to the abolition cases of the nineteenth century. Your argument would apply equally well to a civil liberties organization in that century that defended African-Americans who were not in the fullest sense of the word citizens of this country.

Gribbit said:

"The Dumocratic party and their policies is Big Brother. Government regulation is the enemy in my example. Big Government Is Big Brother. Less government involvement in the lives of American Citizens is the goal."
I suppose I'll wax poetic and rhetorical, too.


PATRIOT Act is small government.

"Enemy combatant in custody" is not prisoner of war.

A $2.4 trillion budget is small government.

An amendment against gay marriage is getting out of the lives of American citizens.

The Geneva Conventions are quaint.

The Constitution is quaint.

Government regulation is the enemy.

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.


And, for the record, Orwell was a Social Democrat.

Gribbit said:

"Get a life."
Cute.

3/05/2005 02:04:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home