The Great Don Quijote of RBM!

Andrew Muzi wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 07:07:05 -0500, "Keats" wrote:

Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on
into the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any
prison are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is
just plain *mean*. They've been humiliated enough.

We should free them all, don't you think?

still me wrote:
If they are guilty, then they need to be tried and convicted. I don't
have any problem with that. But, holding people indefinitely without
charging them is against everything this country was founded on. If
you don't know that, you should go back and review the Constitution.

Tim McNamara wrote:
And that is exactly the point. The Bush Administration has overturned
the principle of rule of law and is in violation of its oath to uphold
and defend the Constitution.

No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
American Constitution again??

I did see the 'oath' part, "I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Sounds
good to me, glad he was sincere in it.

hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
definition of POWs?

To quote from the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International
Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977":

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Art 44. Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of
an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of
international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these
rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or,
if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a
prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from
the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish
themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an
attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing,
however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to
the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish
himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in
such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is
engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in
which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be
considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while
failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of
paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he
shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to
those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this
Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those
accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where
such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not
engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack
shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by
virtue of his prior activities .

6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a
prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Convention.

7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted
practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by
combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to
the conflict.

8. In addition to the categories of persons mentioned in Article 13 of
the First and Second Conventions, all members of the armed forces of a
Party to the conflict, as defined in Article 43 of this Protocol, shall
be entitled to protection under those Conventions if they are wounded or
sick or, in the case of the Second Convention, shipwrecked at sea or in
other waters.


Art 45. Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities

1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an
adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore
shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of
prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if
the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by
notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should
any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status
of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and,
therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol
until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not
held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an
offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to
assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial
tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under
the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial
for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be
entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is
adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held in camera
in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power
shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.

3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to
prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable
treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right
at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In
occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall
also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to
his rights of communication under that Convention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note what No. 4 says - it doesn't make any difference if the prisoner
qualifies as a POW or not for how the are to be treated!

Maybe call pilots of airplanes-into-buildings 'freedom fighters'??

"Freedom fighters" is what Ronald Reagan called Usama bin Laden and company.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

(Not Tom) Keats wrote:
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
(not Tom) Keats wrote:
...
And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they must
have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the medical care
there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of Gutmo Bay , in the
zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on the world quite soon.
You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion with your family and
friends, yes?
Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone turned
them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty money, yes.


Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on into
the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any prison are
*innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is just plain *mean*.
They've been humiliated enough.

We should free them all, don't you think?

Any "we" wonder why "they" hate us?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Clive George wrote:
"A Muzi" wrote in message
...

No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
American Constitution again??

hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
definition of POWs?

Ok, so they aren't POWs. Which means they must be normal prisoners, and
should be treated as such - with the normal trial, etc. And this should
be done by somebody with juristiction in the area.

If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the
Americans holding them?

The prisoners ARE covered by the US Constitution, since ALL ratified
treaties are considered to be the supreme law of the land, and the US
has ratified the Geneva Conventions. From Article 6:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of
the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

still me? wrote:
...
FWIW, the constitution has no provision for the Iraqi invasion, but
that's another story.

The US Constitution does have a provision for the invasion of Iraq:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Andrew Muzi wrote:
"A Muzi" wrote
No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
American Constitution again??
hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
definition of POWs?

Clive George wrote:
Ok, so they aren't POWs. Which means they must be normal prisoners,
and should be treated as such - with the normal trial, etc. And this
should be done by somebody with juristiction in the area.

If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the
Americans holding them?

Some might say it's an ad hoc and still-evolving solution to vicious and
feral attacks based on an asymmetry which exploits the freedoms of an
advanced civilization against itself. Not citizens. Not soldiers. No
clear prior examples to follow....

Do you approve of the asymmetry in weapons used that has killed hundred
of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians in Iraq, while the number of US
citizens killed by Iraqi's in the US is either none or something close
to that value?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Bill Sornson wrote:
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
Andrew Muzi wrote:
"Keats" wrote:
Hmmmm.....How to go about getting rid of the republicans?
"still me" wrote in message
Getting rid of the Republicans is easy. Just force them to practice
what they preach. So, let their kids play with the poisoned and
unsafe toys from China. Make them live in neighborhoods hopelessly
polluted by chemical manufacturers and industrial polluters. Make
them breath the air that comes from factories without pollution
controls and vehicles without emission controls. Make them drive
cars with no safety devices. As a second layer, eves drop on their
conversations without warrant or court oversight and when we
decide it's right to arrest them based on evidence we won't
disclose, send them to Gutmo Bay to be held until we decide what
to do with them. They'll all be gone in a generation.
Keats wrote:
So drinking USA water, breathing USA air, and driving USA cars is
your idea of a death sentence for republicans, eh?
And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they
must have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the
medical care there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of
Gutmo Bay , in the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on
the world quite soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the
occasion with your family and friends, yes?

The poor wayward misunderstood waifs of deficient parentage who are
now getting sprung from Gitmo (Saudi cash + NYC attorneys) have a
way of ending up dead in firefights with Marines lately.

Good riddance but wish they could go with less risk to good men.
If someone locked you up and tortured you for several years even
though you were innocent, would revenge cross your mind?

Tortured before or after their herbal wraps? LOL

Sometimes Bill Sornson can be funny. This is not one of them.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
(Not Tom) Keats wrote:
...
If anything, each of the 200 unlawful enemy combatant trials would be
more difficult than Moussaoui's trail, which, by the way, took over four
years to get started with a cost of tens of millions dollars....

What is that, a couple days profit on no-bid Iraqi "rebuilding" contracts?

--

No, it's what the Moussaoui circus trial cost us and has nothing to do with
any contract to rebuild anything in Iraq.

I don't know about the profits on Iraq rebuilding contracts, but I trust the
democrats will investigate every cent spent in for every single one of them.
And if anything is out of the ordinary they will certainly let us know
before the upcoming election.

My sense of the matter is that you are an anti-profit kind of guy. I could
be wrong, but I doubt it.

(not Tom) Keats

(Not Tom) Keats wrote:
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
(Not Tom) Keats wrote:
...
If anything, each of the 200 unlawful enemy combatant trials would be
more difficult than Moussaoui's trail, which, by the way, took over four
years to get started with a cost of tens of millions dollars....

What is that, a couple days profit on no-bid Iraqi "rebuilding" contracts?

--

No, it's what the Moussaoui circus trial cost us and has nothing to do with
any contract to rebuild anything in Iraq.

I don't know about the profits on Iraq rebuilding contracts, but I trust the
democrats will investigate every cent spent in for every single one of them.
And if anything is out of the ordinary they will certainly let us know
before the upcoming election.

My sense of the matter is that you are an anti-profit kind of guy. I could
be wrong, but I doubt it.

Since the political right in the US has always whined so much about
taxes and "government waste", I thought I would help them out by
bringing attention to an example of wasted tax money.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
(Not Tom) Keats wrote:
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in
message .. .
(not Tom) Keats wrote:
...
And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they must
have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the medical care
there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of Gutmo Bay , in
the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on the world quite
soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion with your family
and friends, yes?
Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone turned
them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty money,
yes.


Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on into
the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any prison
are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is just plain
*mean*.
They've been humiliated enough.

We should free them all, don't you think?

Any "we" wonder why "they" hate us?

--

"We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight skinny
right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's because we are
"infidels". And they will continue to hate us until we "come to Islam" and
live under Sharia law. He has never once indicated it's because we aren't
"nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad holy war "being nice" is considered
weakness to be exploited.

You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam don't
you?

(not Tom) Keats

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
(not Tom) Keats wrote:
...
And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they must
have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the medical care
there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of Gutmo Bay , in the
zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on the world quite soon.
You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion with your family and
friends, yes?

Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone turned
them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty money, yes.

Hell, even Gates and Rice want the camp closed.

ALL terrorists should be shot on sight. After all, they murder mostly
innocents - and then they hide behind them if and when they can. I say kill
them all! Prison is way too good for them.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota