Bush Admin. Cleared-Again

Southern Man said:
No...
Click to expand...

Enemy combatant can be either a lawful combatant or an unlawful combatant, since you didn't differentiate (despite my hint) you are wrong.

As for the Geneva Convention, you are also wrong there as well. Geneva Convention III didn't cover unlawful enemy combatants. But Geneva Convention IV certainly did.
 
NigelTufnel said:
This is the thinking of the legal minds in the Bush DoJ:

I guess the question I'm raising is, does this particular law really affect the President's war-making abilities ....

Yoo: Yes, certainly.

Q: What is your authority for that?

Yoo: Because this is an option that the President might use in war.

Q: What about ordering a village of resistants to be massacred? ... Is that a power that the president could legally--

Yoo: "Yeah. Although, let me say this. So, certainly, that would fall within the commander-in-chief's power over tactical decisions.

Q: To order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]?

Yoo: Sure.
Click to expand...


Nice.
Click to expand...


Could you imagine the wail that would rise from the neocon cabal if a legal advisor to Obama would utter such ideology?
 
WinterBorn said:
Enemy combatant can be either a lawful combatant or an unlawful combatant, since you didn't differentiate (despite my hint) you are wrong.

As for the Geneva Convention, you are also wrong there as well. Geneva Convention III didn't cover unlawful enemy combatants. But Geneva Convention IV certainly did.
Click to expand...
Capital L lame on your part for pointing that out. :palm:
 
Southern Man said:
Did they sign on?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter in the least. We signed on, and the convention states that we agree to abide by its tenets even if the other side was not a party to the convention and didn't abide by its tenets.

Have you ever read the Geneva Conventions?
 
"Part I. General Provisions

Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."


Doesn't really leave much wiggle room, does it?
 
Southern Man said:
Terrorists and enemy combatants aren't covered under either, genius.
Click to expand...

BTW, this is what I was responding to when I gave you more info on the Geneva Convention.

Whether they signed on or not is not relevant to this point.
 
Southern Man said:
Basic tenet: what goes around comes around. :good4u:
Click to expand...

If you want to try and convince people that you are all macho and such, feel free to do so.

If you are trying to intelligently debate on whether the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists or "unlawful enemy combatants", you might want to read up on the topic.

You are seriously misinformed on the topic.

And just as an FYI, while "what goes around comes around" may be a sentiment you find comforting, it is not what the United States of America promised to abide by.
 
GCIV, Article 5:
Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Click to expand...
:pke:
 
Southern Man said:
GCIV, Article 5: :pke:
Click to expand...

You went and read part of the Geneva Convention. I'm proud of you. You are actually learning.

Now find the parts pertaining to treatment of prisoners in general. And find the part we (the USA) signed specifically pertaining to torture of prisoners.

Then we can have a real debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top