Khadr Sentenced To 40 Years By Military Tribunal

[JAH]

However the Supreme Court of the United States settled that issue. And not in the manner you claim.

[Sharpshooter]

Listen, the legal profession is predicated on differing interpretations of facts as it relates to the law. In fact, the advesarial basis of our system, as you know, GUARANTEES disagreement between litigators.

So here you are, well aware of this, and you are telling me that (essentially) I'm an idiot for proposing that the lawyers on one side of a two-sided argument are full of it.

editted to add: it is IMPOSSIBLE to conclude that ALL detainees in an entire conflict are protected under the 3rd and 4th GC. It's based on the behaviour of the individual in question, not the Campaign in which they were caught in.

[JAH]

I took the following from your post on the previous page. THIS is what I'm talking about:

'Frakt explained that the Bush administration's original invented charge for the commissions - "Murder by an Unprivileged Belligerent" - was, essentially, replaced by the Congress-endorsed "Murder in Violation of the Law of War," even though it "conflated two different concepts - unprivileged belligerents and war criminals." He went on to examine international law:

Under Article 4 of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention, it is clear that while a member of an organized resistance movement or militia may be an unprivileged belligerent (because of not wearing a uniform or failing to carry arms openly, for example) he may still comply with the laws and customs of war, so not all hostile acts committed by unprivileged belligerents are war crimes. Attacks by unprivileged belligerents which comply with the law of war (in that they attack lawful military targets with lawful weapons) may only be tried in domestic courts. In Iraq, for example, insurgents who try to kill Americans by implanting roadside bombs are properly arrested and tried before the Central Criminal Court of Iraq as common criminals. Attacks by unprivileged belligerents which violate the law of war, such as attacks on civilians or soldiers attempting to surrender, or using prohibited weapons like poison gas, can be tried in a war crimes tribunal.'

The Taliban (I hate that term) and AQ violate the LOAC as a means of creating an advantage, and they do it as a matter of SOP. I agree that what happened here after detainment was not on, but Khadr was NOT A PRIVELIGED BELIGERANT. This is the beginning and end of my point. I am not arguinig anything else, despite your and especially your 'special friend's' insistance to the contrary.

[Sharpshooter]

Not on this specific issue they haven't. And this didn't happen in the US.

[Sharpshooter]

I took the following from your post on the previous page. THIS is what I'm talking about:

'Frakt explained that the Bush administration's original invented charge for the commissions - "Murder by an Unprivileged Belligerent" - was, essentially, replaced by the Congress-endorsed "Murder in Violation of the Law of War," even though it "conflated two different concepts - unprivileged belligerents and war criminals." He went on to examine international law:

Under Article 4 of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention, it is clear that while a member of an organized resistance movement or militia may be an unprivileged belligerent (because of not wearing a uniform or failing to carry arms openly, for example) he may still comply with the laws and customs of war, so not all hostile acts committed by unprivileged belligerents are war crimes. Attacks by unprivileged belligerents which comply with the law of war (in that they attack lawful military targets with lawful weapons) may only be tried in domestic courts. In Iraq, for example, insurgents who try to kill Americans by implanting roadside bombs are properly arrested and tried before the Central Criminal Court of Iraq as common criminals. Attacks by unprivileged belligerents which violate the law of war, such as attacks on civilians or soldiers attempting to surrender, or using prohibited weapons like poison gas, can be tried in a war crimes tribunal.'

The Taliban (I hate that term) and AQ violate the LOAC as a means of creating an advantage, and they do it as a matter of SOP. I agree that what happened here after detainment was not on, but Khadr was NOT A PRIVELIGED BELIGERANT. This is the beginning and end of my point. I am not arguinig anything else, despite your and especially your 'special friend's' insistance to the contrary.

[JAH]

The USSC has jurisdiction and superior authority over a citizen/soldier and the system in which those are being detained by U.S. authority. It doesn't matter that it didn't happen in the U.S., though it could have been handled in theory in Afghan court, if they had a functioning one at that time that wasn't corrupt and in need of a good lawyer itself.

[Wetcoaster]

Not on this specific issue they haven't. And this didn't happen in the US.

[JAH]

You're right, he has never been proven to be a beligerant at all...not in any manner that would hold up in a real court of law...civil or military.

Thanks for your assistance in making my point.

[Sharpshooter]

If they are civilians committing criminal acts, send them to the Afghan authorities. If they are privelidges beligerants, either keep them as PWs or try them as war criminals in international court. The USSC should never be involved.

[ronthecivil]

And yet another bizarre tangent coupled with the inability to spell "Phycologists"

[JAH]

The reality remains and so do the USSC's supreme legal authority, supreme status as interpretor of all laws, guidelines, regualtions, treaties(international and domestic) and their unequaled jurisdictions.

[Wetcoaster]

Ya, should have gone with mind reader since you claim to know my intentions.

[Sharpshooter]

You make no sense. 'Privelidged beligerant' is a positive condition (you need to meet certain criteria). 'Unprivelidged beligerant' is a passive one (if you don't meet the criteria of the former, you are unprivelidged).

You don't know what you're talking about.

[JAH]

Your comprehension is stunningly lacking. My point was the label of "privileged" or "unprivileged" beligerant is irrelevant and moot, when his status of anything else than or more than a "nonbeligerant" or "noncombatant", or just plain ol' someone trying to kill and fight U.S. soldiers, was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in a real court of civil, criminal, or military law.

Do I make sense now? Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth?

[Sharpshooter]

So, the USSC is the 'supreme legal authority, supreme status as interpretor of all laws, guidelines, regualtions, treaties(international and domestic) and their unequaled jurisdictions'?

Wow, I didn't realize this was Star Wars.

The USSC is a US institution. Hence the name.

[Sharpshooter]

1- yes it was, but you question the legitimacy of that court.

2- his status is determined by soldier on the ground, at the time, based on his dress, behaviour, weapons, etc.

Only a fool would argue that Khadr was not a beligerant. NOTE: you don't have to be actively fighting to be a beligerant. For example, sleeping soldiers are still beligerants. As are AQ members holed up in a compound. Whether he threw a grenade or not, whether he shot a rifle or not, whether he was AWAKE OR NOT, he was a beligerant based on his reason for being there, his location, etc.

The argument then becomes: was he privelidged? Based on the GC (and Wet's post quoting the 'scholar'), he was not privelidged. Ergo, he was an unprivelidged beligerant.

[JAH]

It is the supreme, as in the highest authority as, giver, interpreter, and adjudicator, of all the institutions and laws in the land, that affect the land and its people. What about that makes you think Star Wars? Fascinating.

[Sharpshooter]

You referrenced the USSC as the supreme authority on all international treaties....

[JAH]

2) His status was assessed farcically by those soldiers on the ground.

[JAH]

Yeah...and?

They interpret all international treaties. If a section of a treaty or all of it, goes against the The Constitution and Bill of Rights...they strike down enforcement of it within the U.S. and over its citizens. What's Star Wars about that???

The Geneva Convention Treaty could be struck down if it conflicted with the U.S. Constitution in the U.S....hence, that's why these prisoners are being kept in Guantanamo Bay...Cuba. No pesky constitution to get in the way.