Other
See other Other Articles
Title: The fill in the blank quiz that stumped war!
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 14, 2011
Author: A K A Stone
Post Date: 2011-10-14 08:58:37 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 73343
Comments: 107
In the United States of America you are considered ___________________ until proven guilty.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 80.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Wah Wah...
No. War is to stupid or he can't spin the question. You still don't know the answer. Or you wont admit it because it will affect your ability to spin.
The issue isn't about answering your stupid question about the presumption of innocence that a person is afforded after they have been charged with a crime and the issue goes to adjudication - no one is arrested on a presumption of innocence. The issue is what powers the Commander in Chief has in ordering the killing of a specific enemy combatant.
Enemy combatant is a recently invented word to try and take rights away from people. The founding fathers would be considered enemy combatants. You really hate the constitution don't you! It wasn't a question.
Why do you spout this bullshit? First off, "enemy combatant" is TWO words. Secondly,. read the decision rendered in Ex Parte Qurin from 1942. The term "ENEMY COMBATANT" has been around for decades. Thirdly, as a result of court decisions surrounding the detention of Al Qaeda prisoners at Gitmo, DumbDubv43 was actually forced to narrowly define what an "enemy combatant" was in the war against Al Qeada: "Enemy combatant" shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy combat forces.
First off, "enemy combatant" is TWO words. Secondly,. read the decision rendered in Ex Parte Qurin from 1942. The term "ENEMY COMBATANT" has been around for decades. Thirdly, as a result of court decisions surrounding the detention of Al Qaeda prisoners at Gitmo, DumbDubv43 was actually forced to narrowly define what an "enemy combatant" was in the war against Al Qeada: "Enemy combatant" shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy combat forces. This bullshit was destroyed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan.
Guess again. That was the definition that was used from 2004 until Obama - supposedly - abandoned it. Hamden was decided in 2006 and nothing from Hamden changed one word in that definition.
Read the opinion. "On November 13, 2001, while the United States was still engaged in active combat with the Taliban, the President issued a comprehansive military order intended to govern the 'Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism,' 66 Fed. Reg. 57833 (hereinafter November 13 Order or Order." That's the Order that was at issue before the Court. The legal action was commenced in 2004. The Supreme Court was acting as an Appellate court. Get a clue.
I have one. You're using your typical sleight of hand to meld two concurrent yet separate events as being the same event. As you stated, Hamden decided that the "comprehensive military order" that DumbDubv43 had issued was extra legal and NOT the definition of "enemy combatant".
You have currently cited the detainees being "enemy combatants," despite the fact that such has always been legally indefensible. I provide your Paul Wolfowicz "authority" for yucks. You have stated, "That was the definition that was used from 2004 until Obama - supposedly - abandoned it." That was the terminology used until the Court ordered the administration to provide its definition of the term. It then rapidly withdrew it. You have been incessantly referring to the detainees, and Aulaqi, as "enemy combatants." As you apparently don't know, this was officially dropped. The DOJ press release had the headline, You have been making the current claim that the President's acts are based on his inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief. Gee, will you look at this: You seem to think the government can detain or kill anyone as long as some bureaucrat says it is alright. The definition received a major tweak. And before I forget, here is your "enemy combatant" classification. While you have complete faith in that the government must have documented cause to assassinate Aulaqi, you only "suppose" that "enemy combatant" was really abandoned. Why you have such complete faith in the secret government process to determine combatant status is not clear considering their evidence difficulties in habeas corpus litigation. Here is the unlawful orders issued by Paul Wolfowicz. Order Establishing Combatant Status Review Tribunal of 7 Jul 2004 Issued by Paul Wolfowicz And here is the Press Release from the Justice Department:
That was why I used the word "allegedly" when stating that Obama had [allegedly] abandoned it. Frankly, I don't believe that he has. The increase in drone activity alone renders any statement of "abandonment" bullshit...imho.
That was why I used the word "allegedly" when stating that Obama had [allegedly] abandoned it. Frankly, I don't believe that he has. The increase in drone activity alone renders any statement of "abandonment" bullshit...imho. Frankly, I believe the Obama administration made a public announcement of the fact that it abandoned the impossible term "enemy combatant." I provided it and do not care what you believe. It is legally impossible to support the "enemy combatant" crap. Extra-judicial homicide does not provide support for your contention. Gherebi v. Obama, DCDC 04-1164, Opinion at 36-38, Thus, under the combatant/civilian distinction formerly drawn by the government, the petitioners would appear to fall under the rubric of “civilians.” See Additional Protocol I, art. 50.1 (defining the term “civilian” to mean “any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4(A) (1), (2), (3), and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of [Additional Protocol I]”). And as civilians, the petitioners would not be subject to military force “unless and for such time as they [took] a direct part in hostilities.” Id., art. 51.1, 51.3. In its most restrictive interpretation, this standard would require “a direct causal relationship between the activity engaged in and the harm done to the enemy at the time and the place where the activity [took] place.” ICRC Additional Protocols Commentary, supra, at 516. But the government no longer seeks to detain the petitioners on the theory that they are “enemy combatants,” and neither Common Article 3, Additional Protocol II, nor the respective commentaries on these treaties by the International Committee of the Red Cross make any reference whatsoever to the term “combatant.” “The reason for the absence of combatant status in non-international armed conflicts is obvious: states are not prepared to grant their own citizens, and even less others who might engage in fighting on behalf of a non-state group, the right to do so.” But then, there are those, such as war, who apparently do want to grant to Al Qaeda members engaged in fighting on behalf of that non-state group, the right to do so, and to grant to them the status of "enemy combatant."
There are no replies to Comment # 80. End Trace Mode for Comment # 80.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
war didn't answer my specious,
spurious and stupid question...
wah wah wah
#3. To: war (#2)
war didn't answer my specious,
#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)
(Edited)
#6. To: war (#5)
#8. To: A K A Stone (#6)
Enemy combatant is a recently invented word to try and take rights away from people.
#59. To: war, A K A Stone (#8)
Why do you spout this bullshit?
#60. To: nolu chan (#59)
This bullshit was destroyed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan.
#63. To: war (#60)
That was the definition that was used from 2004 until Obama - supposedly - abandoned it.
#67. To: nolu chan (#63)
That's the Order that was at issue before the Court. The legal action was commenced in 2004. The Supreme Court was acting as an Appellate court. Get a clue.
#71. To: war, A K A Stone (#67)
As you stated, Hamden decided that the "comprehensive military order" that DumbDubv43 had issued was extra legal and NOT the definition of "enemy combatant".
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WITHDRAWS “ENEMY COMBATANT” DEFINITIONFOR GUANTANAMO DETAINEES
The definition does not rely on the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress's specific authorization.
It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial.
And it does not employ the phrase "enemy combatant."
#76. To: nolu chan (#71)
While you have complete faith in that the government must have documented cause to assassinate Aulaqi, you only "suppose" that "enemy combatant" was really abandoned.
#80. To: war, A K A Stone (#76)
While you have complete faith in that the government must have documented cause to assassinate Aulaqi, you only "suppose" that "enemy combatant" was really abandoned.
At least for those petitioners detained due to their associations with terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, there is little question that such individuals fail to satisfy these requirements. While the term “armed forces” is defined broadly in the Third Geneva Convention, “the non-recognized government or authority” sponsoring the putative “armed forces” in question “must represent, or must claim to represent, a subject of international law recognized as such by the other Party to the conflict,” ICRC Additional Protocols Commentary, supra, at 508, and must be “indissolubly bound” by the rules that govern international warfare, id. at 513. “Anyone who participates directly in hostilities without being subordinate to an organized movement” that “enforc[es] compliance with these rules[] is a civilian.” Id. at 514.
Replies to Comment # 80.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]