(no subject)

[razorjak]

So Chimpy McFuckstick doesn't think we're heading into a recession.

He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.

...

I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.

Comments

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Just because the enemy isn't clearly declared or refuses to declare themselves doesn't make them not the enemy. Your benchmarks would be likely the cessation of hostilities in the form of no more islamic terrorist attacks by groups funded by, controlled by or connected to Al Quaida or Hezballah.

If a drug cartel decides to shoot some police, is every drug dealer now an illegal combatant if we declare war on them?


If say the Columbian Drug Cartels set up operations in the US and started lobbing Mortar rounds at the Pentagon and other Government offices, I bloody well expect we'd see some Marines landing in Columbia. Beyond a certain point criminal acts come under the purview of the Army and not the police. I'd say that 9/11 pretty much was that clear turning point if the Cole and other prior incidents were not.

Next, who gets to decide exactly who is an illegal combatant and who is not?
What is the legal process for this?
What oversight is there?
What evidence is sufficient to give someone this title and suspend all their rights, and what right does someone have to contest this status decision?


I take it then that you've not actually read anything connected to relevant case law have you? Typical. Pronouncements about habeas corpus being suspended and you haven't even cracked a single case or looked at the Geneva Conventions.

I'll try to summarize from memory.

Joe spy/insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighter is captured on the battlefield or in territory where our soldiers are working with the allies. This could be a friendly allied country or on a true battle field.

Joe goes gets disarmed, frisked, he keeps his helmet and water if he has it, gets medical attention and is treated according to the rules of war and then goes to the POW cages. If joe was in civilian clothes with nothing showing he was a soldier or a maquis then he's likely being stuck in cages or handed off to the MPs because he's an illegal combatant.

Obvious insurgents/maquis who wear an armband or some sort of recognizable symbol showing that they're combatants are treated just like other soldiers. Not so obvious spies or insurgents or terrorists who aren't wearing some sort of symbol as I said are handed off to MPs who then put them in separate detention.

Civilians captured in an area are set aside in a different sort of detention. Just as Allied Civilians were in axis territories and axis civilians were in allied territories. They went under house arrest. Rules are now that the detaining power has to have a hearing on their status every 6 months if possible and that the detention must be as similar to military housing as possible.

POWs don't get a hearing to determine their status as POWs. They wore a symbol stating they were soldiers. They stay in facilities similar to what the soldiers of the detaining power are staying in and are removed from the combat zone to a place of safety in as expedient a manner as possible. Officers don't work, the men may be put to work for reasonable amounts of time. They get recreation time and infractions can be dealt with in certain ways. Military law still applies, if they break military law (strike someone) then they may be punished as is normal for that force. Their release occurs when the negotiations for such release are effected or the controlling power wants to release them with a word of honor that they will not engage in combat against that power again(parole). Traditionally, if paroled troops were captured again, they lost all rights to just treatment.