Taliban attacks Pakistan school, kills 141, mostly children

[Jiro]

Terrorists have no rights that any Nation is obligated to recognize under the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Uniformed combatants who conduct themselves according to the laws of war have the right to surrender and be treated as prisoners of war; which means they can only be asked their name and rank. "Unlawful combatants", however, can be summarily executed on the spot.

If an individual has the right to use reasonable and necessary force to prevent a felony, and in fact kill the aggressor, then assault is also legal if it is intended to prevent a felony. Waterboading was an assault on an aggressor and its intent was to protect Americans from terrorist acts.

meaning... you're OK with being a barbarian toward thugs? I see. you do not need to make any further argument because we all know where you stand in this issue.

Fortunately, the military do not share your sentiment as expressively prohibited in their honorable guidelines. that's why a few people in government like Dick Cheney turn to a dark corner and used private contractors to do it.

just FYI - we are not in business of execution because it's illegal as signed by President Ford, Reagan, and Carter... all conservative Republicans.

 

[Steinhauer]

I am absolutely OK with using any effective methods necessary to protect innocent lives. Yes.

You seem to be ok with making sure barbarians are given comfy sofas and cable tv.

And the law you are referencing only applies to uniformed soldiers who follow the laws of warfare. It does not apply to terrorists. Ex Parte Quirin.

 

[Jiro]

I am absolutely OK with using any effective methods necessary to protect innocent lives. Yes.

even illegal and unethical by laws? did you miss the part where the "effective methods necessary" failed to produce any useful information? did you miss the part where most terrorists already gave up useful information to FBI and CIA before being subjected to torture?

You seem to be ok with making sure barbarians are given comfy sofas and cable tv.

oh yes I'm perfectly ok with these barbarians behind the jail as long as we did everything rightfully and legally.

And the law you are referencing only applies to uniformed soldiers who follow the laws of warfare. It does not apply to terrorists. Ex Parte Quirin.

Ex Parte Quirin? that's funny.

... the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

it also doesn't mean we are legally allowed to treat unlawful combatants like abused animals at zoo. we are morally, ethically, and legally bounded to view them as humans and treat as such. that's why military prohibited enhanced interrogation methods even on unlawful combatants.... which is why a few conniving people in government secretly greenlit a workaround by using private contractors... which was later discovered and condemned by Congress and public. since then - a new law was enacted to prohibit government using a workaround that is illegal and prohibited by military and government.

btw - the term "unlawful combatants" are no longer in use. it is now called "unprivileged enemy belligerents" - http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_63.pdf. you might want to stop using some archaic legal excerpts. this is 2014... not 1950. the time is drastically different and if your line of thinking is based on 1950's.... we're in deep doo-doo. I wonder if you're thinking of them as communist spies and remnants from Cold War or Fidel Castro...

according to source I've posted -

4. Detainee Categories
The word “detainee” includes any person captured, detained, or otherwise under the
control of DOD personnel (see Figure I-1). This does not include DOD personnel or DOD
contractor personnel or other persons being held primarily for law enforcement purposes
except where the US is the occupying power. As a matter of policy, all detainees will be
treated as EPWs until the appropriate legal status is determined and granted by competent
authority IAW the criteria enumerated in the GPW. Detaining officials must recognize that
detained belligerents who have not satisfied the applicable criteria in the GPW are still
entitled to humane treatment, IAW Common Article 3 of the GPW during non-international
armed conflicts, and the principles set forth in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to the
Geneva Conventions during international armed conflicts. The inhumane treatment of
detainees is prohibited and is not justified by the stress of combat or deep provocation.

a. Belligerent. In general, a person who is engaged in hostilities against the US or its
multinational partners during an armed conflict. The term belligerent includes both
privileged belligerent and unprivileged enemy belligerent. Belligerents, who are entitled to
protections under the GPW, include members of the regular armed forces of a state party to
the conflict; militia, volunteer corps, and organized resistance movements belonging to a
state party to the conflict, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive
sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the laws of war; and
members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not
recognized by the detaining power.

you might want to read the whole Chapter 1-2 (page JP 3-63) titled "Legal Considerations". It's basically saying the handling "unlawful combatants" aka "detainee" must comply with the law and that includes Geneva Convention.

Common Article 3 prohibits at any time and in any place “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all
kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; taking of hostages; outrages upon personal
dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; the passing of sentences and the
carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted
court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable
by civilized peoples.”

 

[Steinhauer]

A military tribunal trial does not afford a person the rights afforded under the United States Constitution. And .. a military tribunal will make the distinction between a prisoner of war and an enemy belligerent.

A prisoner of war has rights afforded under the Articles of War Act, that an enemy belligerent does not have.

They (enemy belligerent) have no rights under the Hague or Geneva Conventions either.

And if treating them harshly reveals a plot to kill innocent Americans that other methods do not reveal ... then yes, I am all for it.

 

[Jiro]

A military tribunal trial does not afford a person the rights afforded under the United States Constitution. And .. a military tribunal will make the distinction between a prisoner of war and an enemy belligerent.

A prisoner of war has rights afforded under the Articles of War Act, that an enemy belligerent does not have.

They (enemy belligerent) have no rights under the Hague or Geneva Conventions either.

And if treating them harshly reveals a plot to kill innocent Americans that other methods do not reveal ... then yes, I am all for it.

fortunately the law disagrees with you... see above. the humanity has prevailed. that's precisely how we win against these enemies with no principles.

military tribunal? lol what? still stuck in 1950's, I see....

 

[mikemike]

A; Qaeda and the Taliban and ISIS have an Arabic translation of the Geneva Convention????
Their lawyers, the ACLU, often sued in US courts on their behalf. The ACLU never defended American victims.

so you want to act like a terrorist? inhumane and cruel? dirty and illegal? go ahead. why don't we throw away Geneva Convention as well?

 

[mikemike]

huh? Most military personnel are conservative Republican. I worked for DOD and I see their Reagan and Bush car stickers in the parking lot. And the Duke Triangle Institute have surveys and polls that most of the military officers and enlisted personnel voted GOP. The liberals cut the defense budget all the time.

meaning... you're OK with being a barbarian toward thugs? I see. you do not need to make any further argument because we all know where you stand in this issue.

Fortunately, the military do not share your sentiment as expressively prohibited in their honorable guidelines. that's why a few people in government like Dick Cheney turn to a dark corner and used private contractors to do it.

just FYI - we are not in business of execution because it's illegal as signed by President Ford, Reagan, and Carter... all conservative Republicans.

 

[mikemike]

We're at war with terrorism. Maybe you heard of 9/11? the 19 Saudi Al Qaeda terrorists who were on the four plances???

Executive Order 12,333's prohibition against assassination leaves too many
questions unanswered and too many loopholes available, just like the
environmental laws.

According to one of the law reviews below,

"Although the ban on assassination contained in Executive Order
12,333 has the force and effect of a congressional statute or an act, the
President can evade the order's mandate and legally carry out the
assassination of a foreign leader in four ways. He could:
(1) Ask Congress to declare war, in which case a foreign leader exercise
command responsibility would become a legitimate target.
(2) Construe Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to permit the
assassination of a foreign leader based on either right to self-defense or a
right to respond to criminal activities.
(3) Narrowly interpret the order as not restricting the President as long as
he does not approve specific plans for the killing of individuals.
(4) Overrule the order, create an exception to it, or permit the Congress to
do the same.

By using any of these methods, a president could theoretically order
the assassination of a foreign leader without violating Executive Order
12,333."

Go to any law school library and read:

Anderson, Chris A. "Assassination, lawful homicide, and the Butcher of
Baghdad" 13 Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy 291-321 (Summer 1992).

Beres, Louis Ren. "On Assassination as Anticipatory Self-Defense: Is it
Permissible?," 70 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 13-35 (Fall 1992). Also in 5 Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 231-249 (Fall 1991).

Beres, Louis Rene. "On assassination as anticipatory self-defense: the case
of Israel." 20 Hofstra Law Review 321-340 (Winter 1991).

Johnson, Boyd, III. "Executive Order 12,333: the Permissibility of an
American Assassination of a Foreign Leader." 25 Cornell International Law
Journal, 401-435 (Spring 1992).

Newman, David and Tyll Van Geel. "Executive Order 12,333: the Risks of a
Clear Declaration of Intent." 12 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
433-447 (Spring 1989).

Schmitt, Michael. "State-Sponsored Assassination in International and
Domestic Law." 17 Yale Journal of International Law 609-685 (Summer 1992).

Teplitz, Robert. "Taking Assassination Attempts Seriously: Did the United
States violate International Law in Forcefully Responding to the Iraqi
Plot to Kill George Bush?" 28 Cornell International Law Journal 569-617
(Spring 1995).

Zengel, Patricia. "Assassination and the Law of Armed Conflict, 134 Military
Law Review 123-155 (Fall 1991). Also in 43 Mercer Law Review 615-644 (Winter
1992).

"The Legality of Assassination as an Aspect of Foreign Policy." 27 Virginia
Journal of International Law 655-697 (Spring 1987).

COUNTERING TERRORISM: THE ISRAELI RESPONSE TO THE 1972 MUNICH OLYMPIC MASSACRE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDEPENDENT COVERT ACTION TEAMS in http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/calahan.htm

just FYI - we are not in business of execution because it's illegal as signed by President Ford, Reagan, and Carter... all conservative Republicans.

 

[mikemike]

The Senate report (which costs over 50 millions dollars and could be use for deaf programs) failed to interview any actual participants from the CIA operations officers and the CIA paramilitary officers who where there. Sen. Feinstein dined in fancy restaurants with her rich husbands while American personnel are at risk in parts of the world.

See the CIA reports at
CIA's June 2013 Response to the SSCI Study on the Former Detention and Interrogation Program at https://www.cia.gov/library/reports...ormer_Detention_and_Interrogation_Program.pdf

Note to the Reader at https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/Note_to_the_Reader.pdf

Statement from Director Brennan on the SSCI Study on the Former Detention and Interrogation Program at https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...study-on-detention-interrogation-program.html

CIA Fact Sheet Regarding the SSCI Study on the Former Detention and Interrogation Program at https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...study-on-detention-interrogation-program.html

More important did any of the terrorists actually read the Geneva Convention? All military personnel who are deployed carried a wallet size card of the Geneva Convention.

did you miss the part where the "effective methods necessary" failed to produce any useful information? did you miss the part where most terrorists already gave up useful information to FBI and CIA before being subjected to torture?

 

[mikemike]

So what?

see http://www.mc.mil/

military tribunal? lol what? still stuck in 1950's, I see....

 

[Jiro]

A; Qaeda and the Taliban and ISIS have an Arabic translation of the Geneva Convention????

that's why they're animals. are you saying we should be on same level as them by ignoring Geneva Convention and morals?

Their lawyers, the ACLU, often sued in US courts on their behalf. The ACLU never defended American victims.

actually they did. they killed an American citizen with a drone strike. Anwar al-Awlaki. and Attorney General Holder has confirmed that we have killed three more Americans including al-Awlaki's son.

 

[Jiro]

huh? Most military personnel are conservative Republican. I worked for DOD and I see their Reagan and Bush car stickers in the parking lot. And the Duke Triangle Institute have surveys and polls that most of the military officers and enlisted personnel voted GOP. The liberals cut the defense budget all the time.

um..... this is related to this subject...... how?

and any comment about the military's handbook and guidelines expressly and clearly prohibited these harsh interrogations?

 

[Jiro]

We're at war with terrorism. Maybe you heard of 9/11? the 19 Saudi Al Qaeda terrorists who were on the four plances???

Executive Order 12,333's prohibition against assassination leaves too many
questions unanswered and too many loopholes available, just like the
environmental laws.

According to one of the law reviews below,

"Although the ban on assassination contained in Executive Order
12,333 has the force and effect of a congressional statute or an act, the
President can evade the order's mandate and legally carry out the
assassination of a foreign leader in four ways. He could:
(1) Ask Congress to declare war, in which case a foreign leader exercise
command responsibility would become a legitimate target.
(2) Construe Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to permit the
assassination of a foreign leader based on either right to self-defense or a
right to respond to criminal activities.
(3) Narrowly interpret the order as not restricting the President as long as
he does not approve specific plans for the killing of individuals.
(4) Overrule the order, create an exception to it, or permit the Congress to
do the same.

By using any of these methods, a president could theoretically order
the assassination of a foreign leader without violating Executive Order
12,333."

Go to any law school library and read:

Anderson, Chris A. "Assassination, lawful homicide, and the Butcher of
Baghdad" 13 Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy 291-321 (Summer 1992).

Beres, Louis Ren. "On Assassination as Anticipatory Self-Defense: Is it
Permissible?," 70 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 13-35 (Fall 1992). Also in 5 Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 231-249 (Fall 1991).

Beres, Louis Rene. "On assassination as anticipatory self-defense: the case
of Israel." 20 Hofstra Law Review 321-340 (Winter 1991).

Johnson, Boyd, III. "Executive Order 12,333: the Permissibility of an
American Assassination of a Foreign Leader." 25 Cornell International Law
Journal, 401-435 (Spring 1992).

Newman, David and Tyll Van Geel. "Executive Order 12,333: the Risks of a
Clear Declaration of Intent." 12 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
433-447 (Spring 1989).

Schmitt, Michael. "State-Sponsored Assassination in International and
Domestic Law." 17 Yale Journal of International Law 609-685 (Summer 1992).

Teplitz, Robert. "Taking Assassination Attempts Seriously: Did the United
States violate International Law in Forcefully Responding to the Iraqi
Plot to Kill George Bush?" 28 Cornell International Law Journal 569-617
(Spring 1995).

Zengel, Patricia. "Assassination and the Law of Armed Conflict, 134 Military
Law Review 123-155 (Fall 1991). Also in 43 Mercer Law Review 615-644 (Winter
1992).

"The Legality of Assassination as an Aspect of Foreign Policy." 27 Virginia
Journal of International Law 655-697 (Spring 1987).

COUNTERING TERRORISM: THE ISRAELI RESPONSE TO THE 1972 MUNICH OLYMPIC MASSACRE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDEPENDENT COVERT ACTION TEAMS in http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/calahan.htm

before you tell me to "go to any law school" and read.... have you read them?

and did you even double-check your post?

By using any of these methods, a president could theoretically order the assassination of a foreign leader without violating Executive Order 12,333.

in other word... it's not clear. with the way the situation is unfolding, it is leaning toward to "illegal".

 

[Jiro]

The Senate report (which costs over 50 millions dollars and could be use for deaf programs) failed to interview any actual participants from the CIA operations officers and the CIA paramilitary officers who where there. Sen. Feinstein dined in fancy restaurants with her rich husbands while American personnel are at risk in parts of the world.

any comment about Senator John McCain condemning the use of torture?

See the CIA reports at
CIA's June 2013 Response to the SSCI Study on the Former Detention and Interrogation Program at https://www.cia.gov/library/reports...ormer_Detention_and_Interrogation_Program.pdf

Note to the Reader at https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/Note_to_the_Reader.pdf

Statement from Director Brennan on the SSCI Study on the Former Detention and Interrogation Program at https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...study-on-detention-interrogation-program.html

CIA Fact Sheet Regarding the SSCI Study on the Former Detention and Interrogation Program at https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...study-on-detention-interrogation-program.html

More important did any of the terrorists actually read the Geneva Convention? All military personnel who are deployed carried a wallet size card of the Geneva Convention.

I fail to understand why would you think terrorists would follow Geneva Convention. I mean what?

do you think common criminals read the laws such as it's illegal to murder people... to rob people... to kidnap people. by your logic - we should torture a kidnapper into giving us a location of a missing child. we should torture a conspirator (ie. Tim McVeigh) into giving us entire information. after all.... because they didn't follow the laws and therefore why should we?

is that what you're saying?

 

[Jiro]

So what?

see http://www.mc.mil/

yea what about it? were you thinking that it doesn't exist anymore? no I've never said that. look at Steinhauer's post. he was citing some archaic laws from some 50 years ago.

I have to ask... are you aware of Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case? or Boumediene v. Bush case? or Military Commissions Act of 2006 and 2009? or Detainee Treatment Act of 2005?

these cases are basically saying that "unlawful combatants" do actually have rights.

 

[Steinhauer]

yea what about it? were you thinking that it doesn't exist anymore? no I've never said that. look at Steinhauer's post. he was citing some archaic laws from some 50 years ago.

I have to ask... are you aware of Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case? or Boumediene v. Bush case? or Military Commissions Act of 2006 and 2009? or Detainee Treatment Act of 2005?

these cases are basically saying that "unlawful combatants" do actually have rights.

Archaic laws from 50 years ago? You are familiar with how law works don't you? If I were to violate your civil rights, would you cite some archaic law from the 60's?

Hey, I know, if I were to violate your rights as a deaf individual, you could always cite those old archaic laws written many years ago.

When Guantanamo was established as a prison for terrorists, that old archaic law from 50 years ago was referenced. I seem to recall you referenced an archaic law from 50 years ago when you mentioned the Geneva Convention ...

But I will just summarize what I have actually been saying. Terrorists do not have Constitutional Rights. They are not afforded any international rights given by the Hague or Geneva Conventions.

The only comment I have about Senator McCain, is he is entitled to his *opinion*. More so entitled than you. He served his country. I am sure he is more sensitive and in tune to this topic as he was a "uniformed soldier" that was a POW and was tortured. That is a far cry from being an enemy belligerent.

 

[Jiro]

Archaic laws from 50 years ago? You are familiar with how law works don't you? If I were to violate your civil rights, would you cite some archaic law from the 60's?

Hey, I know, if I were to violate your rights as a deaf individual, you could always cite those old archaic laws written many years ago.

When Guantanamo was established as a prison for terrorists, that old archaic law from 50 years ago was referenced. I seem to recall you referenced an archaic law from 50 years ago when you mentioned the Geneva Convention ...

But I will just summarize what I have actually been saying. Terrorists do not have Constitutional Rights. They are not afforded any international rights given by the Hague or Geneva Conventions.

The only comment I have about Senator McCain, is he is entitled to his *opinion*. More so entitled than you. He served his country. I am sure he is more sensitive and in tune to this topic as he was a "uniformed soldier" that was a POW and was tortured. That is a far cry from being an enemy belligerent.

yes I see what you have been saying and thank you for a summary and you are entitled to your opinion although uninformed and flawed.

See Post #35 for updated laws regarding unprivileged enemy belligerents as Supreme Court believes they do have rights as well as the new laws as signed by President George Bush (yes your favorite conservative Republican). the summary of Post #35 is that your archaic view on unlawful combatants is ruled as unconstitutional.

you Reagan fans are hilarious.... always clinging onto past...

 

[mikemike]

well duh. maybe you should be more aware of why 9/11 happened...
academics on campus!!

So? Nothing wrong with killing terrorists who killed Americans.

that's why they're animals. are you saying we should be on same level as them by ignoring Geneva Convention and morals?


actually they did. they killed an American citizen with a drone strike. Anwar al-Awlaki. and Attorney General Holder has confirmed that we have killed three more Americans including al-Awlaki's son.

 

[mikemike]

for someone with 67,731 posts, maybe a job will clear your conscience...

um..... this is related to this subject...... how?

and any comment about the military's handbook and guidelines expressly and clearly prohibited these harsh interrogations?

 

[mikemike]

yes I read them at work before. Hard to summarized them.
How do you gonna fight a terrorism war without being discriminated?? We don't. the laws in wars are outdated.

before you tell me to "go to any law school" and read.... have you read them?

and did you even double-check your post?


in other word... it's not clear. with the way the situation is unfolding, it is leaning toward to "illegal".