It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Unity_99
The actual reality is, these aren't legal they're crimes against humanity. The authorities need to go in and arrest every signature on the form including Obama.
New Zealand is strongly committed to the protection and promotion of international human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and in the seven core human rights treaties.
New Zealand seeks to defend and advance international human rights in multilateral human rights fora, focussing on the meetings of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva and in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in New York and negotiations of new international human rights instruments.
New Zealand also focuses on the promotion of human rights in our region and in countries with which we have bilateral relationships, through exchanging views about human rights and providing practical assistance.
Republic of China
the Dominican Republic
the United Kingdom
the United States
International humanitarian law is also sometimes described as the “law of armed conflict” or the “laws of war”. It is a framework of rules that restricts the means and methods of warfare and protects people who are not participating in the fighting, in order to limit the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons. International humanitarian law does not regulate when or why a State may use force, or determine whether an armed conflict is legal or illegal, and the rules of international humanitarian law apply equally to all sides regardless of who started the conflict.
International humanitarian law is made up of a body of treaties. Many of the rules set down in these treaties have become so widely accepted that they are now regarded as customary international law and binding on all States.
The core international humanitarian law treaties are the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, concluded after World War II, which cover:
1. wounded soldiers on the battlefield;
2. wounded and shipwrecked at sea;
3. prisoners of war;
4. civilians under enemy control.
Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall, at all times, be humanely treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.
Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:
willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime.
Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:
taking of hostages
extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by DROKKR
So what do they know that we don't?
In Nazi Germany, the German equivalent term, 'Schutzhaft', was used as a euphemism for the extra- or para-legal rounding-up of political opponents and especially Jews, sometimes officially defended as being necessary to protect them from the 'righteous' wrath of the German population. Schutzhaft did not provide for a judicial warrant, in fact the detainee would most probably never have seen a judge. The victims were then sent to concentration camps, where many were later exterminated
Yep, he has EXECUTED the Presidency and Constitution faithfully... guess he didn't mis-speak at his swearing in ceremony...
p.s. when do we get the peace prize back....
Originally posted by angellicview
This is very confusing to me. I thought the House and Congress both voted it in with high votes (not that I agree with it - I don't). But now they are protesting it? Or are they just protesting it because it includes the language that it can't go against an American citizen?
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND
18 LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
19 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement
20 to detain a person in military custody under this sec-
21 tion does not extend to citizens of the United States.
22 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require-
23 ment to detain a person in military custody under
24 this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien
25 of the United States on the basis of conduct taking 422
† HR 1540 PP
1 place within the United States, except to the extent
2 permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
20 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
21 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
22 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
23 captured or arrested in the United States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
25 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress re-420
† HR 1540 PP
1 garding the application of the authority described in this
2 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
3 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of sub-
4 section (b)(2).
But far more dramatically, the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn’t limited to foreigners. It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”
An amendment that would limit military detentions to people captured overseas failed on Thursday afternoon. The Senate soundly defeated a measure to strip out all the detention provisions on Tuesday.
So despite the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to trial, the Senate bill would let the government lock up any citizen it swears is a terrorist, without the burden of proving its case to an independent judge, and for the lifespan of an amorphous war that conceivably will never end. And because the Senate is using the bill that authorizes funding for the military as its vehicle for this dramatic constitutional claim, it’s pretty likely to pass.
Robert M. Chesney
Charles I. Francis Professor in Law
BS Texas Christian University
Areas of Specialty
National Security Law