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 projectvxn
reply to post by Solasis
You're not. That is actually a recognized tenet of international law with regard to POW/Enemy combatants. So long as hostilities persist, the country that captures enemy combatants can hold onto them until hostilities cease.
In the case of AQ, since the Military commissions act labels them unlawful enemy combatants, and unlawful enemy belligerents, they are not entitled to civilian trials on US soil for criminal acts due to the danger of them rejoining enemy forces and committing further terrorist attacks. They do get military tribunals. Which is just fine with me.
There's a lot of hyperbole surrounding this here on ATS because although ATS members are supposed to deny ignorance, they instead deny facts and perpetuate BS in order to satisfy the doom/conspiracy fetish. I'm not saying this applies to you only that it is a prevalent modus operandi around here.
Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Solasis
1031 relates to the "Disposition Under Law of War" and includes this clause
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
1032 relates to the "CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR."
The two sections refer to the same people or detainees. The only difference is how they are to be handled prior to and during "Disposition".edit on 15-12-2011 by WTFover because: (no reason given)
Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY
SEC. 1033. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.
SEC. 1034. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT OR MODIFY FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES TO HOUSE DETAINEES TRANSFERRED FROM UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA
SEC. 1035. PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC DETENTION REVIEW OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
SEC. 1036. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATIONS.
SEC. 1037. CLARIFICATION OF RIGHT TO PLEAD GUILTY IN TRIAL OF CAPITAL OFFENSE BY MILITARY
419 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in sub section (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
Keep telling yourself that OP... that's gonna fix everything.
Seriously, go read the news a little and see WHO says what...
Originally posted by m.red
you should change your tittle if you have changed your view.
Originally posted by condition9
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
I am asking again as I am wanting to be clear also you are saying you believe and that citizens of u.s. cannot be detained as such??
I said you hadn't done enough before posting this thread. Many people only read the first page and don't follow the rest of the thread. That is why it's misleading.
And just how do you know the amount of research I have done?
because you chose to post something without doing enough research.
Actually I can see why it would be very easy to misinterpret/overlook that one word. They made it that way for a reason.
Ultimately, I decided that I interpreted ONE WORD, incorrectly. It's interesting actually, how just one word can change it for me. I assure you I had done more than enough research.
Yeah that's true, this was actually quite a productive thread with lots of good insight, I'm sure many people learnt a lot from it.
Like I said, this thread was very well researched, it came down to each of us, sharing notes and interpretations until we reached a conclusion