Are You an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant"?

as the bill states, 'has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States' or its military allies.

Thats pretty clear to me, why not you?

According to Geneva Convention,

A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)

A combatant,

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

See wounded combatants for a list of protections.

Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy's own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

For more protections afforded the civilian population, see civilian immunity.

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

I hardly think that Bush is after war protesters unless of course they are armed and wearing no uniform with no clear chain of command - meet these criteria and you just may find yourself declared an enemy combatant.

The last paragraphs of both article quotes in the beginning post serve to heighten fear amongst the predisposed with a hint of paranoia and take somewhat more than a leap of faith to swallow.

I could make nearly the same claims of imminent government takeover and dictatorship as the prior admin took away many of my rights to keep and bear arms - you know similar to those nazi's in germany back in the thirties.

Didnt happen - not that THOSE people didnt try.

I'm really glad THOSE people no longer have power.

The sky is not falling.

As others have pointed out, this end run around the protections provided by the US Constitution is not something the Right should celebrate. What is created now to be used against Bush's opponents could easily be used by an authoritarian liberal like Hillary against say, gun control opponents, or pro-lifers.

People need to realize that 'Bush' isn't personally going to do any of these things, but You can bet 'Barney Fife' likes to assert His authority. Case in point- My darling Husband took My car to work one day due to a flat tire on His. I am constantly displaying My political thoughts and beliefs to any & everyone. I do not scribble 'Go Ravens' or 'Congratulations Billy, class of 2006' on My car. I wrote 'War is Murder for Profit & Power.' Wow! Talk about a reaction from Mr. State Police Officer! My husband was pulled over and was made to scrape every bit of marker off the car. He was told He had to take it to a car wash and remove every bit of it before being allowed to continue to work. Needless to say the ol' man was a tad unhappy with My means of expression that evening. What I'm getting at is that this would affect Us all, from My small PA town to large cities. Some people don't need much of an excuse to abuse their power.

I still haven't written on My car yet. I think My husband and kids are thankful for Mr. Policeman.

Peace. K*

edit by Me for My poor spelling.

[edit on 10/1/06 by Demetre]

Some are actually paranoid enough to think that a simple war protester, or a simple Bush-hater, could get them labled as an unlawful enemy combatant.

In a perfect world maybe, but this is not a perfect world! This is the United States of America, where you can trash your President, trash your country, and actually live another day! Think about how many countries, some of which you actually root for against the U.S.A, which you would be executed on the spot for doing the same thing or less?

Its a good thing that so few support fascists like the one above me who wanted our rights removed, he will denigh this by saying: I did not say that! Where did I say that? (something like that) however its the contect of what he says that supports what I said.
Those of us in the real world:
Dont worry, any list of dissenters out there who need to be killed, were on it already. So dont fret it and just keep going, but if unmarked cars start spending unusual amounts of time around your house, pack your bags and go out the BACK door at NIGHT and go somewhere you have never gone before and hide for a short time.

Pieman is on to something there. But for those who see us as paranoid...

Paranoia is a complex emotion these days. I am very paranoid, my wife never hesitates to let me know this, but my paranoia doesn't equal fear. If I see a law, I also look for ways in which that law can be abused. Maybe that makes me a cynic, but there are millions like me, and it's not outlandish or silly to analyze what our government does, especially when they have a proven track record of murders, lies and deceit to further a political agenda (and no, I'm not just talking about the Bush presidencies).

tinWiki: The Patriot Act

Section 802 creates a category of crime called "domestic terrorism," which forbids activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States," if the individual's intent is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." This possibly means that citizens exorcising their right to peaceful protest on any issue can possibly be deemed "intimidating", and imprisoned.

Unlike the other sections of the Patriot Act, Section 802 does not modify an existing law, because no similar law has ever existed.

These are the grounds used to beat, gas, arrest and detain protestors during politically sensitive gatherings. But it isn't all Bush's fault; Clinton did the same stuff during his presidency. And if you think I'm just understanding the wording wrong, let's look at this FBI terrorism identification flyer, which I believe was the topic of at least two threads here at ATS (it's a tri-fold, you'll have to either crane your neck or flip your monitor, whatever floats your boat). If you don't feel like looking at it, here's the meat:

FBI Flyer

Domestic Terrorism is defined as: Groups or individuals operating entirely inside the US, attempting to influence the US government or population to effect political or social change by engaging in criminal activity.

By engaging in criminal activity...guess that means being involved with any of these groups.

The link is the complete list of "terrorists", here's a few interesting excerpts: defenders of the US Constution agains the federal government and the UN (Super Patriots); People who request authority for a stop; people who make numerous references to the US Constitution; people who attempt to "police the police"; people whose political motivations are Marxist or Leninist; Lone individuals; the list goes on, check the flyer for yourself. That's just in Arizona state, by the way; some places go into further detail, evidence of which I will happily provide to you if you would like it.

Many of us are already considered terrorists, or at best, terror suspects; Bush's attempts to redefine what makes someone a combatant are only a means to an end, an effort to allow him to try "combatants" in secret courts to bypass public knowledge, and therefore public condemnation. But the power to arrest and detain is already there; all they need to do is fit an individual into their all-encompassing description of terrorism, and once you're a terrorist, you're theirs.

I've read through this Act and I must say it's quite a nasty piece of legislature. Couple of things in this Act that cought my eye.

- Retroactivity - now that's a big NO NO in practically every Constitution in the world. Because this Act is retroactive, a person can be prosecuted for actions in the past that wasn't illegal at that time. Not to mention it's free Get-Out-Of-Jail Card for current administration.

- Insufficient civilian Oversight

- Extremely broad definition on what constitutes "Unlawful Enemy Combatant".

- To much power in hands of two persons. Only President and Secretary of Defense can decide who is or isn't "Unlawful Enemy Combatant". Now that's quite a lot of discretionary powers over more that six billion people don't you think?

- Military Tribunals and nature of evidence presented. The whole idea of Military Tribunals judging "civilians" is quite disturbing to me. So is passing centance on person with evidence that is "Top Secret", "Priviledged" and in interest of "National Security".

- Torture - I even don't want to comment on that

- Death Penalty - To centance a person to death under a veil of Secrecy is IMO a disgrace.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Some are actually paranoid enough to think that a simple war protester, or a simple Bush-hater, could get them labled as an unlawful enemy combatant.

In a perfect world maybe...

So in this perfect world of yours you think a person should be labeled an enemy combatant for his feelings, huh? For exercising his Constitutionally protected rights? Okay. So, you're against the Constitution, it's clear. So is Bush. Not too big of a surprise or too difficult to understand. However...

Think about how many countries ... which you would be executed on the spot for doing the same thing or less?

So... "at least we're not North Korea" is your argument? We should be happy, then, eh?

:shk:

It's amazing to me the number of people whose argument is that as long as we're not as bad as the very worst we can imagine, we should just shut up and be satisfied...

Originally posted by Phoenix

I could make nearly the same claims of imminent government takeover and dictatorship as the prior admin took away many of my rights to keep and bear arms - you know similar to those nazi's in germany back in the thirties.

Didnt happen - not that THOSE people didnt try.

I'm really glad THOSE people no longer have power.

The sky is not falling.

Yes it really is falling. What do you think will happen when THOSE people get back in power with these super prosecution tools? I am sure they will think, oh that would be just moraly wrong to do to the American people.

You ever been prosecuted before? You have no idea what the judicial branch will do when they want you.

Years ago in an area I used to live (pre-911) there was a problem with performance motorcycle riders running from the police. Back then I was a very well known car salesman, I used to do TV spots and was high pofile in the community.

One day on my way home from work, after a very stressful day, I blew off some stress by riding through the country fast on my extremly fast motorcycle. I have raced bikes since I was 9 years old and am capable of anything on a bike. Well I blew by an unmarked what they call a slimline police car. I rode for a while, then went into town and slowed back down. This officer pulls me over and arrested me for fleeing and eluding. This is a 2 year in prison felony!

To make a very long story short, the prosecuter decided he could put a big dent in the motorcyle problem by making an example out of me. It didnt matter that I didnt even know I was being chased (when the officer turned around to go after me I was goin well over 150 MPH and he was never in my rearview mirror) it didnt mater that I was an upstanding member of society. He used every tool availible to him, it was horribly relentless. My wife and I had to refinace our house and dump thousands of dollars into the best lawyer in the state of Michigan. They finally decided to cut there losses and give me a deal (after 3 months and 6 times in front of the prosecuter) and gave me a misdominor and a fine.

Thank god for now I am Firefighter and have saved lives since then.

If this happened with todays prosecuting tools, with tomorrows administration I would have said goodbye for a long time. We cannot give a government that kind of power. It WILL be abused every time. Prosecuters are not what they seem to be on television, they are scary people that do not care for anything but moving up in the system.

Originally posted by Phoenix

as the bill states, 'has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States' or its military allies.

Thats pretty clear to me, why not you?

Phoenix, thanks for all the hard work you did in gathering this info. But there's a few things that you are not considering. One is that with the Military Act that was passed last Thursday, Bush has stated that we will not be following Geneva Conventions. In fact, he's been saying that since 911, but now it is law.

And the "enemy combatant" thing can and does include civilians. It's a short stretch from protester to "enemy combatant". Anyone can be made to look bad in a court.

If this happened with todays prosecuting tools, with tomorrows administration I would have said goodbye for a long time. We cannot give a government that kind of power. It WILL be abused every time. Prosecuters are not what they seem to be on television, they are scary people that do not care for anything but moving up in the system.

Your story to me is a great example why prosecutors should not be elected officials.
This kind of prosecution to "make an example" of a citizen, generally to enhance the prosecutor's political standing, is all too typical. People complain about the police, but the police are the ones most likely to give a person a break.

A prosecutor will always screw you, as publicly as possible, if they think it will enhance their political career. "Justice" is generally the very last thing on their minds.

the Enabling Act, passed by the German legislature in 1933, might well have been the point of no return.

The New Enabling Act

After the obscenity of WWII, the idea that it could be broken by the United States or its allies was unthinkable. And that promise, at least, was largely kept.

Until now.

Forget, for the moment, that the proposed “compromise” torture legislation effectively abrogates the Geneva Conventions. Forget that it effectively licenses torture in the name of every American. Focus instead on the fact that it “vests in the administration the singularly most tyrannical power that exists – namely, the power unilaterally to decree someone guilty of a crime and to condemn the accused to eternal imprisonment without having even to charge him with a crime, let alone defend the validity of those accusations.” Focus on this language from the proposed law:

…(N)o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, … including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

R.I.P. the United States of America. It was nice knowing you...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

R.I.P. the United States of America. It was nice knowing you...

What a country we were too. We were brave, free and capable of anything, we had the right stuff to put a man on the moon. NOw we are a bunch of cowering fools waiting for the hammer to drop.

Years ago my brother (who is now passed on) told me we could one day end up in this situation. I never believed it could happen to America. I often wonder about those that post here defending this mess, I wonder what do you think defines what America is? Do they think its freedom to shop? Do they think its the movies we make? Is it the television they watch?

It is the protection we have from our governement. Nothing else than that is what makes us great. That protection has now been lifted. So therefore the above quote by BH is so damn true. The United States of America is no more, it has died without a wimper.

George W. Bush
September 20, 2001
Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People
www.whitehouse.gov...

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. "

However, it is not Osama bin Laden that passed laws destroying our freedoms. The terrorists do hate our freedoms for they have passed laws to do away with our freedoms.

Double post removed...




[edit on 18-10-2006 by pepsi78]

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

To do that you need a global goverment, lol , only then it can hapen, only in a police state this can be done, where everything is controled, as he put it, to stop every terrorist, this is hard to do and can't be done in any other way, it's just imposible to stop every group on the planet, the only way is for a one world police state.
As he says, It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated., he means only the NWO can stop this, we can clearly see where this is heading, this is just the begining, get prepeared to get robed of the freedoms you have.

The only way to stop this is to put down the arms and to say"I QUIT SUCKER"
But that would require the worlds will, very hard to do, but then again they may very well invent another enemy, or another cause to fight for, to get the peoples atention and to impose freedom limits, the only goal is control, as those are control freaks and they will setle for nothing less.




[edit on 18-10-2006 by pepsi78]

[edit on 18-10-2006 by pepsi78]