Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm sorry. But there is a reason we have the protections we do in the courts. Because much less and we call those trials "fixed" or "show trials" or "kangaroo courts." I agree it should be protected for intelligence leaks, but clearly part of the issue is that Bush was both incompetent and malevolent, and wanted short cuts and sexy-brutal-sounding ways to get intel (see 24). And then afterward they wanted to wash their hands and lock them up forever Nazi "protective custody" style forever with a veneer of legality for purely external propoganda purposes, not preserve the rule of law and fair trials. The cost of living in a free and fair society is sometimes we must err on the side of fairness and freedom, and that means sometimes people might be acquited or have mistrials or successfully suing the government for fucking their life up for no good reason. Even if they settle or leave, that doesn't mean the evidence the government did have would not be sufficient to have a FISA warrent to keep up surveillance. And if they settle but you can't convict them of the big charges, you can keep them under supervision just like any drug offender is forced to piss in a cup and stay in touch if they get probation.

[Ender]

Well Elfdart, though reading your continued mental unraveling now that you have lost Bush to rail against is amusing, having to be the one who deals with it is incredibly tedious. Thus I will no longer be addressing you directly, but those reading the exchange. Given that in the past five years you have never applied rational thought in any situation where you could instead froth at the mouth, I doubt this change in tone will impact whatever "thought" processes go on in that little reptilian hind brain of yours.

At this point in the exchange Elfdart doesn't have much left. The bulk of the last exchange has been trimmed out, apparently because he had no legitimate rebuttal for it. The bulk of this attack from him is actually distorted BBS coding leaving my reply in, deliberately ignoring a major point of mine to attack me for "not covering it", and flat out lying. Lets wade through this nonsense.

It's not wholly different. They have the same rights, except in cases where after due process, it's determined that a prisoner doesn't meet the standard. Until that happens, they are to be treated the same.

As I have said before, such captured personnel are afforded the same rights and privileges, but the legal system they would be held under is wholly different. This is the crux of the issue, a point which Elfdart continues to employ a "stone deaf" trolling technique against. POW status is grossly different from captured personnel status in this regard, and as article 5 states the re must be a determination of POW status before they can be processed as such. To do otherwise would be at best a gross miscarriage of justice.

They took up arms to defend the government of their host country. To the extent that they joined with the Taliban's forces, they would meet the standard. If a competent tribunal found that they hadn't, or they didn't meet the other criteria, they wouldn't. But a tribunal makes that decision.

Here again Elfdart applied "stone deaf", coupled with argumentum ad nauseum. He thinks that repeating that Al-Queda operatives are POWs makes it true. This is not the case. Elfdart is well aware of the criteria required by Article 4, clause 6 as he quoted it himself

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Let us go through this bit by bit.
"Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory" is in some cases vague here, as many Al-Queda fighters also held citizenship with Afghanistan. This would make them inhabitants of the occupied territory.
" who on the approach of the enemy " stipulates that they must take up fighting after the enemy has attacked their country. Al-Queda was organized and formed long before the invasion of Afghanistan.
"spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces" makes it clear this provision applies to ad hoc resistance movements. Al-Queda was no such thing, having a formal cell organization, training camps, a supply network, and long range attack plans. While a great many words (largely pejorative) can be used to describe Al-Queda, "spontaneous" is not one of them.
" without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units" would, even if for some reason discounted the rest of this clause, completely strip Al-Queda of claims of protection under clause 6. They had formal recruitment methods, training camps, and a cell organization, and had been building this system for years. They not only had the time to form themselves into regular armed units, they formalized themselves in an official cell structure.
"provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" is again the opposite of Al-Queda. They do not carry arms openly. Their operations have violated the laws and customs of war on every level. And this decision beyond all others is what strips them of the protections of clause 6.

I have no doubt that Elfdart was attempting to be whatever it is that passes for clever from him when he included the caveat "To the extent that they joined with the Taliban's forces" in his statement. However, working in concert does not serve as a "reset" button, allowing them to claim that they are now protected fighters because "all of a sudden" they didn't have time and their works over the intervening years should just be erased. Even if one where to humor Elfdart and let the magic reset button exist in real life, the closing provision damns them. Even working in concert with national forces, Al-Queda did not respect the laws and customs of war. For this they receive zero protections under clause 6.

It has everything to do with it. Due process includes the proceedings where it's decided whether a person meets the standard or not. What, did you think they flipped a coin or something? Did you think it was a matter of an officer deciding the issue on his own?

In this rather bizarre rambling, Elfdart concedes the point while attacking me. The original thrust here was Elfdart attempting to climb on his soapbox to rail about the roundly condemned actions of the Bush administration. I pointed out that his railing about the failure to launch proceeding until 2004 (only to have those proceedings found to be unconstitutional) is irrelevant to the issue of how Article 5 distinguishes between the default of captured personnel and POWs. Here he attacks me by shifting tactics and attacking me on the grounds that their status as POWs vice captured personnel is part of due process. Yet that such a distinction had to be made was the point he denied in the first place. No doubt he thought that this was a superb counterargument, though I expect only Einhammer is in a sufficiently mind altered state to agree with him.

Yes. And?

Nice Wall of Ignorance.

This exchange was my response to another self defeating tirade of his, similar to the one immediately above in this post. Elfdart has been claiming that the default status is to be a POW, I am pointing out that the Geneva Convention states the default is to be a captured person and a legitimate Combatant Status Review Tribunal must be held to determine if the person in a POW. Elfdart here though stated that competent tribunals must be held. Given that this was my claim since the onset and one he was challenging, my response here is to see if he was in fact conceding the point or not. Of course, not having tried to reverse positions with me, Elfdart now crows that I am engaging in debating fallacies on the basis that I don't understand how agreeing with me constitutes a counter argument.

It's a distinction without a difference.

No, it absolutely is not. POWs fall under a different legal code. That's the entire freaking point of this.

Yes. And the system under which that trial is convened is dependent on whether or not they are POWs or simply captured personnel. This is an overwhelming difference. You can keep pullin the EIny style raving tricks all you want, but it isn't helping you here.

Here we have a rather insipid exchange where Elfdart leaves in my responses to his flaccid argument and considers a smiley to be a sufficient rebuttal to to my point that legal system is dependent on status. In all fairness, I think that is the most intelligent thing he says in this post.

That's not what the Convention says:

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

You're a POW until you've been determined not to be one by a competent tribunal. Learn to read.

Here we have selective quoting. A long time favorite of creationists, hoaxsters, trolls and other idiots, it is about all Elfdart has to fall back on. Here he presents article 5 of the Hague convention of 1907 and presents it as the definitive ruling on the matter. The dishonesty here should be self evident - Article 5 of the 1949 Geneva convention revised and expanded on this. Elfdart is well aware of this, having quote it earlier in the thread. But the current laws disprove his claims, so he tries to pass off the older ones as current. Yet he actually manages to outdo himself with this magnificent piece of lying later. In any event, here again is Article 5 of the 1949 convention.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Note that clause 3 actually expands and clarifies the language of the Hague convention. Captured personnel enjoy the full rights and privileges of the POW. They are not classified as POWs. This distinction is made due to the differing legal systems accused criminals would be tried under. This is the key point of the argument, so of course Elfdart tried to dust off earlier language in an attempt to not admit he is wrong.

So if you agree that it gives rise to an incredibly diverse number of options, why exactly to you take issue with the statement that a codified system to address this and completely remove any ambiguity is needed?

We already have one.

And yet, ladies and gentlemen, legal scholars do not agree on this one. Attempts to simultaneous apply rulings on confidential information restriction and constitutional legal proceedings have been roundly struck down by the courts. There is no system in place to prosecute said terrorists that does not result in double jeopardy. There are no agreements in place for the transference of prisoners between powers with divergent opinions on justice (eg death penalty states vice those that forbid it). There is no agreement on the appropriate court to try criminals in. In short, to claim that there is a legal framework in place is not only false, but deliberately denies decisions that have rebuked the Bush administrations attempts to apply multiple legal rulings at once with the end result of violating due process.

Leaving aside the fact that this is an ARVN officer and not one from the US, show me where under the UCMJ an officer is allowed to carry out a shooting like this one. Contrary to your claims, a

Here Elfdart deliberately ignores a clarification I supplied to have grounds to attack me. This is of course in violation of board rules.

summary court martial allows only the following punishments:

A servicemember tried at a summary court-martial may receive up to 30 days confinement, hard labor without confinement for no more than 45 days, restriction to a specified area for up to 2 months, reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, forfeiture of 2/3 pay for one month or a fine. However, an enlisted person in the grade of E-5 and above may not be sentenced to confinement or hard labor without confinement. In addition, servicemembers in the grade of E-5 and E6 may not be reduced more than one pay grade; enlisted servicemembers in the grade of E-7 through E-9 may not be reduced at a summary court-martial.

Anyone see any mention of a death penalty?

And thus we continue to see what a truly dishonest piece of shit Elfdart is. Beyond his selective quoting, wall of ignorance, refusal to address points, and to brazenly lie ignore an entire post dealing with a topic he attacks me on, here he intentionally lies. The topic of discussion is that of a courts martial, covered under Articles 16 and 22. Elfdart doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, much less is he competent to discuss the UCMJ, and much less with someone who dealt with it daily for the better part of a decade. But despite being an utter failure, Elfdart still has, for some bizarre reason, pride. And his pride won't let him admit to being wrong. So when it is pointed out that Articles 16 and 22 define the Court-Martial Jurisdiction and Composition, which defeats his claims, he cannot admit to it. So what does he do? He quotes Article 15, on Non Judicial Punishment, and then claims that it is Article 16.

This is beyond trolling, this is straight up no balls lying.

You really, truly, have no freaking clue what you are talking about, do you?

Pot. Kettle. Feel free to show where a summary court martial allows murder as depicted in the photo. I'll give you a hint:

Article 106. Spies.
Any person who in time of war is found lurking as a spy or acting as a spy in or about any place, vessel, or aircraft, within the control or jurisdiction of any of the armed forces, or in or about any shipyard, any manufacturing or industrial plant, or any other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the Unites States, or elsewhere, shall be tried by a general court-martial or by a military commission and on conviction shall be punished by death.

"By a military commission" includes summary court martial, thus demonstrating again that Elfdart is a blustering fuckup.

As to where it is allowed, I will now do something Elfdart is so loath to do, and tell the truth.

ART. 19. JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

Subject to section 817 of this title (article 17), special courts-martial have jurisdiction to try persons subject to this chapter for any noncapital offense made punishable by this chapter and, under such regulations as the President may prescribe, for capital offenses. Special courts-martial may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter except death, dishonorable discharge, dismissal, confinement for more than six months, hard labor without confinement for more than three months, forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds pay per month, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months. A bad-conduct discharge may not be adjudged unless a complete record of the proceedings and testimony has been made, counsel having the qualifications prescribed under section 827(b) of this title (article 27(b)) was detailed to represent the accused, and a military judge was detailed to the trial, except in any case in which a military judge could not be detailed to the trial, the convening authority shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the record, stating the reason or reasons a military judge could not be detailed.

Since he deliberately ignored it to attack me, I suggest those reading this go back to page one and look at my last post on the page. And what did I say in my above post? That the power has been delegated to summary courts martial in the past, though I believe it has since been taken back (which is what I also told Shep earlier on the page).

And this concludes the dissection of the latest spittle flecked ravings of our resident troll.

[Graeme Dice]

That incident was a legal execution for a spy/saboteur under article 106, as metted out by a summary court martial by the officer in charge. You really, truly, have no freaking clue what you are talking about, do you?

Why does the fact that it was legal make any difference to you?

[Thanas]

^Because the claim was made that the persons involved didn't have the right to act in the manner depicted?

[Graeme Dice]

^Because the claim was made that the persons involved didn't have the right to act in the manner depicted?

Then I'll ask again why you care whether the action was legal or not? Whether something was legal has very little to do with whether somebody has the right to do it.

[Thanas]

Actually, it does. That's what the term "legal action" means. And by the laws of war, he had every right to shoot that Vietcong saboteur.

[Graeme Dice]

Actually, it does. That's what the term "legal action" means. And by the laws of war, he had every right to shoot that Vietcong saboteur.

So are you claiming that the morally appropriate thing to do was to execute that person? Because otherwise I fail to see how it is relevant that he had the "right" to do it. And that's why I'm going to keep asking this question until I get an answer: Why does the fact that it was legal make any difference to you?

[Ender]

^Because the claim was made that the persons involved didn't have the right to act in the manner depicted?

Then I'll ask again why you care whether the action was legal or not? Whether something was legal has very little to do with whether somebody has the right to do it.

I care whether or not the action was legal because that is the point under contention. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

[Ender]

Actually, it does. That's what the term "legal action" means. And by the laws of war, he had every right to shoot that Vietcong saboteur.

So are you claiming that the morally appropriate thing to do was to execute that person? Because otherwise I fail to see how it is relevant that he had the "right" to do it. And that's why I'm going to keep asking this question until I get an answer: Why does the fact that it was legal make any difference to you?

No body is saying a damn thing about moral status of the action you illiterate tool. The question of whether or not it is legal matters because that is the point under debate.

[Graeme Dice]

No body is saying a damn thing about moral status of the action you illiterate tool. The question of whether or not it is legal matters because that is the point under debate.

Then you are having a useless debate. Thanks for admitting that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No body is saying a damn thing about moral status of the action you illiterate tool. The question of whether or not it is legal matters because that is the point under debate.

Then you are having a useless debate. Thanks for admitting that.

No it is not. Like it or not, ours (and yours) is a nation of laws. How we treat prisoners of various types legally is a very useful debate to have. Even if something was immoral, we cant exactly charge anyone with a crime that doesnt exist now can we?

[Graeme Dice]

No it is not. Like it or not, ours (and yours) is a nation of laws. How we treat prisoners of various types legally is a very useful debate to have. Even if something was immoral, we cant exactly charge anyone with a crime that doesnt exist now can we?

It's a useless debate because it allows Ender to avoid admitting that he thinks that such executions are morally justified because they are legal.

[Ender]

No body is saying a damn thing about moral status of the action you illiterate tool. The question of whether or not it is legal matters because that is the point under debate.

Then you are having a useless debate. Thanks for admitting that.

We also aren't talking about the price of fish in Stockholm. Does that make this a useless debate as well? The moral evaluations of what has and is happening is not the topic of discussion. That you want it to be and think the fact that it isn't makes the debate "useless" is completely irrelevant. Particularly since I'm not debating you, you just popped in and started screaming that no one addressed your as yet unpresented red herring .

[Ender]

No it is not. Like it or not, ours (and yours) is a nation of laws. How we treat prisoners of various types legally is a very useful debate to have. Even if something was immoral, we cant exactly charge anyone with a crime that doesnt exist now can we?

It's a useless debate because it allows Ender to avoid admitting that he thinks that such executions are morally justified because they are legal.

Hey, nice strawman. Go ahead and point out where I ever said word one about morality in here.

[Graeme Dice]

We also aren't talking about the price of fish in Stockholm. Does that make this a useless debate as well? The moral evaluations of what has and is happening is not the topic of discussion. That you want it to be and think the fact that it isn't makes the debate "useless" is completely irrelevant. Particularly since I'm not debating you, you just popped in and started screaming that no one addressed your as yet unpresented red herring .

I love how you are so upset that I pointed out how you were trying to sidestep Elfdart's main point. I wasn't aware that you were one of the privileged few who gets to decide whether or not somebody can debate them.

Hey, nice strawman. Go ahead and point out where I ever said word one about morality in here.

Oh please, you clearly think that the "summary execution" (ie. murder) was moral or else you wouldn't be getting so upset right now. You'd simply come right out and state that you agree that it was immoral. You'd then argue that while the law might say a certain thing that this doesn't mean that the law should work in that way.

[General Zod]

I love how you are so upset that I pointed out how you were trying to sidestep Elfdart's main point. I wasn't aware that you were one of the privileged few who gets to decide whether or not somebody can debate them.

That's funny, Elfdart didn't say anything about morality either.

Show me where in US law that summary executions are allowed.

[Graeme Dice]

That's funny, Elfdart didn't say anything about morality either.

Well, for one, Elfdart is actually on the morally correct side of this argument, and from his past actions we know that he's not ethically bankrupt. Ender, on the other hand is a right-winger, so we know that his morality is suspect from the very start.

[General Zod]

Well, for one, Elfdart is actually on the morally correct side of this argument, and from his past actions we know that he's not ethically bankrupt. Ender, on the other hand is a right-winger, so we know that his morality is suspect from the very start.

Perhaps you're too dense to grasp this, but claiming that something is legal is not the same as claiming it is ethical. Unless you're incapable of distinguishing the two concepts it is perfectly viable and acceptable to say that something is legal without agreeing with it ethically whatsoever.

[Ender]

I love how you are so upset that I pointed out how you were trying to sidestep Elfdart's main point. I wasn't aware that you were one of the privileged few who gets to decide whether or not somebody can debate them.

I fully addressed Elfdart's main point - the contention betwen captured personnel and POWs, and whether there were legal provisions that allowed for summary executions. Elfdart has said nothing about morality at all in this debate.

Oh please, you clearly think that the "summary execution" (ie. murder) was moral or else you wouldn't be getting so upset right now. You'd simply come right out and state that you agree that it was immoral. You'd then argue that while the law might say a certain thing that this doesn't mean that the law should work in that way.

I'm getting annoyed because you are openly trolling by attacking me for not dealing with your red herrings. While we like our laws to be moral, morality and legality are separate things. We are debating the latter.

[Ender]

That's funny, Elfdart didn't say anything about morality either.

Well, for one, Elfdart is actually on the morally correct side of this argument, and from his past actions we know that he's not ethically bankrupt. Ender, on the other hand is a right-winger, so we know that his morality is suspect from the very start.

I'm not sure if I am more astounded by the fact that yet again political affiliations are used as pejoratives, that somehow working my ass off all summer and fall for the Obama campaign and IL democrats somehow makes me a "right winger", or the assertion that somehow political affiliation dictates whether you are a moral person or not.

Hey nutjob, Blago is a "left winger", care to explain how trying to sell a Senate seat is moral behavior?

[Graeme Dice]

I fully addressed Elfdart's main point - the contention betwen captured personnel and POWs, and whether there were legal provisions that allowed for summary executions. Elfdart has said nothing about morality at all in this debate.

Okay. Then how about you address _my_ point.

I'm getting annoyed because you are openly trolling by attacking me for not dealing with your red herrings. While we like our laws to be moral, morality and legality are separate things. We are debating the latter.

No, you are debating the latter. I'm debating the former, and am telling you that you are a morally bankrupt asshole because you won't come right out and say that the murder of that person was immoral.

I'm not sure if I am more astounded by the fact that yet again political affiliations are used as pejoratives, that somehow working my ass off all summer and fall for the Obama campaign and IL democrats somehow makes me a "right winger", or the assertion that somehow political affiliation dictates whether you are a moral person or not.

Obama is a right wing politician. I would have thought that that would be fairly obvious. And yes, political affiliation does indicate morality, because it indicates what policies you support.

Selling a senate seat is neither moral nor legal.

[General Zod]

No, you are debating the latter. I'm debating the former, and am telling you that you are a morally bankrupt asshole because you won't come right out and say that the murder of that person was immoral.

So you're debating something wholly irrelevant to the thread and saying that because someone doesn't immediately denounce something, that MUST mean they support it morally? Do you use this broken logic in everything?

Obama is a right wing politician. I would have thought that that would be fairly obvious. And yes, political affiliation does indicate morality, because it indicates what policies you support.

That just makes whatever definition you're using for "right wing" utterly useless. "Left of center" would be more accurate, but I doubt you realize the difference.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I think political affiliation does effect your moral character. They are not completely independent variables. However it does not matter in the simplistic manner in which Dice is describing it.

[Ender]

I fully addressed Elfdart's main point - the contention betwen captured personnel and POWs, and whether there were legal provisions that allowed for summary executions. Elfdart has said nothing about morality at all in this debate.

Okay. Then how about you address _my_ point.

You know what? No, fuck you. Not because I concede the point - I don't know the facts of that case and thus cannot evaluate if the court martial was conducted in a just fashion or not. And I'm not going to take a position out of ignorance. But because you came in here and trolled the thread. So fuck off.

No, you are debating the latter.

Thank you. So you are trolling then for attacking me for positions I have not taken in a debate I am not engaged in.

I'm debating the former, and am telling you that you are a morally bankrupt asshole because you won't come right out and say that the murder of that person was immoral.

You aren't debating shit, you came in and started attacking me for fictional position in a fictional debate.

Obama is a right wing politician. I would have thought that that would be fairly obvious.

Wheee, no true scotsman! Obama is a left wing politician within the American political spectrum. Care to try again?

And yes, political affiliation does indicate morality, because it indicates what policies you support.

And of course such policies are cut and dried immoral vs moral scenarios, and not representative of the shades of gray that constitute the real world, right? And lets not forget, yours is the only system of ethics out there, so it is easy to decide what is moral or what is immoral, it isn't like philosophers have been debating such things for thousands of years or anything.

Selling a senate seat is neither moral nor legal.

Yet as a democrat and thus "left wing" within America and your earlier statements, he is on the moral side of things because it is a reflection of the policies he supports.

[Ender]

I think political affiliation does effect your moral character. They are not completely independent variables. However it does not matter in the simplistic manner in which Dice is describing it.

I think it might be more accurate to say it reflects moral system, rather than moral character. You can run into scenarios where someone supports a moral system, but lives an immoral life through things like the age old "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak". Certainly people who embrace certain ethicals and moral systems are more likely to fall different places on the political spectrum, but that doesn't represent their ability to uphold those ideals.