The Geneva Conventions and Habeas Corpus: Why the Left-Wing Reactionaries are Wrong

Stop The ACLU ^ | 19-Oct-06 | John C. Bambenek

[Jay777]

The reactionary hand-wringing about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is wholly devoid of intellectual support and contradicted by the Geneva Conventions themselves. The flaccid objections are based in three parts: that unlawful combatants can be anyone, Habeas Corpus is a right enjoyed by military combatants, and a misunderstanding of the Geneva Convention documents (if they are read at all). Through on top a healthy dose of paranoia and you have basically the entire dogma of the liberal establishment on the issue.

First, there is such a thing as a lawful combatant (which makes anyone not living up to that standard unlawful). This is defined in the Geneva Conventions document "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War", Article 3. It falls into 4 basic parts: wearing a uniform of other distinctive insignia, having someone with command authority in charge, carrying arms openly, and conducting themselves in accordance to the laws of war. Now, according to some, in fact, most left-wing "thinkers", killing Americans or Jews is a complete immunity to any infraction of international law, however, there are some reasonable people who do think there are some laws here that might possible apply.

For instance, Article 3 talks about the illegality of taking hostages. Presumably sawing off their heads with a dull knife also falls under this. Using mosques, hospitals, or schools as arms depots or locations to launch attacks is also included. In short, almost the entire battery of tactics used by Al Qaeda or the so-called insurgents in Iraq is illegal under international law.

[Jay777]

Ping! ACLU are among those freaking out and spreading lies.

[Rurudyne]

I would also point out that the Geneva Conventions allow for the summary execution of unlawful combatants.

So in light of this, I'm all for applying the convention to terrorist.

[Carry_Okie]

If the ACLU gets its way, the army of lawyers will outnumber the army of fighters.

[Mikey_1962]

As I understand it they can be shot on site. Maybe that is the answer. No need for Commissions.

[mvpel]

What article of which convention allows for summary execution of unlawful combatants?

[Richbee]

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions has spoken well on this topic from the Senate floor:

So to say: Habeas corpus, what does it mean?

What did those words mean when the people ratified it? They did not intend to provide it to those who were attacking the United States of America. We provide special protections for prisoners of war who lawfully conduct a war that might be against the United States. We give them great protections. But unlawful combatants, the kind we are dealing with today, have never been given the full protections of the Geneva Conventions.

http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/newrecord.cfm?id=264097


H.R. 6054

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/004230.html

AMENDMENT

Summarization of pertinent aspects of S. 3930:

Sec. 3 Authorization for Military Tribunals (renamed Commissions in this Bill)

a) the President has the right to establish them for the trial of "alien unlawful combatants;"

b) this does not limit the President's right to establish other military tribunals;

c) the tribunal has the authority to impose punishment - including death

d) the Secretary of Defense has the authority to carry out the penalties imposed by the tribunals.

e) the Secretary of Defense will give an annual report to the House and Senate armed services committee.

SEC. 6

HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--

`(A) is currently in United States custody; and

`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930is.txt.pdf

.

[Richbee]

Moreover:

There term: Enemy Combatants needs to be understood by the Moonbat Lefties.

This is a dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

But, HR 6166 applies only to 'alien unlawful enemy combatants', where alien is defined as a person who is not a citizen of the U.S. (Moonbats have been known to misquote this phrase.)

Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means: `(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

`(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--

`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

b (3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

HR 6166 can be searched here:

http://thomas.loc.gov

[Hegemony Cricket]

bump for later read

[vaudine]

These freaky objectors to the new law need to read Article 1, Section 9, which says the "privilege" not right," of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended unless...".. It is a privilege, not a right; it can be suspended when the Public Safety demands it.In fact, it was never a privilege of these terrorists, period.

The libs and all their many self fashioned "rights" are what is scarey.

vaudine

[Humidston]

Boy, I can't thank you enough for this thread tonight...

My granddaughter emailed me today with questions on this very subject. It seems that one of her classmates in college caught a Keith Olberman rant on Youtube (against Bush on this issue), and she needed some solid information refuting Olberman's rant.

This thread fit the bill along with some other information I sent her. Ain't FR grand?!

[Young Werther]

I believe that terrorists who fail the uniform and insignia provisions must be Mirandized.

"Under the Geneva convention, you have the right to remain silent. Should you choose to exercise this right, you will be declared a spy and immediately executed!

[Rurudyne]

It allows non-uniformed combatants (or those wearing your uniform) are allowed to be simply executed. Remember what the Geneva Conventions actually ARE. They are a set of rules for warfare among nations that are intended to support the ability to wage war in accordance to some base line of civilized practice.

The Geneva Conventions were not preventing a war, only about insuring that the signatories' soldiers don't suffer horribly in a war ... either as a result of using certain weapons or as a result of mistreatment after capture.

The Geneva Conventions specifically define which sorts of individuals constitute a lawful combatant as well as allow for which aren't (thereby denying such ALL protections from the Conventions).

As such, it is perfectly legal under THIS international law governing warfare to which the United States is a party to simply shoot an unlawful combatant without trial.

[mvpel]

Where does it allow that?

Article 1 states "the High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."

[Rurudyne]

Such "respect" is limited by the Convention's definitions of who is a lawful combatant.

In this case "all circumstances" relates to all circumstances involving soldiers serving in national armies involved in conflict against a signatory. It doesn't matter if the enemy isn't a signatory, only that a signatory respect the convention.

It has never been the case that unlawful combatants, or combatants wearing an enemy's uniform (i.e. yours of an ally of yours) in order to effect espionage or sabotage, has ever had any protection from Geneva.

That some maintain otherwise is an invention outside the scope of the actual document.

Remember, no nation signing this document had the slightest intention of surrendering their own privileges to deal with rebels, terrorist, insurgents or the like as best THEY saw fit. It is only in the well defined case of opposing national armies did they want to ensure that neither their soldiers or their people could face the horrific treatments heaped on folks in the past.

Again, Geneva wasn't about eliminating wars between nations ... only about making those wars more agreeable and less harmful to the nations so engaged.

If you fight without being a member of an Army (or other duly constructed national force) then you are not given any protection by Geneva and are subject to the whims of national laws instead.

Essentially, it all comes down to who is a legitimate "Prisoner of War" or "Protected Civilian." Anyone who is neither may officially consider themselves screwed unless, as the Democrats are now attempting, their enemy is stuck on "stupid" for whatever reason they are.

Please note: Protected Civilians are those "who do not belong to the armed forces, take part in the hostilities and find themselves in the hands of the Enemy or an Occupying Power."

Terrorist are not members of any national army and are thus NOT prisoners of war. That they are engaged in hostilities exempts them from being considered civilians, too. Thus no aspect of laws regulating the treatment of Prisoners of War or Protected Civilians affects terrorist.

As far as Geneva is concerned, they can be shot on sight or otherwise mistreated given the limitations of relevant national laws that may (or may not) prevent such treatment.