Quote:
Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
There has always been another catefory - unlawful combatants - we are not inventing anything. They are not uniformed soldiers but are waging war against a nation in complete disregard for the rules of war.

Can you cite any international definition that says that there is such a category?

Quote:
Are you morally outraged about those victims or do you reserve your sympathy for the detainees only?

Now, that's another lynch mob argument. When someone protests that the prisoner's right are being violated they'll say "What about the victims rights?". It's a non-argument.

Quote:
The Geneva Conventions are a treay designed to set ground rules for war between signatories - it is not a suicide pact to disarm ourselves in a non-traditional conflict.

The Geneva Conventions apply, as you rightly state, when there is a state of war. When a state of war no longer exists, POWs are to be released. But correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the United States is not officially at war. Therefore there is no "end", and thus saying that these people are treated according to the Geneva Convention (with very limited exceptions) is not true. The very fact that there is no limit to how long they can be detained is a very significant exception.

Quote:
The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[4] because in the opinion of the ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".[1][5]

Quote:
They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action

Quote:
An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts, but does not qualify for POW status under GCIII Articles 4 and 5.

Quote:
1942 Quirin case
The term unlawful combatant has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law[3]. The term "unlawful combatants" was first used in US municipal law in a 1942 United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin.[26] In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

"By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

Quote:
No.

But if you asked someone in the pub where you could buy a gun then the police would start interviewing you.

It's the attempt to carry out the deed.

Quote:
The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law.[7] However—unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian"—the term "unlawful combatant", or similar, is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.[8][3]

Quote:
Legal experts dispute the accuracy of the position taken by the US administration regarding the definition of unlawful combatant, and that such prisoners could be held incommunicado and without legal representative. Also, it has been pointed out that, until now, the term "[illegal] enemy combatant" as used by the US administration, "appeared nowhere in U.S. criminal law, international law, or the law of war.

Quote:

Sugar:

If you believe that then you deserve EVERY red arrow that can be thrown at YOU. Your attempts to muzlel someone just because you don't agree with them outrageous and offensive beyond ALL belief, COMRADE. What I find particularly offensive about this discussion is that we are being abused by people, that were it NOT for the United States of America would be living under the heel of Nazi Germany or the kind and sweet generosities of the USSR.Now you want to roll up and give into the new caliphate, be my guest.

Skip

Quote:
Stay out of this Sith,

you have no clue what you are talking about. Read before you write and stop lecturing me. I understood every single reference he was trying to make, but said they were not connected to his degrading comment. I said that he deserves all red arrows of the world for his comment, does not mean I gave him one. Goodbye.