AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Quote:

The distinction is obvious. POWs are released after the hostilities are ended and cannot be punished for participating in the war, but POWs who have pending charges against them for war crimes are not released. They are forced to stand trial and, if convicted of a war crime, may be punished.

But they are still POW's.
WHY was Yamashita stripped of his POW status?
There was no precedent for that, and it also violated the rules of war and the Geneva Convention.

So are you now saying that the US Govt HAS violated the GC before?

Bank of America, Citigroup, GMAC Need More Capital (Update4)
By Rebecca Christie

May 6 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and GMAC LLC are among the companies judged to need additional capital according to results of regulators’ stress tests on the 19 largest U.S. banks.

Bank of America has the biggest shortfall, at $34 billion, according to people familiar with the matter. Citigroup’s requirement for deeper reserves to offset potential losses over the coming two years is about $5 billion, people with knowledge of that bank’s results said. Wells Fargo requires about $15 billion, while GMAC’s need is $11.5 billion, one person said.

Morgan Stanley may need between $1 billion and $2 billion, according to people familiar with the matter. Any requirement would result from Morgan Stanley’s plans to pay $2.7 billion to take control of Citigroup’s Smith Barney brokerage venture, one of the people said.

The Federal Reserve and other regulators said today that banks that have to bolster their capital will have until June 8 to develop a plan. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., MetLife Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., American Express Co., BB&T Corp. and Capital One Financial Corp. were deemed not to need additional funds, the results show.

Stocks Gain

Stocks rallied after the news, sending the Standard & Poor’s 500 Financials Index to its highest level in four months. The results are the culmination of weeks of investigations, led by the Federal Reserve, into the banks’ lending practices, funding strategies and securities and loan portfolios.

“The markets are telling us we’re in a recovery and the banks are beginning to heal,” William Isaac, former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., said in an interview today. The end of the stress tests after “three months of water torture” is providing investors some relief, he said.

The regulators put an emphasis in their reviews on tangible common equity, and will give firms needing bigger reserves six months to meet their requirements. Citigroup’s assessment reflects the New York-based bank’s previously announced plan to convert some of its preferred shares into common stock.

Spokespeople for all of the 10 banks declined to comment.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ax42ejKB7gAs&refer=worldwide

but POWs who have pending charges against them for war crimes are not entitled to be released.

Quote:

but POWs who have pending charges against them for war crimes are not entitled to be released.

But they are still to be considered as POW's, until their case is finished.

You claimed Yamashita was stripped of his POW status BEFORE he was tried.
That violates the GC.

Are you admitting that the US has violated the GC when it suited them?

Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the present Convention.

The Accused is not charged with having done something or having failed to do something, but solely with having been something….American jurisprudence recognizes no such principle so far as its own military personnel are concerned….No one would even suggest that the Commanding General of an American occupational force becomes a criminal every time an American soldier violates the law…one man is not held to answer for the crime of another.’

Listen dumbass, because he was charged with war crimes, he was STRIPPED of his right to be released upon the cessation of hostilities, he was not STRIPPED of his right to be treated humanely in accordance with the convention.

Prisoners of war against whom criminal proceedings for an indictable offence are pending may be detained until the end of such proceedings, and, if necessary, until the completion of the punishment. The same shall apply to prisoners of war already convicted for an indictable offence.

ican, You must learn to live in the present; nobody seems to agree with you concerning our Constitution. "That" should be a clue, but you are pissing in the wind.

Art. 23. Subject to any special arrangements made between the belligerent Powers, and particularly those contemplated in Article 24, officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall receive from the detaining Power the same pay as officers of corresponding rank in the armed forces of that Power, provided, however, that such pay does not exceed that to which they are entitled in the armed forces of the country in whose service they have been. This pay shall be paid to them in full, once a month if possible, and no deduction therefrom shall be made for expenditure devolving upon the detaining Power, even if such expenditure is incurred on their behalf.

Prisoners of war who are subject to criminal proceedings for a crime or offence at common law may, however, be detained until the end of the proceedings, and, if need be, until the expiration of the sentence

Yamashita was not charged with a crime in common law.

Miss Law did not quote the 1929 convention.

CHAPTER 3
Penal sanctions with regard to prisoners of war

I. General provisions

Art. 45. Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the detaining Power.

Art. 46. Prisoners of war shall not be subjected by the military authorities or the tribunals of the detaining Power to penalties other than those which are prescribed for similar acts by members of the national forces.

Art. 63. A sentence shall only be pronounced on a prisoner of war by the same tribunals and in accordance with the same procedure as in the case of persons belonging to the armed forces of the detaining Power.

The sentence shall not be carried out before the expiration of a period of at least three months from the date of the receipt of this communication by the protecting Power.

Quote:

Listen dumbass, because he was charged with war crimes, he was STRIPPED of his right to be released upon the cessation of hostilities, he was not STRIPPED of his right to be treated humanely in accordance with the convention.

You said he was stripped of his POW status, period.
And the GC says that even if a POW is being held after a war ends for crimes committed, he is still a POW, with all of the rights and priveledges all POW's are allowed.

Quote:

Prisoners of war against whom criminal proceedings for an indictable offence are pending may be detained until the end of such proceedings, and, if necessary, until the completion of the punishment. The same shall apply to prisoners of war already convicted for an indictable offence.

As a lawyer, you should know that words mean thtings.
You may not have chosen your words carefully, but that doesnt change what you said.
You might have meant something else, but I can only respond to what you said, not what you meant.

The day of final reckoning for the enemy arrived in August, 1945. On September 3, the petitioner surrendered to the United States Army at Baguio, Luzon. He immediately became a prisoner of war and was interned in prison in conformity with the rules of international law. On September 25, approximately three weeks after rrendering, he was served with the charge in issue in this case. Upon service of the charge he was removed from the status of a prisoner of war and placed in confinement as an accused war criminal.

Upon service of the charge he was removed from the status of a prisoner of war and placed in confinement as an accused war criminal.

The former Soviet Union and many of its former satellite states made a reservation to this provision. They reserved the right to deny POW status to convicted war criminals. While the United States has rejected this reservation as contrary to international law, the existence of this reservation demonstrates the importance that many governments attach to allegations of war crimes."

Regardless of your nitpicking over minutia, our history proves that LAWYERS are indeed provided to detainees/POWS so they may challenge their detentions and defend themselves against charges.

In point of fact, the Geneva Convention which Miss Law quotes was adopted in 1949, and did not enter into force until 1950; General Yamashita was executed in 1946. Therefore, your argument is without merit, MM.

Certainly the Yamashita prosecution, however, is something of which the United States should be ashamed. Colonel Clarke, Yamashita's chief defense counsel, said: "‘The accused is not charged with having done something or having failed to do something, but solely with having been something (i.e., commander of the forces which committed the atrocities for which he was being tried) . . . American jurisprudence recognizes no such principle so far as its own military personnel are concerned." It was little better than a kangaroo court.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Murphy wrote:

Upon service of the charge he was removed from the status of a prisoner of war and placed in confinement as an accused war criminal.

Which is a violation of either GC you want to quote.

Quote:

The former Soviet Union and many of its former satellite states made a reservation to this provision. They reserved the right to deny POW status to convicted war criminals. While the United States has rejected this reservation as contrary to international law, the existence of this reservation demonstrates the importance that many governments attach to allegations of war crimes."

So, even though the US REJECTED this reservation, it still did exactly what it claimed to oppose.

Quote:

Regardless of your nitpicking over minutia, our history proves that LAWYERS are indeed provided to detainees/POWS so they may challenge their detentions and defend themselves against charges.

And I'm willing to admit I was wrong.

Now, will you admit that the US has a history of violating the GC when it suits the govts purpose?

Empathy Isn’t Really Empathy, You See
Jennifer Rubin
05.06.2009 - 7:55 AM

Give Ruth Marcus credit: she realizes that the president got into some hot water by suggesting ”empathy” is a primary consideration in selecting a Supreme Court judge. The president didn’t actually mean that he wants a Supreme Court justice who harbors sympathy toward one side or the other " because that would be wrong (wink, wink). No, he’s looking for someone with experience which will “inform” the judge’s thinking, you see. So, she says, Justice Powell would have come out differently in the Bowers v. Hardwick sodomy case if he had known some same-sex couples.

Let’s stipulate that the president has no problem expressing himself and does not lack for vocabulary. So he could have said he was looking for “life experience to inform the justice’s thinking” if that’s what he meant. But even taking Marcus’ interpretation at face value, we don’t get away from the central problem. If Marcus is right that Powell would have ruled differently had he known gay people, that would mean his interpretation of the case would have been “informed” by bias, albeit friendly bias, toward the litigants. And that’s exactly the problem. One’s degree of empathy or chumminess with the litigants, or people like them, should have no bearing on the cases before the justice.

Otherwise, one would have to excuse a justice who had lots of gay friends and felt oodles of empathy toward them because she could not impartially evaluate disputes involving gay rights issues. That surely can’t be right. We expect her to ignore those relationships and look to the meaning of the Constitution, the statutes before her, and the precedent from prior decisions. We are, in this instance, trying to decide what the Constitution means not whether democratically elected legislators should pass laws protecting gays from discrimination.

Marcus is trying her best to tap dance around the premise which is plainly animating the Obama justice search. He wants “empathy” to guide the justice in reaching outcomes which favor the down-and-out, minorities, women, employees, and criminal defendants. And if you doubt that, go back and look at every confirmation hearing over the last couple of decades. Democrats railed against judges who had written decisions which ruled against these parties. The nominees were therefore tagged as ”insensitive” because they did not find a way to conform the law around a favorable outcome for these groups.

That’s what’s going on here. If honest, Democrats would own up to it and stop apologizing for the president’s refreshingly candid admission of what he is up to.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/64961