UNLAWFUL COMBATANT

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, but Taliban fighters are not 'unlawful combatants.'

They were if they weren't wearing a proper uniform (among other requirements for lawful combatant status).

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.

Many military lawyers have argued for years that the United States should scrap the tribunals and conduct the trials in the court-martial system, where the rules are clear and legal landmarks are long-established.

"The military judges are capable of doing good work if we go back to the system that's tried and true, the court-martial," said Mr. Hamdan's military lawyer, Navy Lieutenant-Commander Charles Swift.

"The government should have seen that argument coming a long way away," Lt.-Col. Swift said. "That shows what happens when you throw together legislation, throwing out all the past precedents and try to get it done quick and dirty."

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, but Taliban fighters are not 'unlawful combatants.'

They were if they weren't wearing a proper uniform (among other requirements for lawful combatant status).

Once the US invaded Afghanistan anyone that picked up a weapon is covered under the Geneva Convention as a lawful combatant.

Quote:

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.

The argument that they had to have uniforms is nothing but BS parroted by those that want to believe but don't want to bother to check out the facts.

No, it is pure fact stated by those who know quite a bit about the subject.

oralloy wrote:

No, it is pure fact stated by those who know quite a bit about the subject.

regrettably the military courts aren't agreeing with you

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, but Taliban fighters are not 'unlawful combatants.'

They were if they weren't wearing a proper uniform (among other requirements for lawful combatant status).

Once the US invaded Afghanistan anyone that picked up a weapon is covered under the Geneva Convention as a lawful combatant.

Quote:

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.

That section covers people who have spontaneously picked up a weapon just as the battle has reached them, when there is no time for them to organize a proper military structure.

If they have had time to organize into a military structure, that section does not even remotely come close to covering them.

That section would protect an Afghani farmer who picked up a gun as our forces arrived on his property. It doesn't cover any Taliban fighters.

parados wrote:

The argument that they had to have uniforms is nothing but BS parroted by those that want to believe but don't want to bother to check out the facts.

No, it is pure fact stated by those who know quite a bit about the subject.

Not the "proper uniform" argument again!

Oh please spare us!

msolga wrote:

Not the "proper uniform" argument again!

Oh please spare us!

When people try to argue that these people were lawful combatants, it is valid to point out the violations that make them unlawful combatants.

msolga wrote:

Not the "proper uniform" argument again!

Oh please spare us!

When people try to argue that these people were lawful combatants, it is valid to point out the violations that make them unlawful combatants.

If someone has a gun and doesn't have a uniform and is shooting at invaders how do you propose to tell the difference? If a 15 year old shot an American soldier, how do you know he was a Taliban fighter?

The GC requires he be treated as a POW until a qualified tribunal makes a ruling.

You stated that anyone has to have a uniform to be a lawful combatant. No such requirement exists since people can be lawful combatants without a uniform. You have admitted as much.

Hell, where do you get they are unlawful combatants?

parados wrote:

If someone has a gun and doesn't have a uniform and is shooting at invaders how do you propose to tell the difference? If a 15 year old shot an American soldier, how do you know he was a Taliban fighter?

By seeing if they were on their own property if they claim to be a civilian who was defending their land.

By interrogating captured people to determine who was who.

parados wrote:

The GC requires he be treated as a POW until a qualified tribunal makes a ruling.

Yep.

parados wrote:

You stated that anyone has to have a uniform to be a lawful combatant. No such requirement exists since people can be lawful combatants without a uniform. You have admitted as much.

I state that Taliban fighters need to have a proper uniform in order to be a lawful combatant. Such a requirement does exist. The fact that civilians can sometimes be combatants without a proper uniform does not change that fact that the requirement exists for organized fighting forces.

By the way, it would be nice if you could tell us which violations made Kahdr an unlawful combatant.

I don't wish to further derail this thread from its original purpose but (sorry Setanta, I can't help myself!) could you please post us a photograph of the "official" Taliban uniform, oralloy.

parados wrote:

Hell, where do you get they are unlawful combatants?

From an understanding that certain requirements have to be fulfilled in order for someone has to be considered a lawful combatant.

Article 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.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

parados wrote:

By the way, it would be nice if you could tell us which violations made Kahdr an unlawful combatant.

Can you show me his uniform?

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

If someone has a gun and doesn't have a uniform and is shooting at invaders how do you propose to tell the difference? If a 15 year old shot an American soldier, how do you know he was a Taliban fighter?

By seeing if they were on their own property if they claim to be a civilian who was defending their land.

Where does the GC require they be on their land? There is no such requirement. Are renters not covered by the GC? How about visiting relatives? Your argument that they must be on their own land is complete BS and I am sure you know it.

oralloy wrote:

By interrogating captured people to determine who was who.

And when was this done?

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

The GC requires he be treated as a POW until a qualified tribunal makes a ruling.

Yep.

Yes, and which tribunal declared them unlawful combatants? Please tell us since you are so sure it has happened.

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

You stated that anyone has to have a uniform to be a lawful combatant. No such requirement exists since people can be lawful combatants without a uniform. You have admitted as much.

I state that Taliban fighters need to have a proper uniform in order to be a lawful combatant. Such a requirement does exist. The fact that civilians can sometimes be combatants without a proper uniform does not change that fact that the requirement exists for organized fighting forces.

So, who has been determined to be Taliban fighters in Gitmo. In fact MANY of them are NOT. So, your argument is getting weaker and weaker.

By the way, the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time the US invaded. That means those that were Taliban should have been repatriated when Afghanistan created a new government not controlled or occupied by the US per the GC.

Nah.. you can't.. You just make up your BS and believe it and expect us to too.

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

By the way, it would be nice if you could tell us which violations made Kahdr an unlawful combatant.

Can you show me his uniform?

When you can show me the exact part of the GC that requires uniforms, then I might consider your request. Until you show me such a requirement in the GC your entire argument is complete nonsense.
There are 6 categories of POWs. NONE of them require uniforms. Only ONE of the six requires a fixed insignia visible from a distance.