Re: News Release

"Rod Engelsman" <rod.engelsman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k4A0g.44$471.148624@news.sisna.com...
> Cliff wrote:
>
>>
>> No according to the Geneva conventions. You can argue the point all you
>> want but the facts, laws and rules speak for themselves.
>
> From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

Copy and paste snipped, I was not looking for other peoples interpretations
especially wikipedia.... I try to think for myself. Next time post the
relavent portions of the GC not someone elses interpretation

> Where the Bush administration has fallen down is on two points.

> 1. Contrary to your vehement declarations, the term "unlawful combatant"
> (or any synonym thereof) doesn't actually appear anywhere in the GC. At
> best the term is defined only in the negative sense of persons not
> fulfilling the requirements to be considered POW's, Protected Persons, or
> other classes.

And that means that the law does not apply. Again laws are black and white
they either apply or they do not.

> 2. The GC requires that all persons taken prisoner on the battlefield be
> accorded POW status until their true status is determined by a competent
> tribunal. This only happened now 3 years later after a determination by
> SCOTUS that the administration was breaking the law.

And what is the time frame set forth in the GC?????
And just what was this "determination"? I have yet to see SCOTUS rule on
this. Can you provide a link possibly?

onventions, the term "illegal combatants" is
>> expressly outlined. Would you rather have us making up terms without any
>> reference to any existing laws?
>
> No, it's not. It's only defined in the negative sense as in "None of the
> Above" or "Other".

Simply put.......It means "IT DOES NOT APPLY". Is that such a hard concept
to understand? It is a very sound legal principle.

>>> Are the people kidnapped by the CIA "illegal combatants", too, even if
>>> they were kidnapped here in Germany?
>>
>> I am not defending rendition. I agree the legality of this is very
>> questionable. But the question remains on whether it is necessary.
>
> It's absolutely unnecessary. Germany is an ally and would undoubtedly
> cooperate in apprehending persons for which we can show solid evidence of
> complicity in terrorism.

Which they did........in the recent renditions discussed in this
thread......
Received on Mon May 1 01:07:42 2006