Bush's Great New Empire- Wakeup people!
 

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/102106a.html



Editor's Note: Many Americans are in denial about what is happening to the United States. They don't want to believe that a totalitarian structure could be put in place in their own country. They don't want to view the various pieces of George W. Bush's "anti-terror" system in that broad a context. They hope that someone or something -- the Supreme Court maybe -- will strike down the excesses of the Republican-controlled Congress and the Executive Branch.

Though there are still obstacles that stand in Bush's way -- the Nov. 7 elections, for instance -- America's march down a road to a new-age totalitarianism has advanced farther than many understand, as freelance reporter Carla Binion argues in this disturbing guest essay:

On October 17, George W. Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This new law gives Bush power similar to that possessed by Stalin or Hitler, and grants agencies within the Executive Branch powers similar to those of the KGB or Gestapo.

Bush justifies this act by claiming he needs it to fight the "war on terror," but a number of critics, including former counterterrorism officials, have said the administration has greatly exaggerated the threat and used illogical methods to combat terrorism. (Examples are listed below.)

Except for MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, few television news reporters have bothered to mention that the Military Commissions Act has changed the U.S. justice system and our approach to human rights. As Olbermann said of the new law on his October 17 Countdown program, the new act "does away with habeas corpus, the right of suspected terrorists or anybody else to know why they have been imprisoned."

Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Constitutional Law Professor, was Olbermann's guest. Olbermann asked him, "Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?"

Turley responded, "It does. And it's a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president…People have no idea how significant this is. What, really a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."

Although we have a free press, rather than follow Olbermann's good example, most television news reporters have responded to this nullification of America's fundamental principles by avoiding the subject. News networks which voluntarily relinquish their right and duty to challenge government officials function more as the Soviet Union's Pravda or Hitler's Nazi press program than as a genuinely free press.

Just as the mainstream media failed to adequately question the Bush administration's many shifting rationales for invading Iraq in the lead-up to the war, they're now failing to challenge Bush's logic and motives as he justifies eviscerating the Constitution in the name of his ever-expanding "war on terror." How realistic is this so-called war, and is the Bush administration conducting it effectively?

Robert Dreyfuss covers national security for Rolling Stone. He interviewed nearly a dozen former high-ranking counterterrorism officials about Bush's approach to the war on terrorism. In his article, "The Phony War," (Rolling Stone, 9/21/06) Dreyfuss says these officials conclude:

· The war on terror is bogus. Terrorism shouldn't be treated as if it were a nation to be battled with the military, but should instead be fought with police work and intelligence agencies.

· Terrorism is not an enemy, but a method. Even if the United States were to wipe out every terrorist cell in the world today, terrorism would be back tomorrow.

· Bush lacks a clear understanding of the nature of the "enemy" and has no real strategy for dealing with them.

· The Bush administration confuses the issue by grouping "Al Qaeda" with everything from Iraq's resistance movement to states such as Syria and Iran.

· Today, there's virtually no real "Al Qaeda threat" to Americans.

· Bush's policies have spawned a new generation of "amateur terrorists," but there are few of them, and they're not likely to pose a major threat to the U.S.

· Though Bush has said he will fight his "war" until every last terrorist is eliminated, terrorism can never be defeated, merely "contained and reduced."

Dreyfuss says, "In the short term, the cops and spies can continue to do their best to watch for terrorist threats as they emerge, and occasionally, as in London, they will succeed. But they are the first to admit that stopping a plot before it can unfold involved, more than anything, plain dumb luck."

Not only has the Bush administration falsely characterized and exaggerated the threat of terrorism; they have gone out of their way to mislead the public by claiming credit for preventing attacks. Dreyfuss points out that although Bush has claimed we've fended off 10 terrorist plots since 9/11, "on closer examination all 10 are either bogus or were to take place overseas."

Dreyfuss also notes that, although in 2002 the Bush administration leaked to the press that Al Qaeda had 5,000 "sleepers" in the U.S., there were, in fact, none. (Or, as Dreyfuss says, not a single one has been found.) If the administration believes the facts bolster their case for a war on terrorism, why do they find it necessary to leak false information?

The administration has done little to secure U.S. borders, ports, airports and nuclear facilities. What could logically explain their inattention to these vulnerabilities if they believe a terrorist threat here is likely? Bush has said he'll do anything it takes in order to protect the American people. Why hasn't he secured our nuclear facilities?

Exaggerating the terrorist threat does give the Bush team an excuse to seize more power for the Executive and shred the Constitution. In an article for Foreign Affairs (September/October 2006), political science professor John Mueller supports Dreyfuss's view that the war on terrorism is bogus.

Mueller points out that not only have there been no terrorist incidents here in the past five years, but there were none in the five years before 9/11. Mueller asks: "If it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it? Why have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers, collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines, derailing trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security experts, could be so easily exploited?"

He also bolsters Dreyfuss's conclusion that the Bush administration can't take credit for the fact that we haven't been attacked again. He says, "the government's protective measures would have to be nearly perfect to thwart all such plans. Given the monumental imperfection of the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, and the debacle of FBI and National Security Agency programs to upgrade their computers to better coordinate intelligence information, that explanation seems far-fetched."

Mueller addresses Bush's irrational argument that we're "fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here." He points out that terrorists with Al Qaeda sympathies have managed to carry out attacks in a variety of countries (Egypt, Jordan Turkey, the United Kingdom), not merely in Iraq.

He adds that a reasonable explanation for the fact that no terrorists have attacked since 9/11 is that the terrorist threat "has been massively exaggerated." He notes that "it is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-like operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year, and that the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 - about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor."

Although Bush's justification for the war on terror has been illogical and deceptive, the administration has used it as an excuse to abuse the U.S. military in Iraq, tear down our system of government at home and seize power on his own behalf. As Jonathan Turley told Keith Olbermann on his October 17th program, with the signing of the Military Commissions Act, "Congress just gave the president despotic powers…I think people are fooling themselves if they believe that the courts will once again stop this president from taking - overtaking - almost absolute power."

Bush's many power grabs and refusal to submit to usual constitutional checks and balances indicates he prefers monarchy or dictatorship to the government set up by America's founders. The framers of our Constitution provided checks on tyranny by writing into law separation of powers, granting the legislative and judicial branches of government the ability to curb abuses by the executive. Today, the Congress has abdicated its constitutional obligation and serves only as a rubber stamp for the despotic president, and to date, the courts have done much the same.

Can George W. Bush be trusted with absolute power? Here are some things he has done with his unchecked power:

· Stolen two presidential elections.

· Exaggerated and falsely characterized the terrorist threat.

· Misled the country into war with Iraq.

· Urged the U.S. intelligence agencies to fix the intelligence around the Iraq war policy (as confirmed by the Downing Street Memo and other sources) in order to mislead the Congress and public into supporting war with Iraq.

· Abused human rights by promoting the use of torture and setting up virtual gulags.

· Suspended habeas corpus for some.

· Tried to silence political opposition by pronouncing them "weak on terrorism" or somehow "with the terrorists," and

· Placed himself above the law by issuing more legislation-challenging signing statements (around 800) than all of his predecessors put together.

Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq alone has cost nearly 3,000 American lives. An October 11, 2006 article by Greg Mitchell at Editor and Publisher says that a new study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "suggests that more than 600,000 Iraqis have met a violent or otherwise war-related end since the U.S. arrived in March 2003."

The Bush administration's policies have not only resulted in high death counts, but also in widespread, out of control torture. A September 22, 2006 Christian Science Monitor report says:

"The United Nation's special investigator on torture said Thursday that torture may now be worse in Iraq than it was during the regime of deposed leader Saddam Hussein. The Associated Press reports that Manfred Nowak, who was making a brief to the United Nations Human Rights Council about the treatment of detainees at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, said the torture situation in Iraq was 'totally out of hand.'"

The CS Monitor mentions the fact that the recent compromise between the Bush White House and dissident Republicans (including Senator John McCain) allows torture to continue. The article quotes a Washington Post piece:

"The bad news is Mr. Bush, as he made clear yesterday, intends to continue using the CIA to secretly detain and abuse certain terrorist suspects…It's hard to credit the statement by [McCain] yesterday that 'there's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved.' In effect, the agreement means that U.S. violations of international human rights law can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit assent."

Congress has given Bush a blank check as he's bulldozed toward an imperial presidency. We have the outward forms of democratic institutions such as Congress and a so-called free press. However, the people currently managing those institutions behave as if they're being forced to serve a totalitarian dictator.

A perfect example of this surrender to Bush's virtual despotism is Congress's and the mainstream media's compliance regarding Bush's Military Commissions Act. While Keith Olbermann and Jonathan Turley see the extreme danger posed by Bush's authoritarian moves, Congress has done little to challenge Bush, and, overall, the press is eerily silent.

In The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, William L. Shirer said the Reich Press Law of October 4, 1933, ordered editors not to publish (among other things) anything which "tends to weaken the strength of the German Reich or offends the honor and dignity of Germany." According to Shirer, Max Amman, Hitler's top sergeant during the war and head of the Nazi Party's publishing firm and financial head of its press said that after the Nazis seized power in 1933, it was "a true statement to say that the basic purpose of the Nazi press program was to eliminate all the press which was in opposition to the party."

The U.S. mainstream press doesn't have to be coerced by a government Press Law to avoid publicly opposing Bush's most egregious policies. Television news networks, in particular, have voluntarily held back serious scrutiny. They have not only failed to discuss the recent Military Commissions Act at length, but in the run-up to the Iraq war, liberal talk show host Phil Donahue and comedian Bill Maher were fired for challenging the White House spin about Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.

Shirer also describes the ease with which the German Reichstag gave Hitler the power to change the nature of Germany's parliamentary democracy. He writes:

"One by one, Germany's most powerful institutions now began to surrender to Hitler and to pass quietly, unprotestingly, out of existence…It cannot be said they went down fighting. On May 19, 1933, the Social Democrats - those who were not in jail or in exile - voted in the Reichstag without a dissenting voice to approve Hitler's foreign policy."

Shirer concludes: "The one-party totalitarian state had been achieved with scarcely a ripple of opposition or defiance, and within four months after the Reichstag had abdicated its democratic responsibilities."

The U.S. Congress, like the German Reichstag, has abdicated its democratic responsibilities by granting Bush an inordinate amount of power - "with scarcely a ripple of opposition or defiance." The U.S. press has abandoned its role as democracy's watchdog by failing to question this development. Both of these institutions have failed the American people.

Considering Bush is using the war on terror to justify seizing undue power, both Congress and the media should question his reasoning and offer opposition. Just as they didn't effectively challenge the administration's shifting excuses for attacking Iraq, these institutions haven't scrutinized Bush's claims about the need for the Military Commissions Act and the apparently endless war on terrorism.

Among things Congress and the media should challenge is George W. Bush's false claim that the United States does not torture. In an article published at the CommonDreams.org site, journalist Molly Ivins reports that in one case of death from torture by Americans, the military at first said the prisoner's death was caused by a heart attack. Ivins adds that the coroner later said the heart attack occurred after the prisoner "had been beaten so often on his legs that they had 'basically been pulpified.'"

She adds that the Bush administration's officially sanctioning torture "throws out legal and moral restraints as the president deems necessary -- these are fundamental principles of basic decency, as well as law." Ivins isn't inclined to hyperbole, yet she says of Americans' passive acceptance of this new law: "Do not pretend to be shocked when the world begins comparing us to the Nazis."

As Jonathan Turley said on Olbermann's program, "I think you can feel the judgment of history. It won't be kind to President Bush. But frankly, I don't think that it will be kind to the rest of us. I think that history will ask, 'Where were you? What did you do when this thing was signed into law?' There were people that protested the Japanese concentration camps; there were people that protested these other acts. But we are strangely silent in this national yawn as our rights evaporate."

Future generations will wonder why the U.S. Congress and mainstream press helped Bush build up an imperial presidency and eliminate Constitutional protections. If they're able to sort through the administration's fallacies and lies and clearly see what went wrong with America during this time, they'll wonder why there were so few Molly Ivins's, Keith Olbermann's and Jonathan Turley's.

Coming generations will also ask why by comparison there were so many who failed to notice the obvious holes in Bush's logic and why so many turned a blind eye to his numerous false assertions and cruel policies. They'll wonder why so many supported, whether by direct action or by silence, the Bush administration's changing the fundamental nature of the democratic Republic we were given by America's founders, based on the flimsy excuse of fighting a war on terrorism - a "war" Bush defines falsely and fights ineffectively.

Generations to come might ask why this president who lied so often, about Iraq and other critical matters, was ever entrusted with enough power to damage this country's founding principles and wage endless, unprovoked war on other nations. If Congress and the media would ask these questions now, they might prevent Bush from doing further harm. This might save many lives, prevent much unnecessary suffering and possibly steer this country out of its present darkness.

So, instead of whining about it, what's your solution? Something beyond "vote anyone else in."

The whole world is out of control because we are approaching the end of this system. The only solution for the world's problems is when God fulfills his promises in Revelation and Daniel by destroying the world's religions, replacing them with true worship, and then destroys all of the world's governments, replacing them with his own. Then, man will begin to make the transition back to what God originally purposed: having perfect men and women fill the earth and subdue it, just like he said in Genesis. God's purpose hasn't changed since he created the earth, and man cannot derail God's purpose.

There you go! Politics and Religion in one thread!

You do realize this law applies only to ALIEN ( Non- US citizen unlawful combtants? US citizens are still protected by the constitution.

Gotta love a good conspiracy theory. :shock: Doesn't matter who's president, we can always be treated to a good theory about the president doing away with laws in order to stay in power forever. Now, where's my tinfoil. :wink:

You'll have to fight her for it... :twisted:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/...infoil_hat.jpg

I wonder what the Bush admin is really trying to achieve, because what they told us is just not coming true and laws designed to aide in catching terrorists is not catching terrorists. Lots of hits on that using google...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100381.html

Yet, they tell us theres great success and we have convicted 400 according to Bush.

If fact the hole idea of fighting wars againt terrorism is ludicrous, Its not like a terrorist will face you in a battlefield :lol: And we all know that occupying foreign lands will just raise animosity toward the occupiers (us) and produce a resistance enbodied by 'insurgents' in Iraq. As Sun Tzu said: 'The purpose of war is to serve itself'. the only thing we have achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan is to destabilize the region and breed more hate toward us and burn bridges with allies. I do not believe that this result is a surprise to our leaders with all the resources they have and the poilitical and strategic advisors. Oh, thats right- if the advisor doesnt give the advice you wanna hear, fire him!

Going to Iraq was like pouring flaming gasoline down the sewer...all the rats (terrorist orgs.) have run up out of their hiding places.

We NOW have more intel on terror organizations (names, places, and faces) than ever before.

Why anyone doesn't think that knowledge is a good thing is beyond me.

I guess it depends on what your definition of terrorism is...But Im sure they 'reeducated' you guys on that... :sad: My definition of terrorism is a strategy of filling a population with fear. Unfortunately the term has been used and abused.

Making yourself a target and creating hate is not effective at eliminating terrorism....Even top military advisors pointed that out

...the concept of 'creating your own enemy' so you can control the whole show is brilliant...

And the intent of your original post is....what?

Yet, "they" abduct, torture and kill hundreds of Iraqi's every month, and we can't FIND them or KILL them without the occaisional "tip off" of someone in the neighborhood.

Truth is.... without the war, we would have pinpointed them all by using TRUE intel resources by now, and would probably have brought the whole bunch of them to "justice."

Until we invaded Afghanistan, UBL was wallking around in the open talking on cellphones, radios and whatever. The war in fact DROVE him into his hiding places, and now we can't find him!

And just HOW is an Iraqi insurgent, captured IN Iraq, considered an alien?

BUSH has declared this a WAR. Yet, WE are the ones violating the Geneva Convention. Given the nature of this war, and the customs of the enemy (who are WE to dictate that they have to go out and BUY themselves a uniform?) there is NO SUCH THING as an "unlawful combatant."

Furthermore, with the help of the Patriot Act, the Commissions Act, and the illegal wiretapping by the NSA, IF an American citizen is "captured" by means that BTW USED to be outlawed by the Constitution, he will easily be convicted of treason, which strips him of any further Constitutional rights.

So we should get to treat the insurgents according to the Geneva convention? I'm all for that! They could simply be put up against a wall and shot!

Thats the attitude that breeds violence in the first place...If you do that to them, they will do that to you. Unless you raise yourself above their standards, you are no better than them. And BTW, I do not believe the Geneva convention sais insurgents should be put against a wall and shot. It does however dictate the treatment of POWs, defines warcrimes.

To inform the population! I merely quoted an article because I feel its important for people to see a different perspective from what the white house tells us. If you dont believe this article, I can find numerous more that talk of the 'Bush Powergrab',etc.

Fozzy: I'm sure you know 'something' about SOMETHING, but I haven't figured out yet just WHAT that might be!

Obviously, you don't realize that the Geneva Convention does NOT allow shooting POW's.

However, your ignorance of these and other matters should make you a prime candidate to be the next Republican President.

There is a song by Montgomery Gentry that has a verse in it that says it all for us 'redneck folk';


"Gimme' a 308 and a shot gun; a gallon of homemade wine;
Drop me-off on a mountainside, where the bear and the deer reside;
I'll spend my nights sittin' 'round the fire, making this guitar ring;
I'll be doin' fine underneath the pines..
WHILE THE WORLD GOES DOWN THE DRAIN."

You've obviously never read the Geneva accords especially the part about un-uniformed people who conduct miltary operations in civilian areas. They are NOT POW's in any way shape or form. they are unlawful combatants at that point and can be "dealt with" by the local commanders.

I believe the intent was to point out that, by capitalizing on and instilling fear in the American citizen (i.e. a form of terrorism,) Bush has managed to undermine if not completely tromp on the Constitution of the United States. And by doing so, he has consolidated nearly absolute power in the Executive Branch of our government.

This is exactly how despots have come to power in other countries like Russia and Germany. NOT by armed coup, but by manipulating the electorate.

By feigning religious conviction, he mobilized the Christian Right. By giving tax breaks to the richest 2% of the country, he solidified HIS base and seduced the Conservative middle. By demonizing the Liberals, he galvanized the prejudiced White majority, and by putting our soldiers in an ill-advised, poorly conceived WAR, he played on the sympathies of the Patriot. I gotta hand it to him.... he played y'all like a fiddle!

Having coerced the voter into electing a Republican Congress, he has bought himself a 'rubber stamp' for anything he chooses to do, and ensured himself a conservative Supreme Court, to avoid being stopped by legal decision.

In his own words, HE now decides who gets the protection of Constitutional rights, and whether he is smart enough to have done this for a reason, or whether he is a puppet of a greater force bent on World domination, the fact is... we have sat by and let it happen.

We can no longer count on a reasonable expectation that a National election, whether for Congress OR the presidency, will SPEAK for the will of the people. And we no longer seem to have the courage of our convictions to vote on the principles of this country anyway. We have been seduced by pork, and terrorized by innuendo. We'll get the government that we now deserve.

If we get to keep an extra $500 a year of our taxes, we'll turn a blind eye to the record deficit and the fact that CHINA is now our primary note holder, and we'll send our emmisary to them to beg for their help in dealing with North Korea. If we get to keep our job making bullets, we won't mind that they are only replaced when they are SPENT in a war in which our own sons and daughters must die. And as long as we can keep those gays from getting married, we won't miss our OWN rights to privacy.

We have wandered into the barn without our boots on, with a clothespin on our nose, wearing party politic blinders, and our fingers in our ears. Just give us a bottle of wine, a guitar and a tax break, and we'll let OUR World go to Hell!

Hobo

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Fozzy!

Actually, I JUST got through re-reading them so I wouldn't make a stupid statement!

I will respond to your misunderstandings shortly, but for now, I only point out that regardless of how THEY act, WE are not allowed to line 'em up against a wall and shoot 'em! :lol: :lol:

Your ignorance continues to "slay me!" :lol:

It's too late for you not to make the stupid statements. You have to define what a POW is, and the insurgents do not fall into that category. They are univerisally know as criminals and can be killed without anything happening under the Geneva Conventions that the nerf worlders are crying about.

Can you (according to the Geneva Convention) shoot or hang or otherwise impose capitol punishment on spies or those who are conducting miltary operations while dressed in another country's uniform?

What criteria must be met to be considered a POW and why do you feel that the insurgents meet this criteria?

Excerpts from the Geneva Convention

Article 4

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:

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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

Article 5

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.

Article 9

The provisions of the present Convention constitute no obstacle to the humanitarian activities which the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other impartial humanitarian organization may, subject to the consent of the Parties to the conflict concerned, undertake for the protection of prisoners of war and for their relief.

Article 10

When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

If protection cannot be arranged accordingly, the Detaining Power shall request or shall accept, subject to the provisions of this Article, the offer of the services of a humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, to assume the humanitarian functions performed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention.

Whenever in the present Convention mention is made of a Protecting Power, such mention applies to substitute organizations in the sense of the present Article.

From another article:

Irregular Forces

Another issue that may emerge as the Coalition forces make headway into Iraq are the Amn Al-Khas (Special Security Service/Office) and the Fedayeen Saddam (Saddam’s Martyrs/ “Men of Sacrifice”). These are not regular army personnel or members of the Republican Guard Special Forces. Rather, they are paramilitary organizations who are fiercely loyal to Saddam and known to operate in plain clothes. By most accounts, they are led by Saddam’s sons.

In the present conflict, the Al-Khas and Fedayeen have been providing assistance and enforcing loyalty to the regular Iraqi forces in cities like Nasiriyah. According to some reports, these forces fight without a uniforms, identification and/or without openly carrying their arms. In this case, these forces are “illegal combatants” – that is, private persons who do not have the right to take part in the conflict. These individuals may face trial for their participation.

If a combatant who is not a member of a recognized armed force wishes to be accorded POW status, he/she must adhere to Article 4 of the Third Convention: 1) to be under the command of a person responsible for his subordinates (part of a hierarchical organized force); 2) having a fixed or distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; 3) carrying arms openly, and; 4) conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. It is uncertain at this point how well the Al-Khas and Fedayeen have complied with these four requirements. [HOWEVER...]

The exception to this would be if the Al-Khas and Fedayeen are considered to be participating in a levée en masse (a general uprising of the population against an invading force). It is doubtful that the US will regard their participation as a part of such a movement. [However, by designating them as "insurgents," we have acquiesced to this status.]

However, being designated an ‘illegal combatant’ does not mean that any such individual is not protected under the Conventions. Rather, instead of being given POW status under the Third Convention, they would be protected under the Fourth Convention as civilians.

Respecting the Conventions is crucial to launching complaints when the rights of one’s own troops are abused. Any time one side in a conflict shows less than full compliance with the rule of law, they have diminished their moral stature and made it easier for their opponents to refuse to comply. It is hoped that the damage done over the rights of prisoners in Afghanistan will not result in a tougher time for Coalition POWs in Iraq. It is in the interest of all warring parties to adhere to international humanitarian law at all times.


P.S. An American soldier wandered outside the wire yesterday, and was kidnapped by "insurgent" forces. He is of Arabic descent. Unfortunately, the MEDIA "outed" him as a translator. To some of us, this indicates he is an "intelligence officer" (regardless of his rank.) I fear for his safety, as I'm SURE he is being tortured to no end! The only way to HOPE for his wellbeing, is to afford THEIR captives the same humanitarian treatment guaranteed by the Geneva Convention.

Like I said earlier, Fozzy. BUSH declared this as a WAR. First on Iraq (which is a signatory of the Convention,) and THEN on the "irregular forces" of the terrorists. If he does not want this to get even uglier than it already IS, HE needs to conduct this war under SOME guidelines of humanitarianism.

To do otherwise, is to become less than the Barbarians he claims them to be. And by doing so, drag us ALL down to the level of the immoral "infidel" they accuse us of being. I don't know about YOU.... but, I prefer to maintain SOME appearance of morality in the World!

Hobo

"Conspiracy Theories" or not, the Constitutional implications can not be ignored.

General Tommy Franks stated that if we were subjected to another terrorist attack such as 9-11, then the U.S. Constitution would be reduced to (in his words) "a relic".

Today, Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld warned critics of the war in Iraq and Bush Administration policies that "they had better back off". Now, while it can be argued that these new laws signed by Bush apply only to foreigners, there will be little to stop Bush, or ANY future president from expanding the use and applications of these laws to silence and oppress ANYONE who dares to disagree or voice opposition.

Yes, sadly I can see that unless the shadows remain unaltered, the day may well come when ordinary citizens receive that "knock on the door in the dead of night".

I almost thought about reading this copy and paste post until I scanned over this statement.....

Can George W. Bush be trusted with absolute power? Here are some things he has done with his unchecked power:

· Stolen two presidential elections.

oops.... the author went right off the deep end with that statement. Sorry I'm not into conspiracy theories. :wink:

These are some pretty good questions, Fozzy! I take back everything I ever said about you! .....NOT!!! :lol:

But, I will discuss this without quoting a 'higher source."

As for your base question about whether you can shoot spies (according to the Geneva Convention,) I would say NOT without first giving them two things.

1) The protections of the convention against torture, and

2) A fair trial under, at least, a MILITARY Tribunal. [Which Bush has resisted]

I'll admit, I'm just a little confused about the uniform thing, [not their lack of one, but as to your question] and I'll tell you why:

When I flew on a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance plane, clearly marked as American, I had "rip-off" patches for my name, rank and unit. Why?

Yet, I was told that, if captured, I would be afforded protection under the Geneva Convention because I was in UNIFORM. There WERE CIA types, wearing civilian clothes and flying in unmarked planes, who might NOT!

I'll have to admit, Foz, that I'm a little confused about this. I KNOW that I was supposed to identify myself as an American Soldier IN UNIFORM, yet I was supposed to destroy certain evidence of this. As I understand it... it was so that I would be treated no differently than any other American soldier, and they wouldn't be able to cross reference my name or unit patch and know that I was "intel." And therefore, if they were signatories to the Convention, they had to afford me general POW status.

But, it comes real close to being a civilian spy, doesn't it?

I think the definition of a "spy" has something to do with trying to blend in with the indigenous peoples, while subverting their government, and IN THEIR country. But, if I got shot down IN their country, even if I wasn't supposed to BE there, I would think it would be important to be dressed in a U.S. uniform. That is supposed to afford me POW status.

So, if an Iraqi "insurgent" is caught wearing a U.S. uniform, and amongst OUR troops, I guess that would be a spy. But, if he's outside the wire, in his OWN country, wearing the "dress" of the average person (which IS their uniform,) he would HAVE to be awarded "combatant" status, AND POW protection under the convention.

The world has changed, and wars are no longer always fought by militaries in uniform. We must accept that. Perhaps, it is time for another "convention" in Geneva. But, the fact remains that, if we want OUR soldiers to be afforded ANY decency that comes with being a combattant, we should also afford them the same thing.

As far as I know, and I'm no expert, the ONLY times in history that people have been lined up against a wall and shot (as a spy,) were when they were caught in the uniform of the shooter, and engaged in gathering intel for the enemy.

Milosevic shot people who were wearing their OWN clothes, just because they were the enemy. But, THAT is why he was being tried for war crimes.

As a point of argument in your favor, I might think that the Iraqi government COULD treat any insurgent, dressed in the common clothes of a countryman, as a spy if they want to. And I'm SURE that we have explored this legal loophole now that we have installed such a government, but it would be against the Geneva Convention for US to shoot them, once captured, as a spy.

Again, we must consider the slippery slope we go down when we treat captives under ANY guidelines that don't conform to the Convention. And any legal maneuverings by our President to do otherwise, is a violation of the TRUST of Humanity that we, as Americans, claim to uphold.

Hobo

:P: Good job Hobo, thanks for digging that up for us! It clears a lot of questions!

I persieve this passage to be particularly important:

"The exception to this would be if the Al-Khas and Fedayeen are considered to be participating in a levée en masse (a general uprising of the population against an invading force). It is doubtful that the US will regard their participation as a part of such a movement. [However, by designating them as "insurgents," we have acquiesced to this status.]

However, being designated an ‘illegal combatant’ does not mean that any such individual is not protected under the Conventions. Rather, instead of being given POW status under the Third Convention, they would be protected under the Fourth Convention as civilians. "

Thanks, ONE. But, I want to be clear that the part in brackets, [However, by designating them as "insurgents," we have acquiesced to this status.] Is MY comment... and not part of the original article.

And, for the record, I don't condone giving them "civilian" status. I prefer to modify, or delete, the term "illegal" before the word combattant. I don't feel the current situation allows for the same understanding of legality. IMHO, they should be treated as (legal) combattants, not civilians.

This was written some time ago, and I'm not sure we were using the word "insurgent" yet.

I included all the parts of the "accords" that most people use to back up their argument against treating them as POW's, but stressed the fact that the accords were written 'with a view' to future possible engagements.

It seems that those who MAKE laws and guidelines always try to be inclusive, wheras those who would "cherry pick" them to advance their OWN opinons or actions, ignore the totality and context of the works.

And it should not be ignored nor forgotten that Bush, KNOWING the guidelines of the convention, went out of his way to have these "combattants" held in countries that we were friendly with, that were NOT signatories to the convention. I just can't help wondering WHY??? :roll:

Ya, I dont think theres such a thing as an 'illegal combatant' :lol:

Ya notice how neither of these two morons want to touch that one? :wink:
I am so sick and tired of listening to people cry like babies over how GWB supposedly stole the election. :evil:

I think the "war on terror" is a distraction> the "iraqi war" is a distraction> and the "stolen elections" are a distraction.

The real problem here is using these things as a excuse to dismantle the US Constitution. The elimination of habeus corpus is an extremely serious problem.Habeus corpus says that anyone arrested has a right to be seen before a judge and be told why they are being held. They have a right to know why they're being charged.

Habeus corpus is now history, you no longer have a right to know why you've been arrested. You no longer have a right to a lawyer, you no longer have a right

If the terrorists have broken a law why don't we want to prosecute them? Why do we want to eliminate the necessity to prosecute them? Why do we want to put them in prison and never do anything with them? Never charge them with anything?

Why is that?

Because they are terrorist. They want to take away our way of life and kill us. While you may not value your life, I do mine. Kill them like the dirty dogs they are, barring that, lock them up for life.

"lock them up for life."

With no trial at all? No legal proceedings at all?

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say "With no trial at all, No legal proceedings at all. If they are terrorist, they deserve worse than they are getting.

"While you may not value your life"

Your arrogance is amazing. You assume I don't value my life. Exactly like you I value my life MUCH more than I value a POS life such as your own.

Do you understand that AH?

America is based on the fact that the "accused" gets their day in court. They get to present their side of the arguement. You disagree with that. You're saying that America should be like Iran. Or NAZI Germany.

The main problem here is that you're going to get your wish.

Typical liberal discussion degenerating into personal insults and name calling. :roll:

So you're saying that "accused" people "should not" get their day in court?
That "their day in court" is a "liberal" conspiracy? Are you saying that "accused" people" have absolutely no rights in American courts?

Are you saying "fck those bastiges they have no rights in American courts?

Just exactly what TF are you saying AH?

That's right, they have no rights. They were picked up on the battlefield, killing and trying to kill Americans. You might want to direct your concern for the very Americans fighting for your right to your opinion. Why are you putting Terriorist before Americans? I'm sorry, I forgot you are a liberal.