Re: The U.S. War on Journalists

Vincent Brannigan wrote:
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> Vincent Brannigan wrote:
>>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>> Vincent Brannigan wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>>> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WTF was an "enemy combatant" or a "detainee" _before_ 911 ??!??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Murderers and traitors the USA, as a sovereign state, had the right
>>>>>> to kill without trial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew Swallow
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> only in comic books
>>>>> Common artiicle 3
>>>>>
>>>>>  (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including 
>>>>> members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those 
>>>>> placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any 
>>>>> other cause, shall in 
>>>>
>>>> Enemy combatants are taking part in hostilities and have not laid
down
>>>> their arms, so the rest of Common article 3 does not apply.
>>>>
>>>> It may apply after they have surrended.
>>>
>>> nonsense
>>> you described "murderers and traitors"
>>>
>>> omitting traitors, which is merely a municipal crime
>>
>> Traitors may cover the actual 9/11 people since they were inside the
>> USA.
> 
> OFCS only US citizens can be traitors
> 
> Your ignorance of the law is simply total
> 

That excuse will not work in Britain.  When you enter Britain the
treason laws apply to you irrespective of your nationality.  That
rule preceeds the Declaration of Independence.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason>
The two Towers were inside the USA and so were the airports - see
Ligeantia localis.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegiance>

> 
> 
>>>
>>> you are suggesting that there is a group which the government may
>>> declare that they will kill on sight without trial merely on the say 
>>> so of the leader. in other words the the leader points and they follow
>>> no, that is not the law.
>>> that was Hitler
>>>
>>
>> The traditional power of kings was enormous.  King John was not
>> happy to sign Magna Carta, which required trials.  The US
>> Constitution had clauses inserted to limit the powers of the
>> president.  Any limitations in the US Constitution are self
>> imposed rather than international law and only apply within
>> the jurisdiction of the USA Federal Government.
> 
> nonsense
> 
> Common article 3 applies all over the world to everyone

Common article 3 comes with a built in limitation.

> 
>>
>>> Can you shoot at people currently actively engaged in belligerent 
>>> acts sure.   But it requires an "act" RIGHT NOW
>>> you have to be "taking an active part"
>>>
>>>
>>> Only members of armed forces can be attacked based on their status
>>>
>>
>> That comes down to whether Al Qaeda count as an armed force.  Osama
>> bin Laden did actually declare war/jihad against the USA.
>>
>>> If you are attacking them based on that status then you have to make 
>>> them POWs when they surrender
>>>
>>
>> Only if they meet the criteria in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention.
> 
> but they have to be POWs until they get a tribunal

Article 5 second paragraph "Should any doubt arise ..."
If they are out of uniform they is no doubt.
> 
>>
>> IMHO The 9/11 suicide teams did not.
>>
>> The fighters openly carrying guns and wearing say green headdresses
>> in Iraq and Afghanistan may comply with Article 4.2
>>
>>> you can try them for war crimes, but only after a proper tribunal
>>>
>>
>> If you accept their surrender then they are entitled to a trial.
>>
> 
> if you wont accept their surrender you get the trial
> 
>> Article 43.2 of Protocol 1 to the Geneva Convention applies.
>> " 2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict
>> (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by
>> Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that
>> is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
>> "
>>
<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079>

>>
>>
>> Non-combatants who kill are probably murderers.
>> (Non ratification of this treaty by the USA is causing problems.)
> 
> in any case they get a proper trial
> 

Yes.  Either a local criminal trial or an US military court, Article 84.

> 
> 
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Swallow
>>>>
>>>>> all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse 
>>>>> distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth 
>>>>> or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>> To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at 
>>>>> any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the 
>>>>> above-mentioned persons:
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, 
>>>>> mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) taking of hostages;
>>>>>
>>>>> (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and 
>>>>> degrading treatment;
>>>>>
>>>>> (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions 
>>>>> without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted 
>>>>> court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized 
>>>>> as indispensable by civilized peoples.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vince
> 
> Vince