PDA

View Full Version : Lawyers Smuggle al Qaeda Magazine Into Gitmo



Apocalypse
01-18-2012, 08:45 PM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/18/2595669/al-qaida-magazine-discovered-in.html


A copy of Al [Q]aida’s fiery magazine Inspire somehow got inside the prison camps at Guantánamo, a prosecutor disclosed at the war court Wednesday.How, you say, did this happen? It looks like one of the lawyers smuggled it in:
Navy Cmdr. Andrea Lockhart blurted out the embarrassing disclosure in defending the prison camps commander’s plan to give greater scrutiny to legal mail bound for alleged terrorists. She was discussing a system used by civilian lawyers to send materials to Guantánamo captives who are suing the U.S. for their freedom through habeas corpus petitions in Washington, D.C.

And why are Civilian lawyers gaining access to these people who are facing Military trials? I was always under the impression only Military lawyers were used in military trials.

Odysseus
01-19-2012, 01:08 PM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/18/2595669/al-qaida-magazine-discovered-in.html


A copy of Al [Q]aida’s fiery magazine Inspire somehow got inside the prison camps at Guantánamo, a prosecutor disclosed at the war court Wednesday.How, you say, did this happen? It looks like one of the lawyers smuggled it in:
Navy Cmdr. Andrea Lockhart blurted out the embarrassing disclosure in defending the prison camps commander’s plan to give greater scrutiny to legal mail bound for alleged terrorists. She was discussing a system used by civilian lawyers to send materials to Guantánamo captives who are suing the U.S. for their freedom through habeas corpus petitions in Washington, D.C.

And why are Civilian lawyers gaining access to these people who are facing Military trials? I was always under the impression only Military lawyers were used in military trials.

The UCMJ permits civilian counsel in lieu of military if the defendant requests it and pays for it.

The thing that gets me is that they are holding trials for combatants during wartime. Under the Geneva Conventions, we can detain combatants for the duration of hostilities. We don't need to try them, unless we are charging them with war crimes, and the SCOTUS interpretation of the law that allows them habeas corpus rights is absurd.

txradioguy
01-19-2012, 02:24 PM
Lawyers for the terrorists...some from the firm that AG Holder used to work for...have been caught numerous times over the last 8 years smuggling in propaganda to the detainees.

It's nothing new. Just further solidifies which side the left in this country sympathizes with and is trying to actively support.

Odysseus
01-19-2012, 03:22 PM
Lawyers for the terrorists...some from the firm that AG Holder used to work for...have been caught numerous times over the last 8 years smuggling in propaganda to the detainees.

It's nothing new. Just further solidifies which side the left in this country sympathizes with and is trying to actively support.

Yep, but it would be nice if the next Republican nominee highlighted this.

Lanie
01-19-2012, 05:52 PM
The UCMJ permits civilian counsel in lieu of military if the defendant requests it and pays for it.

The thing that gets me is that they are holding trials for combatants during wartime. Under the Geneva Conventions, we can detain combatants for the duration of hostilities. We don't need to try them, unless we are charging them with war crimes, and the SCOTUS interpretation of the law that allows them habeas corpus rights is absurd.

What if the hostilities don't end in this lifetime? And why should they wait until after?

txradioguy
01-20-2012, 04:55 AM
What if the hostilities don't end in this lifetime? And why should they wait until after?

Then it was a poor life choice for him/her to choose to be a terrorist.

You should really read the Geneva Conventions sometime that cover Prisoner's of War instead of relying on places like KOS and DU for your information.

If you actually read the conventions, you'll find that the type of scum we're holding in Gitmo don't qualify for any type of protection and that POW's in general aren't granted the rights of the coutnry holding them.

Both are a creation of the anti-War pro-Terrorist left in this country. The same type of assclowns that are smuggling pro al-Qaeda propaganda to their "clients" to help keep their morale up.

Lanie
01-20-2012, 08:55 AM
Then it was a poor life choice for him/her to choose to be a terrorist.

You should really read the Geneva Conventions sometime that cover Prisoner's of War instead of relying on places like KOS and DU for your information.

If you actually read the conventions, you'll find that the type of scum we're holding in Gitmo don't qualify for any type of protection and that POW's in general aren't granted the rights of the coutnry holding them.

Both are a creation of the anti-War pro-Terrorist left in this country. The same type of assclowns that are smuggling pro al-Qaeda propaganda to their "clients" to help keep their morale up.

I have a problem with believing that somebody is guilty of a crime when people are reluctant to give him/her a trial to prove that. Seriously, what's the problem?

I know what some of the laws say, but I don't agree with them. I don't want people being held in definately for "being a terrorist" if they're not one. They
need a trial.

Bailey
01-20-2012, 09:18 AM
I have a problem with believing that somebody is guilty of a crime when people are reluctant to give him/her a trial to prove that. Seriously, what's the problem?

I know what some of the laws say, but I don't agree with them. I don't want people being held in definately for "being a terrorist" if they're not one. They
need a trial.

Hey dimwit these people weren't plucked off the street for the fun of it, they were captured ON THE BATTLEFIELD so they were fighting our forces and they can be held till current hostilities are OVER.

txradioguy
01-20-2012, 10:25 AM
I have a problem with believing that somebody is guilty of a crime when people are reluctant to give him/her a trial to prove that. Seriously, what's the problem?

We're not talking about people plucked randomly off a damn street here Bridget. These are people captured on the field of battle...wearing no uniform of nor fighting under the flag of a recognized or lawful nation state...trying to kill us.

Why is that so hard to understand? When you catch a guy in a house full of components for explosives in the middle of making an IED...there's no way to mistake anything he's doing as an innocent act.


I know what some of the laws say, but I don't agree with them. I don't want people being held in definately for "being a terrorist" if they're not one. They
need a trial.

Then join the U.N. one of those "world governing bodies" and change the damn rules. But understand these rules of war have been in place since before your grandfather was born.

You'd have more success pissing up a rope. Just because you don't like them...doesn't mean that the majority of the people in the world agree with you.

Though it does win you brownie points with thsoe detained at Gitmo.

The ones that are being held are known terrorists having engaged in known terrorist activities. The folders put together on the high value targets and the wire diagrams that go out from them to their associates looks like what the FBI used to have on the Mafia.

They don't need a trial...they certainly don't deserve one IMHO...and how we treat them now is a far cry better than how they would treat you or me if they captured us.

Lanie
01-20-2012, 11:42 AM
We're not talking about people plucked randomly off a damn street here Bridget. These are people captured on the field of battle...wearing no uniform of nor fighting under the flag of a recognized or lawful nation state...trying to kill us.

Why is that so hard to understand? When you catch a guy in a house full of components for explosives in the middle of making an IED...there's no way to mistake anything he's doing as an innocent act.



Then join the U.N. one of those "world governing bodies" and change the damn rules. But understand these rules of war have been in place since before your grandfather was born.

You'd have more success pissing up a rope. Just because you don't like them...doesn't mean that the majority of the people in the world agree with you.

Though it does win you brownie points with thsoe detained at Gitmo.

The ones that are being held are known terrorists having engaged in known terrorist activities. The folders put together on the high value targets and the wire diagrams that go out from them to their associates looks like what the FBI used to have on the Mafia.

They don't need a trial...they certainly don't deserve one IMHO...and how we treat them now is a far cry better than how they would treat you or me if they captured us.

I agree that we treat them better than they would us.

I do think most people being brought in are guilty.

I still think there should be a trial though. You never answered the question. Why not have a trial? You have the evidence, so what's wrong with presenting it? Truth is the more you push the idea of these people not having a trial, the more you have people considering the possibility that they're innocent.

djones520
01-20-2012, 12:10 PM
I agree that we treat them better than they would us.

I do think most people being brought in are guilty.

I still think there should be a trial though. You never answered the question. Why not have a trial? You have the evidence, so what's wrong with presenting it? Truth is the more you push the idea of these people not having a trial, the more you have people considering the possibility that they're innocent.

A trial under what laws? We cannot try them under our laws. Our soldiers who capture these people are not police officers. They do not handle evidence. They do not mirandize. They take Prisoners of War.

These are all illegal combatants. They are entitled to a bullet between the eyes. Nothing more.

Lanie
01-20-2012, 01:25 PM
A trial under what laws? We cannot try them under our laws. Our soldiers who capture these people are not police officers. They do not handle evidence. They do not mirandize. They take Prisoners of War.

These are all illegal combatants. They are entitled to a bullet between the eyes. Nothing more.

The least you could do is PROVE them guilty before shooting them. You have to understand. I don't know what you mean by proven to be terrorists. Neither do much of the civilian world. What's the proof? Did you see them with weapons, with the wrong people? Was there prior research linking them to terrorist groups and/or events? What's the evidence because I don't know what makes these people terrorists. Tell me. I want to know. Seriously. Is it real proof or is it suspicion? What is it? In the case of the lawyers here, they're smuggling al Qeada magaine. What's up with these people the military is capturing? I'm really not big on the "don't ask questions" ideology of things.

As to laws, that's a good point. I suppose trying them under our laws might look self-serving although I don't see a problem with it. They're basic laws against terrorism. In any case, I think this actually makes a case for an international court.

txradioguy
01-20-2012, 01:28 PM
I still think there should be a trial though. You never answered the question.

Under what jurisdiction? What country's laws? These are stateless people we are fighting. They certainly don't qualify for U.S. protections under our Constitution.


Why not have a trial? You have the evidence, so what's wrong with presenting it?

You do realize that the vast majority of the evidence gathered is don be classified means and by people that were they to be named revealed or otherwise be exposed drink a trial would be dead before the judge adjourned for the day...along with every member of their family that still draws a breath.

Sources and methods used by the troops to find these thugs would now be in the open...giving the enemy a chance to adjust their tactics to avoid being caught.

But then I guess you think that's fair right?


Truth is the more you push the idea of these people not having a trial, the more you have people considering the possibility that they're innocent.

The only people that believe they are innocent are leftist Libtards like you.

Lanie
01-20-2012, 01:31 PM
Under what jurisdiction? What country's laws? These are stateless people we are fighting. They certainly don't qualify for U.S. protections under our Constitution.



You do realize that the vast majority of the evidence gathered is don be classified means and by people that were they to be named revealed or otherwise be exposed drink a trial would be dead before the judge adjourned for the day...along with every member of their family that still draws a breath.

Sources and methods used by the troops to find these thugs would now be in the open...giving the enemy a chance to adjust their tactics to avoid being caught.

But then I guess you think that's fair right?



The only people that believe they are innocent are leftist Libtards like you.

I didn't say they were innocent. I said I questioned it. You seem to think I should accept without asking questions.

Your argument about endangering people and their families could also be applied to when we try gang or mafia members. At least say WHAT the evidence is. You don't have to say who it came from. Say what it is.

BTW, are you capable of having a discussion without insulting?

txradioguy
01-20-2012, 01:32 PM
Here it is...the articles of the Geneva Convention that lay out specifically who is entitled to protections.

Hint: The taliban aren't covered.


Article 4(A) of GPW defines the types of persons who, once they have fallen under the control of the enemy, are entitled to the legal status of POWs. The first three categories are the only ones relevant to the Taliban. Under Article 4(A)(1), individuals who are “members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict,” are entitled to POW status upon capture. Article 4(A)(3) includes as POWs members of “regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.”


Article 4(A)(2) includes as POWs members of “other militias” and “volunteer corps,” including “organized resistance movements” that belong to a Party to the conflict. In addition, members of militias and volunteer corps must “fulfill” four conditions: (a) “being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates”; (b) “having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance”; (c) “carrying arms openly”; and (d) “conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” Those four conditions reflect those required in the 1907 Hague Convention IV. See Commentary to the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 49 (Red Cross 1952) (“Red Cross Commentary”) (“[D]uring the 1949 Diplomatic Conference . . . there was unanimous agreement that the categories of persons to whom the Convention is applicable must be defined, in harmony with the Hague Regulations.”).


http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/genevacon/blart-4.htm

txradioguy
01-20-2012, 01:36 PM
I didn't say they were innocent. I said I questioned it. You seem to think I should accept without asking questions.

Gee could that be because I've been on the battlefield where these thugs operate? :rolleyes:

You have the luxury to sit back here safe and sound and believe the sympathetic tales you read in Salon and the NY Times and on KOS and DU about these poor misunderstood bomb throwers.

My friends and fellow soldiers that have been blown up by these Angels with Dirty Faces as you like to look at the Taliban...didn't.


Your argument about endangering people and their families could also be applied to when we try gang or mafia members. At least say WHAT the evidence is. You don't have to say who it came from. Say what it is.

You know I can't figure out whether you just argue for arguments sake or you really are this stupid.


BTW, are you capable of having a discussion without insulting?

Only with intelligent people that have a brain.

Odysseus
01-20-2012, 01:44 PM
What if the hostilities don't end in this lifetime? And why should they wait until after?
Ask the guys who died in captivity during the Hundred Years War. The reason that you keep combatants locked up for the duration is because when you release them, they will return to the battlefield, unless the war is over. They aren't simply individual criminals, they're part of something bigger than themselves, as as long as they are committed to that something, they will continue to fight.

This isn't about them. They aren't criminals, they are combatants, and the case doesn't end when they are convicted, it ends when the organization that they belong to surrenders. This is about winning the war.

I have a problem with believing that somebody is guilty of a crime when people are reluctant to give him/her a trial to prove that. Seriously, what's the problem?

I know what some of the laws say, but I don't agree with them. I don't want people being held in definately for "being a terrorist" if they're not one. They need a trial.

You really don't understand the paradigm. You are thinking of them as criminals who need to be convicted of a crime, a something that needs to be addressed via the criminal justice system, but this is the wrong context. War isn't part of our justice system because it occurs outside of our jurisdiction, and the actions of the enemy on the battlefield do not come under our jurisdiction until the battlefield is under our jurisdiction, i.e., when the war is over and we have won. Because these men have engaged in terror attacks against civilian targets, you are thinking of them as common criminals, but terrorism on behalf of a foreign power isn't just a crime, it's an act of war. It extends the battlefield to the home front and makes non-combatants into targets, which makes it a war crime, but the prosecution of that crime is secondary. The first thing, the primary objective of the war effort, is winning the war. Trying them for war crimes doesn't advance the war effort. In fact, by obscuring their status, it sets it back because it creates conflicts like this. Giving them access to the classified data that was collected in their capture, presenting them with a forum to spout propaganda and collaborate with anti-American factions within the US, releasing combatants who will go back to the battlefield and take up arms the minute that they are released, these are acts that are suicidal in wartime, but we are doing them, because we have obscured and confused the nature of the threat. You have to understand that the GITMO detainees aren't being held as criminals, they are being held as combatants. They aren't in prison, they are under detention. They aren't subject to the US Civil Code, they are subject to the laws of warfare. They are not being held because they are bad guys in and of themselves, they are being held because they joined the bad guys, and will rejoin them when released.

Lanie
01-20-2012, 04:59 PM
Gee could that be because I've been on the battlefield where these thugs operate? :rolleyes:


Okay, so tell me what you're seeing that is making you conclude that they're guilty. You mentioned trying/succeeding to kill other troops. Are you all directly seeing it? What else are you seeing?

on edit: Nevermind.

Lanie
01-20-2012, 05:07 PM
Ask the guys who died in captivity during the Hundred Years War. The reason that you keep combatants locked up for the duration is because when you release them, they will return to the battlefield, unless the war is over. They aren't simply individual criminals, they're part of something bigger than themselves, as as long as they are committed to that something, they will continue to fight.

This isn't about them. They aren't criminals, they are combatants, and the case doesn't end when they are convicted, it ends when the organization that they belong to surrenders. This is about winning the war.


You really don't understand the paradigm. You are thinking of them as criminals who need to be convicted of a crime, a something that needs to be addressed via the criminal justice system, but this is the wrong context. War isn't part of our justice system because it occurs outside of our jurisdiction, and the actions of the enemy on the battlefield do not come under our jurisdiction until the battlefield is under our jurisdiction, i.e., when the war is over and we have won. Because these men have engaged in terror attacks against civilian targets, you are thinking of them as common criminals, but terrorism on behalf of a foreign power isn't just a crime, it's an act of war. It extends the battlefield to the home front and makes non-combatants into targets, which makes it a war crime, but the prosecution of that crime is secondary. The first thing, the primary objective of the war effort, is winning the war. Trying them for war crimes doesn't advance the war effort. In fact, by obscuring their status, it sets it back because it creates conflicts like this. Giving them access to the classified data that was collected in their capture, presenting them with a forum to spout propaganda and collaborate with anti-American factions within the US, releasing combatants who will go back to the battlefield and take up arms the minute that they are released, these are acts that are suicidal in wartime, but we are doing them, because we have obscured and confused the nature of the threat. You have to understand that the GITMO detainees aren't being held as criminals, they are being held as combatants. They aren't in prison, they are under detention. They aren't subject to the US Civil Code, they are subject to the laws of warfare. They are not being held because they are bad guys in and of themselves, they are being held because they joined the bad guys, and will rejoin them when released.

When I brought up the idea of a trial, I'm assuming most of them (probably 99% of them) will be convicted, not get to return to the battlefield. I'm still not comfortable with this idea, but I see what you're saying. You're right.

Bailey
01-20-2012, 05:10 PM
When I brought up the idea of a trial, I'm assuming most of them (probably 99% of them) will be convicted, not get to return to the battlefield. I'm still not comfortable with this idea, but I see what you're saying. You're right.

OMG what is it with you people??? THEY dont deserve a day in court.

djones520
01-20-2012, 06:11 PM
When I brought up the idea of a trial, I'm assuming most of them (probably 99% of them) will be convicted, not get to return to the battlefield. I'm still not comfortable with this idea, but I see what you're saying. You're right.

Lanie, lets try an experiment here.

Set aside your opinion of this matter. Don't even try to think about it. Now go back to what Ody said, and reread it. Don't let the word trial enter your thought a single time.

These people are not criminals in the sense you associate trials with. They are combatants, just like Ody and I are. Were he or I captured on the battlefield (by a force that adheres to the Geneva Convention), there would be no trial. We would be placed in holding, whether it be a prison facility, camp, or something else along those lines. We would be held there until either there was a cease of hostilities between the two battling powers, or our government negotiated our release.

The people at Gitmo are combatants, but they are illegal combatants. They do not wear identifying uniforms. They do not adhere to the "rules of war" as they are recognized. They often times attempt to disguise themselves in the uniform of their opponents to inflict maximum damage. All in all, they fight in a manner which does not afford them protection under the Geneva Protection, as Ody or I would be afforded.

As I said, we would be (or should be if our government hadn't gotten all nanciefied on this) 100% perfectly entitled to just put a bullet between their eyes when we captured them. Instead we capture, then inter them as if they were legal combatants.

They are lucky they get that. Giving them a "trial" would be a gross miscarriage of justice. One, they have no right to it. Secondly, it's an insult to those of us who do follow the Geneva Convention. We would not be afforded the same right if we were captured. We would not even be allowed to ask for that right.


Is any of this sinking in for you?

Lanie
01-20-2012, 07:38 PM
Lanie, lets try an experiment here.

Set aside your opinion of this matter. Don't even try to think about it. Now go back to what Ody said, and reread it. Don't let the word trial enter your thought a single time.

These people are not criminals in the sense you associate trials with. They are combatants, just like Ody and I are. Were he or I captured on the battlefield (by a force that adheres to the Geneva Convention), there would be no trial. We would be placed in holding, whether it be a prison facility, camp, or something else along those lines. We would be held there until either there was a cease of hostilities between the two battling powers, or our government negotiated our release.

The people at Gitmo are combatants, but they are illegal combatants. They do not wear identifying uniforms. They do not adhere to the "rules of war" as they are recognized. They often times attempt to disguise themselves in the uniform of their opponents to inflict maximum damage. All in all, they fight in a manner which does not afford them protection under the Geneva Protection, as Ody or I would be afforded.

As I said, we would be (or should be if our government hadn't gotten all nanciefied on this) 100% perfectly entitled to just put a bullet between their eyes when we captured them. Instead we capture, then inter them as if they were legal combatants.

They are lucky they get that. Giving them a "trial" would be a gross miscarriage of justice. One, they have no right to it. Secondly, it's an insult to those of us who do follow the Geneva Convention. We would not be afforded the same right if we were captured. We would not even be allowed to ask for that right.


Is any of this sinking in for you?

You know, I told Ody he he was right, and that's not enough for you.

You can't give them trials during the war because they could enter the battlefield again and that's just how war is done. Fine.

I'm not going to be comfortable with it and I sure as well won't be okay with just killing them unless they're not captured. If you don't like it, then tough.

I swear I think your side wants everything. That's actually been the problem for years now. Tx says libtard. Well, maybe I should go back to saying conservakook. Seriously, you all need to stop needing your way all the time. It's a trait I've seen since the Bush years and it still gets on my nerves.

Odysseus
01-21-2012, 12:09 AM
When I brought up the idea of a trial, I'm assuming most of them (probably 99% of them) will be convicted, not get to return to the battlefield. I'm still not comfortable with this idea, but I see what you're saying. You're right.
Okay, wait a minute. You can't just turn around and agree with me. That's going to confuse everything here. :D

OMG what is it with you people??? THEY dont deserve a day in court.
Uh, she agreed with me. We won. Chill.

You know, I told Ody he he was right, and that's not enough for you.

You can't give them trials during the war because they could enter the battlefield again and that's just how war is done. Fine.

I'm not going to be comfortable with it and I sure as well won't be okay with just killing them unless they're not captured. If you don't like it, then tough.

I swear I think your side wants everything. That's actually been the problem for years now. Tx says libtard. Well, maybe I should go back to saying conservakook. Seriously, you all need to stop needing your way all the time. It's a trait I've seen since the Bush years and it still gets on my nerves.

One last point. Nobody is talking about killing them in captivity. We are bound by rules of warfare that state that prisoners are non-combatants, having been disarmed and put where they cannot rejoin the fight. This, BTW, is why it is acceptable to kill a prisoner only if that prisoner is attempting to escape, i.e., to rejoin the war effort and become a combatant again. Other than that, we treat prisoners the way that we hope that ours will be treated. If, however, the other side routinely abuses and murders prisoners, the Geneva Conventions say that they have abrogated the protections of the laws of warfare, and we can respond in kind. The fact that we don't should speak volumes on its own.

Now, to everybody else, can I point out that the argument is over, at least with Lanie, and she has come around to our way of thinking? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going to go and do the Internet Argument Victory Dance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1npWhzBJAzA

Lanie
01-21-2012, 08:46 AM
Okay, wait a minute. You can't just turn around and agree with me. That's going to confuse everything here. :D

Uh, she agreed with me. We won. Chill.


One last point. Nobody is talking about killing them in captivity. We are bound by rules of warfare that state that prisoners are non-combatants, having been disarmed and put where they cannot rejoin the fight. This, BTW, is why it is acceptable to kill a prisoner only if that prisoner is attempting to escape, i.e., to rejoin the war effort and become a combatant again. Other than that, we treat prisoners the way that we hope that ours will be treated. If, however, the other side routinely abuses and murders prisoners, the Geneva Conventions say that they have abrogated the protections of the laws of warfare, and we can respond in kind. The fact that we don't should speak volumes on its own.

Now, to everybody else, can I point out that the argument is over, at least with Lanie, and she has come around to our way of thinking? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going to go and do the Internet Argument Victory Dance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1npWhzBJAzA


djones keeps talking about how they should have a bullet between the eyes. That's why I brought up killing them. I'm against the death penalty. I've only spoken in favor of it out of emotion. Whenever emotion is out of the picture, I usually speak against it.

Onto the rest, I was thinking about it yesterday. We can argue all the left points, right points, military points, etc. What it really comes down to is whether one trusts our military to be doing the right thing. I look a lot of at history and I do find where militaries have been abusive with their power. I think that's actually one of the roots of the problem with others regarding me. They can tell I have this side of me which would offend some people in the military. I question authority a lot, no matter what good they did to get that position. It's my nature, and it's offensive to some people. It comes off like I don't have any respect for military, people on the police force, etc. In reality I do, but my attitude comes off differently and I apologize for that. So what I was thinking about was what I thought of our military. While there are bad apples in every group of people, I realized that I do trust our military. I even trust them to get rid of bad apples when they find them. So there you go, argument over.

Kay
01-21-2012, 10:54 AM
Lawyers for the terrorists...some from the firm that AG Holder used to work for...have been caught numerous times over the last 8 years smuggling in propaganda to the detainees.


We don't hear a lot about this, or at least I haven't. So what punishment did they get?
We're they charged with aiding the enemy and arrested? Or just politely told not to do it again :rolleyes:


These are all illegal combatants.
They are entitled to a bullet between the eyes.
Nothing more.

That's what I say.

Odysseus
01-21-2012, 12:53 PM
We don't hear a lot about this, or at least I haven't. So what punishment did they get?
We're they charged with aiding the enemy and arrested? Or just politely told not to do it again :rolleyes:
One would hope. Lynn Stewart, the lawyer for Omar Abdel-Rahman, went to jail for the same thing. She got 28 months plus ten years for perjury during her trial, plus automatic disbarment.



That's what I say.

According to the Geneva Conventions, combatants under powers that are not signatories and do not comply with the Conventions are not protected, so they are subject to summary execution in the field, but the UCMJ forbids that.

djones520
01-21-2012, 03:47 PM
According to the Geneva Conventions, combatants under powers that are not signatories and do not comply with the Conventions are not protected, so they are subject to summary execution in the field, but the UCMJ forbids that.

Are you referring to Article 96? I don't think shooting a "prisoner" is the same as allowing them to escape. Or am I missing it somewhere else?

txradioguy
01-21-2012, 03:48 PM
We don't hear a lot about this, or at least I haven't. So what punishment did they get?
We're they charged with aiding the enemy and arrested? Or just politely told not to do it again :rolleyes:



That's what I say.

Kay I heard about it in 2010 on Mark Levins show. As far as I know nothing was ever done to them. One of the terrorist advocates down there is IRRC currently Holders Deputy. Several people now working at Justice were defending the Gitmo terrorists prior to Obama becoming president.

Odysseus
01-21-2012, 09:23 PM
Are you referring to Article 96? I don't think shooting a "prisoner" is the same as allowing them to escape. Or am I missing it somewhere else?

No. In the heat of battle, if the combatants are not subject to the Geneva Conventions, then there is no guarantee of their right to quarter, i.e., you do not have to accept surrenders, however, once you have accepted the surrender, they are prisoners and defined as non-combatants. The Geneva Conventions permit shooting an escapee during the attempt, but not if he has been recaptured. The UCMJ bars killing of non-combatants, including prisoners, except when they are in the process of attempting to escape.