Republicans

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

You said I was one of these "Conse 'Pubs. Then I said I was a Libertarian. Then you said that I was a "Lib" and implied that there was something humurous about my party affiliation and just now implied that I am a radical of sorts by saying that I am to "the extreme right".

Quit twisting my words around.

And Tal, The Geneva Conventions specifically states what the defining marks of an enemy combatant are and who may be covered by the Geneva Convention.

As I stated in my earlier post, that as terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

If they were identified as soldiers with the Iraqi Republican Guard or something, it would be entirely different.

ANGRY:

Nice evasiveness!! You did everything except demand a public apology.

Firstly, calling you a Lib wasn't an insult or making fun of your party affiliation, as there are Lib 'Pubs too--albeit only a few are left. I was making a light-hearted comment with the LOL to indicate that, and not the way it was taken. Sorry, I gave you something to savage.

Conse 'Pub is my abbreviation for conservative republican, and I worked hard on that abbreviation to NOT be insultive. I couldn't use Con and Repub due to insultiveness, and Rep due to other meanings for that shorthand. I use Dem, Lib, Mod, Indy, etc.

Libertarian is the most far right of center you can be, or at least that's what I take it to mean. So, that means extreme right as far as I can tell.

What words did I twist?

How about an answer to these 2 questions which you glossed over with an I-covered-this-with-you smack-down.

If YOUR definition of torture is correct, why does international law & The Geneva Convention outlaw waterboarding?

Why has America prosecuted people over this?


TAL

[ila]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

.....Conse 'Pub is my abbreviation for conservative republican, and I worked hard on that abbreviation to NOT be insultive. I couldn't use Con and Repub due to insultiveness, and Rep due to other meanings for that shorthand. I use Dem, Lib, Mod, Indy, etc. .......

Since I'm an outsider to your political system I can never be called a conservative republican so I feel that I can give a somewhat unbiased opinion on your abbreviation. Your abbreviation seems to be somewhat dismissive and possible arrogant or condescending towards conservative republicans. Why do you feel the need to make up an abbreviation? Why not just type or write conservative republican out in full as it doesn't take much more effort. You would then not look like you are entering a debate, with an air of superiority.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

Since I'm an outsider to your political system I can never be called a conservative republican so I feel that I can give a somewhat unbiased opinion on your abbreviation. Your abbreviation seems to be somewhat dismissive and possible arrogant or condescending towards conservative republicans. Why do you feel the need to make up an abbreviation? Why not just type or write conservative republican out in full as it doesn't take much more effort. You would then not look like you are entering a debate, with an air of superiority.

Well put, ila, especially the point about the need to make up an abbreviation or "shorthand" at all. It is a type of cleverness that, in my humble opinion, is seen all too often in writing, especially in journalism and particularly in sports journalism. I discuss this very point with my writing students, and even use sports columnists from The Boston Globe as source material.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

Originally Posted by ila
Since I'm an outsider to your political system I can never be called a conservative republican so I feel that I can give a somewhat unbiased opinion on your abbreviation. Your abbreviation seems to be somewhat dismissive and possible arrogant or condescending towards conservative republicans. Why do you feel the need to make up an abbreviation? Why not just type or write conservative republican out in full as it doesn't take much more effort. You would then not look like you are entering a debate, with an air of superiority.



Well put, ila, especially the point about the need to make up an abbreviation or "shorthand" at all. It is a type of cleverness that, in my humble opinion, is seen all too often in writing, especially in journalism and particularly in sports journalism. I discuss this very point with my writing students, and even use sports columnists from The Boston Globe as source material.

SMC:

Thank you, for the insults.

No, you didn't SAY it; you only agreed with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong--I no doubt am wrong IYHO--You agree with Ila's implied aggressive offensive opinion, but you say defensive proves your point.

You can say--so, I'll say it for you, you were happy with Ila's opinion, and didn't want to disagree with someone you respect. You expect respect, and I'm sure that you respect every poster here. I don't have to ask if you respect me, because that only says insult me some more.

TAL

[smc]

A friend on this forum has widely advised me to cease engaging in this debate. After giving it some thought, I have decided to take his sage advice. I will let what is already posted stand on its own, with the confidence that a reasonable reading of the record will lead the reader to draw the appropriate conclusions.

Whether I can resist the bait that may come ... well, we will have to wait and see. I will do my best.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

A friend on this forum has widely advised me to cease engaging in this debate. After giving it some thought, I have decided to take his sage advice. I will let what is already posted stand on its own, with the confidence that a reasonable reading of the record will lead the reader to draw the appropriate conclusions.

Whether I can resist the bait that may come ... well, we will have to wait and see. I will do my best.

SMC:

I don't want this debate with you, and never have. If there is bait, it won't be from me.

TAL

[TracyCoxx]

I've been gone a couple of days. I guess I didn't miss much.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by ila

Since I'm an outsider to your political system I can never be called a conservative republican so I feel that I can give a somewhat unbiased opinion on your abbreviation. Your abbreviation seems to be somewhat dismissive and possible arrogant or condescending towards conservative republicans. Why do you feel the need to make up an abbreviation? Why not just type or write conservative republican out in full as it doesn't take much more effort. You would then not look like you are entering a debate, with an air of superiority.

ILA:

I appreciate your input, but in America we have 2 types of debate: honest and political. An honest debate is possible with Dems, 'Pubs, Indies, Mods, Conses and Libs. It is not possible with Neo-Cons, Lib'ians and Conse 'Pubs, because they specialize in political debate. In that strategy they are either right, or have an equal opinion to anyone who disagrees on almost EVERY issue. They might concede that Obama is a citizen with proof, that Palin might not be presidential timber, and that Bush 43 did a couple things that they didn't like: immigration, pharm. deal, financial decisions.

On this very board there is a perfect example. My POV is that Obama does not have ties to terrorists, but Conse 'Pubs, Neo-Cons and Lib'ians are the only ones who have a different "opinion" on this issue.

Example: Bill Ayers was a terrorist when Obama was 8 years old, and was a professor when Obama knew him in passing. On this board a familiar-from-political-boards crafted "opinion" has been defended with vigor, and is considered a real issue. The slogan he-pals-around-with-terrorists from 2 years ago has morphed into a secondary issue for ending Obama's Presidency. The concept is to question every thing every day with no let up, and reclaim power to run the country their way, like under Cheney. Of course, the logic is that what W did in 8 years doesn't count, but everything the opposition does in 1 year does count. The only pass Obama gets is when he does something Bush did. I wish I could say I was making that up.

There is a method to the strategy of Conse 'Pubs and the other 2. They go to sites where there are other views, and they present one doubt after the other. The point is that the country can only be run the right way, which happens to be ONLY their way to only their benefit (tax cuts are their main issue IMHO). Don't believe me, read their posts on this board to make a liar of me. Make a fool out of me by showing me where they backed off of ONE issue other than citizen Obama and Pres. Palin.

When you have to prove Obama is a citizen to get a concession, all the other issues are a no-win situation. You mock them and they claim you don't respect their equal opinion. You ignore them and they eliminate any opinion other than there own. That leaves only ONE option and that is to identify who they are, and you have to say Conse 'Pub or you get savaged for it. I learned that long ago. You can them a republican in the course of your point, and you get the evasive reply: I'm a conservative. You say they are a conservative, and they don't have to defend anyone not in The Conservative Party. If you point out someone in The Conservative Party, and you'll get I'm a republican unless you point out a republican in the same post. Then, you get either another evasion, an insult (s), and/or a crafted accusation with them no doubt being offended and/or outraged. Read some of their posts and you'll get a non-negotiable stance.

As you can see I identify who specifically has this opinion, even though most Americans feel they way they do in their opinion. Conse Dems, aka Blue Dogs, do not have that opinion, and Mod 'Pubs don't share that opinion. In fact, most on the right--not right of center--are Conse 'Pubs. Please don't confuse commenting on the hollowness of arguments and by whom for arrogance, superiority and condescension.

There are 31 of those abbreviations in this post, and not just 2: conservative republican. That's why there are so many baseball abbreviations. You have no idea how mentally draining a 2000-2500 word article is, and that's why we do it. It's not a dissertation for a PHD, because the reading audience is not erudite for the most part. It's hard enough to build a readership as it is, and abbreviations make the data easier to digest. I doubt my readers are concerned with runs batted in being spelled out every time instead of RBI. Their concern is reading about their team, and enjoying details they don't have time to research and ferret out.

Here's a baseball example. They want to hear that Doc Halladay has a work ethic that is Chase Utley's equal. If Lidge was tipping his pitches, Utley would know it. They know that Doc will win 18-23 games unless he has a season that is well above average. It's nice to end on a lighter note.


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

TAL,

Most of your gripes about 'Conse 'Pubs' can equally be said about you. Your debate style is political because you put people into narrowly defined political parties and then claim to know their entire point of view based on whatever political party you've classified them as. That leads to mistakes, like when you think I'm a conservative republican, and therefore must be against clinton too. The fact that I had already defended clinton against republicans apparently made no difference, and you still have not acknowledged this. You probably think I'm a bible thumper as well, which would be another mistake.

You come into this forum with the declaration that

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Bush 41 left a deficit for Clinton, Clinton left a surplus for Bush 43, Bush 43 left a whopping deficit for Obama.

Conse 'Pubs put us in a hole with tax cuts, and The Dems have to pay the bill. Then, Conse 'Pubs say we cut taxes, and Dems raise taxes. Will that Conse 'Pub vote be cash or charge?

TAL

This is a very simplistic view. I'm sorry if my arguments, which are often backed by verifiable information, doesn't fit in your narrow view of permissible topics or falls into one of your taboo topics, but facts are facts and you can choose to ignore them if you want, and you do, but own up to it. Don't just assign me the title of Conse 'Pub (which I'm not btw) and dismiss everything I say based on that. Say "you do not fit in my narrow point of view so I will ignore what you say and blame you for not fitting in my narrow point of view."

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

TAL,

Most of your gripes about 'Conse 'Pubs' can equally be said about you. Your debate style is political because you put people into narrowly defined political parties and then claim to know their entire point of view based on whatever political party you've classified them as. That leads to mistakes, like when you think I'm a conservative republican, and therefore must be against clinton too. The fact that I had already defended clinton against republicans apparently made no difference, and you still have not acknowledged this. You probably think I'm a bible thumper as well, which would be another mistake.

This is a very simplistic view. I'm sorry if my arguments, which are often backed by verifiable information, doesn't fit in your narrow view of permissible topics or falls into one of your taboo topics, but facts are facts and you can choose to ignore them if you want, and you do, but own up to it. Don't just assign me the title of Conse 'Pub (which I'm not btw) and dismiss everything I say based on that. Say "you do not fit in my narrow point of view so I will ignore what you say and blame you for not fitting in my narrow point of view."

TRACY:

Since, your side has the facts, could you please humor me with 3 or 4 examples out of the many you imply? If I'm guilty of most of what I gripe about, it should be easy to point this out to me. Could you elaborate, please?

I refer to myself as a Mod Dem, so how is it narrow and political to refer to myself that way? Sorry for referring to you as a Conse 'Pub, what are you?

I've acknowledged that you felt Obama is a citizen with proof, that Palin might not be presidential timber, and that Bush 43 did a couple things that you didn't like: immigration, pharm. deal, financial decisions. The Clinton issue wasn't addressed, because I was addressing all of your other catastrophes with Obama in The WH for 1 year. Let me get this straight. Bush did 3 things you didn't like, and you like some of what Obama does like Bush only. I don't think anyone on the site is a bible thumper, and have never mentioned religion. I'm guilty by question?

What topics have I said are taboo or permissible, because I'm too stupid to comprehend that aspect of your post? I dismiss what you say based on what you say, and not based on you're being a party of one. I've heard that 'Pubs cut taxes and Dems raise taxes. Are you saying that Dems blow excesses of money, while 'Pubs--other than Bush--balance the budget and lower taxes? Did I miss anything? I'm sure you have a multitude of examples of my transgressions. I await your angst.

TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TRACY:

Since, your side has the facts, could you please humor me with 3 or 4 examples out of the many you imply? If I'm guilty of most of what I gripe about, it should be easy to point this out to me. Could you elaborate, please?

I think this link spells out my credentials:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...&postcount=806

Originally Posted by Talvenada

I refer to myself as a Mod Dem, so how is it narrow and political to refer to myself that way? Sorry for referring to you as a Conse 'Pub, what are you?

I said why you are political, and it's not because you are a mod dem. I also said you had a narrow view, not because you're a mod dem, but for something else. Go back and read again.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

The Clinton issue wasn't addressed, because I was addressing all of your other catastrophes with Obama in The WH for 1 year. Let me get this straight. Bush did 3 things you didn't like, and you like some of what Obama does like Bush only.

I don't remember if I said I liked some of the things BO did that Bush did. Are there any? People here see me debating against Obama's policies and assume I'm a hard right winger. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This is what the liberal party was before it was hijacked by the Progressives. In the Bush vs Gore election, I had to seriously think about who I would vote for. In hindsight I'm so glad Bush won instead of Gore. I also had to think hard about the Clinton vs Dole election. In the election before that I voted for Ross Perot. I probably don't exactly fit in any one well defined political party, but Conservative Libertarian probably is the closest.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

I don't think anyone on the site is a bible thumper, and have never mentioned religion. I'm guilty by question?

I was just saying if you thought I was a republican you probably lumped me in with all those other bible thumpers in the party like Palin, Bush, Pat Robertson, etc...

Originally Posted by Talvenada

What topics have I said are taboo or permissible, because I'm too stupid to comprehend that aspect of your post?

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TRACY:

I'm not going to even read posts that sound like a certain show.

TAL

Originally Posted by Talvenada

I dismiss what you say based on what you say, and not based on you're being a party of one.

Mmmm hmmm.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

I've heard that 'Pubs cut taxes and Dems raise taxes. Are you saying that Dems blow excesses of money, while 'Pubs--other than Bush--balance the budget and lower taxes? Did I miss anything? I'm sure you have a multitude of examples of my transgressions. I await your angst.

TAL

Not all republicans cut taxes. Bush Sr raised them, so that Clinton could take credit for a surplus. You can't just look at the president. You also have to look at the congress. i.e., there's Bush with a republican congress. Bush with a democrat congress. There are differences in spending. What's going on in the world? Could it be that jets crashing in the heart of the US's financial center and the following war might affect our budget? Things that make you go hmmmm....

[Talvenada]

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;133714]I think this link spells out my credentials:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...&postcount=806


1- I said why you are political, and it's not because you are a mod dem. I also said you had a narrow view, not because you're a mod dem, but for something else. Go back and read again.

2- People here see me debating against Obama's policies and assume I'm a hard right winger.

QUOTE]

TRACY:

Read above I marked 1 for your question, and 2 for your answer. That makes me narrow, because you appear that way. A conservative libertarian is to the right of a Neo-Con from what I can tell.

I call very-right-leaning political posters Conse 'Pubs until they state otherwise. I've been called a Lib by Conse 'Pubs, Neo-Cons and Libertarians, and then called a liar when I said I'm a Mod Dem. So, I'm a liar on the receiving end, and narrow-minded on the other end. I do post on a local political board, and I learned that calling someone a 'Pub gets you no answer to your question with an I'm-a-conservative blast to the face. If you say they're a conservative, no republican is accountable by them, and the talkers are entertainers only. The strategy is that the attacker can be on offense 100% of the time. Sorry, but these individuals want to crush any opposing opinion, while passing out insults to anyone who dares to have an offending opinion.

The Commie-Marxist-Obama debate is not a taboo or not a permissible subject. Sorry, I have no desire to debate Glenn Beck. I refuse to debate something I don't respect. I could describe it in a more offending way, if you confuse distaste for weakness and fear.

Sorry, I find it distasteful to defend any American President, EVEN BUSH 43, from questions about his loyalty to America.


TAL

[smc]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

There are 31 of those abbreviations in this post, and not just 2: conservative republican. That's why there are so many baseball abbreviations. You have no idea how mentally draining a 2000-2500 word article is, and that's why we do it. It's not a dissertation for a PHD, because the reading audience is not erudite for the most part. It's hard enough to build a readership as it is, and abbreviations make the data easier to digest. I doubt my readers are concerned with runs batted in being spelled out every time instead of RBI. Their concern is reading about their team, and enjoying details they don't have time to research and ferret out.

I'll skip the political part of your post and concentrate on the part directed specifically at my post. It's easily dispensed with, because you -- and I mean you, Talvenada -- know that my point had absolutely nothing to do with things like spelling out RBIs.

So, you want to talk about styles of argument or debate. Here's the one you just employed: sophism. And I mean in its modern usage. You can look it iup.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

I'll skip the political part of your post and concentrate on the part directed specifically at my post. It's easily dispensed with, because you -- and I mean you, Talvenada -- know that my point had absolutely nothing to do with things like spelling out RBIs.

So, you want to talk about styles of argument or debate. Here's the one you just employed: sophism. And I mean in its modern usage. You can look it iup.

SMC:

I'm sorry but I don't know what abbreviations you're referring to. If it's Mod Dem, I use political abbreviations. If it's pregers for pregnant in journalism, I understand that. The only sport I follow is baseball, and I cannot think of what you have in mind. So, if you want to imply other than than, go ahead it's irrelevant to me. I'm not part of academia and nor do I desire that path. I respect your input, even though it's not mutual.


TAL

[smc]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

SMC:

I'm sorry but I don't know what abbreviations you're referring to. If it's Mod Dem, I use political abbreviations. If it's pregers for pregnant in journalism, I understand that. The only sport I follow is baseball, and I cannot think of what you have in mind. So, if you want to imply other than than, go ahead it's irrelevant to me. I'm not part of academia and nor do I desire that path. I respect your input, even though it's not mutual.


TAL

Ah, the beauty of sophism.

This has nothing to do with "academia." In deference to those who wish to discuss "Republicans" in this thus-named thread, and at the risk of being accused of avoiding the discussion (or not taking the bait), I will leave it at that. Perhaps I will get back to it another time, but in the meanwhile I will let others engage you. I see they are lining up to do so, and since it's about politics it will be far more entertaining.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

Ah, the beauty of sophism.

This has nothing to do with "academia." In deference to those who wish to discuss "Republicans" in this thus-named thread, and at the risk of being accused of avoiding the discussion (or not taking the bait), I will leave it at that. Perhaps I will get back to it another time, but in the meanwhile I will let others engage you. I see they are lining up to do so, and since it's about politics it will be far more entertaining.

SMC:

Enjoy the entertainment with the self-satisfaction of what you planted, but one person does not constitute a line, as the other was answering a question that was on the table prior to your post.


He who speaks with his tongue on fire
Cares not to come up any higher
But get you down in the hole he's in

Those words remind me of you for some strange reason. Aah, it's must be a debating tool.


TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

If YOUR definition of torture is correct, why does international law & The Geneva Convention outlaw waterboarding?

Why has America prosecuted people over this?


TAL

1)Where does IHL and The Geneva Conventions make mention of waterboarding? Please be so kind as to point that out to me. I looked all through it and I just couldn't find anything about waterboarding.

2)They are paying you and everyone else who complains about waterboarding being "torture" a bunch of lip service so it will look like they are doing something about it. I can guarantee you that those CIA operatives who did waterboard people are never going to see what the insides of Ft. Leavenworth look like. The "trials" are just a dog and pony show to shut people up.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

1)Where does IHL and The Geneva Conventions make mention of waterboarding? Please be so kind as to point that out to me. I looked all through it and I just couldn't find anything about waterboarding.

2)They are paying you and everyone else who complains about waterboarding being "torture" a bunch of lip service so it will look like they are doing something about it. I can guarantee you that those CIA operatives who did waterboard people are never going to see what the insides of Ft. Leavenworth look like. The "trials" are just a dog and pony show to shut people up.

ANGRY:


I didn't spend more than 3 minutes to find this on google, and I grabbed the first thing I found. I trust you'll find fault with whatever I present.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.


TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:


I didn't spend more than 3 minutes to find this on google, and I grabbed the first thing I found. I trust you'll find fault with whatever I present.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.


TAL

C'mon Tal! You know the Golden Rule of posting! Links/pics or it didn't happen!

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

C'mon Tal! You know the Golden Rule of posting! Links/pics or it didn't happen!

ANGRY:


Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com

Nov 2, 2007 ... One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding. ... Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States ...
www.washingtonpost.com ? Opinions ? Outlook & Opinions - Similar


TAL

[The Conquistador]

Do you have a direct link to the article? It won't open in my browser.

[Tread]

I appoglize for the big post, but it didn?t happen or is not true without working link or quotes.


What is Torture:

http://waterboarding.org/torture_definition

Waterboarding:

http://waterboarding.org/node/3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_188008.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...=waterboarding
http://terrorism.about.com/od/w/g/Waterboarding.htm

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

1) They are unlawful combatants and are not recognized by the occupying forces.

2) A militia in times of war would have state endorsment and would supplement regular forces. See:
?
The whole "military service" part would include them since that counts as state endorsment, but since the Iraqi government or the occupying forces do not recognize them as a supplemental force, they are unlawful combatants and are therefore not covered by The Geneva Conventions.

Originally Posted by The Geneva Convention Article 4 regarding status of who may be protected under The Geneva Convention as a POW(prisoner of war)

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.
?

If that tribunal rules that a combatant is an "unlawful combatant" then the person's status changes to that of a civilian which may give them some rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

There was no competent tribunal so they are under protection of the Geneva Convention.

Unlawful combatant:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

?
After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."
?
The judgment quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law," because in the opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".
?
Combatants who do not qualify for POW status

A combatant who does not qualify for POW status can, under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, expect to be treated humanely; and before he is punished, can expect to get a trial in "a regularly constituted court.
?
Since the 1942 Quirin case, the US signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which are, therefore, considered to be a part of US municipal law, in accordance with the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution of the United States. In addition the US Supreme Court invalidated this premise, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, by ruling that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in the War on Terror, and that the Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law.
Congress addressed these issues in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, so that enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants might be tried under military commissions, however on 12 June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that Guantanamo Bay captives were entitled to access the US justice system, and that the military commissions as constituted under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 fell short of what was required of a court under the United States constitution.

Follow also the several Wikipedia reference Links.

Other Link: Prisoners of War or Protected Persons qua Unlawful Combatants?
http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/1/2/284

Originally Posted by The Geneva Convention Article 4 regarding status of who may be protected under The Geneva Convention as a POW(prisoner of war)

Article 4.
(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.

No need to be militia.

Occupying Forces do not recognize them as a supplemental force??? What do you talk about??? The Terrorists are 1 occupying force.
Is it the War on Terror or against the Iraqi government? Did Saddam Hussein attack the US with planes??? What the hell are US Soldiers do in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and so on? Where did the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay come from, and from witch War???

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Do you have a direct link to the article? It won't open in my browser.

ANGRY:

Sorry, this is all I have. Maybe, this will work, if not google water boarding prosecutions.

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, ...



TAL