Left can't read well nor do they understand Constitution

Tarver Engineering wrote:
"Colin Campbell" (remove
underscore)
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Then tell us why you think he is wrong.

The boys at gitmo are not POWs.

We are speaking here of Iraqi Soldiers and Guerrillas. Who,
for your information, are not held at the facilities in MCS
Guantanamo Bay. They are being held in EPW camps in various
locations within Iraq.

The people detained at Guantanamo Bay are, Individuals Not
of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts, IOW Illegal
Combatants.
As defined by the following from FM 27-10 Law of Land
Warfare.
Quoted as follows;
81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions
pre-scribed by the laws of war for recognition as
belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit
hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not
to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and
sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include,
but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of
communications facilities,
intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of
prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles
104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and
Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.
82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted,
committed,
or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are
subject to the extreme penalty of death because of the
danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may,
however, be imposed.

A fact that you have conveniently disregarded.

I personally go check every fact and figure, when Steve
disagrees
with me. Of course, perhaps your ego is bigger than mine.


Then you missed at least one and probably two or three facts
when you did your checking.
As to egos, I wouldn't know. I'm just one of the guys who
captured and or processed some of the detainees held at MCS
Guantanamo Bay.

Snark

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:17:41 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Then tell us why you think he is wrong.

The boys at gitmo are not POWs.

Of course they are not. Since only lawful combatants can become POWs
the people in Gitmo are internees.

However, the comment (see above) was discussing Iraqi soldiers.



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

Tarver Engineering wrote:
" wrote in
message

link.net..
..

snip
So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under
arrest?

Its a matter of established law. They are not under
arrest.

POWs wouldn't be under arrest either. Simply detained
under a
different status.

RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Is this just your opinion? Or can you back it up with
facts?

Snark

" wrote in message
link.net...


RTO Trainer wrote:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Colin Campbell" (remove
underscore)
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person
detained by
military authorities is _not_ under arrest.

Tell that to the boys at gitmo.

Why? My teams captured some of them and we processed some
of them.
First, they are not "boys", they are men. Second, at least
in the case of those members of Al Qaeda and of the Taliban
that we caught, they were armed, were capable of planning
and or leading groups of persons in either acts of terror or
of engaging in various forms of "hostile acts" including
acts of terror and had been engaging in "hostile acts"
against both the United Front (Northern or Eastern Alliance)
and the US Army. Dangerous men, who are detained as
"illegal combatants" as defined in The Laws of Land Warfare
(FM 27-10).
Which states as follows;
81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions
pre-scribed
by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW,
art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind
the lines
of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and
may be
tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts
include,
but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of
communications facili-ties,
intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of
prisoners
of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and
106 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague
Regulations.
82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted,
com-mitted,
or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are
subject
to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger
inherent in their
conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.



The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the
Laws and
Customs of War.

So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under
arrest?

Its a matter of established law. They are not under
arrest.

POWs wouldn't be under arrest either. Simply detained
under a
different status.

RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.
61. Prisoners of War Defined
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:
(1)Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict,
as well as members of militias or volunteer corps form- ing
part of such armed forces.
(2)Members of other militias and members of other volun-teer
corps, including those of organized resistance move-ments,
belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating
in or outside their own territory, even if this territory
is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the
following conditions:
(a)that of being commanded by a person responsible for
his subordinates;
(b)that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at
a distance;
(c)that of carrying arms openly;
(d)that of conducting their operations in accordance with
the laws and customs of war.

Note that the Al Qaeda fall under the category of
Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts,
because they are not Afghani (therefore not a party to the
conflict as defined under the Geneva Accords). Do not have
a fixed distinctive sign or uniform. Do not conduct their
operations (see 9-11-2001 attacks, sabotage of USS Cole and
US Embassy bombings) in accordance with the laws and customs
of war as defined in the Geneva Accords.


How do you know that the individuals accused of being Al Queda or at least,
accused of being part of terrorist attacks on Americans, were indeed the
people they thought they were?

Additionally, at least some people detained at Gitmo were NOT captured
during fighting of any kind, but along smuggler's routes that were being
used by Al Queda forces (along with smugglers and, according to the Kuwaiti
government, a few Kuwaiti nationals trying to escape the Afghan war and
return home from visiting relatives).

You're aware that as many as 250 detainees have been released or are being
processed out in the next month or two after a year or more of detention
because the US finally decided that they had nothing to do with Taliban or
Al Queda but were actually turned in by rival factions in Afghanistan in
order to collect bounty, right?

Additionally, there are other clauses in the Geneva Accords IV that MAY
apply to any and all detainees. Certainly, the clause that states that if
there is any question as to how a detainee is to be treated, they are
accorded POW status until a tribunal decides otherwise. This was NOT done in
the case of several hundred detainees, who were handed over to American
armed forces for bounty, without any proof that they were who the bounty
hunters said they were.

LawsonE wrote:
" wrote in
message

link.net..
..


RTO Trainer wrote:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Colin Campbell" (remove
underscore)
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver
Engineering"
wrote:


'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person
detained by
military authorities is _not_ under arrest.

Tell that to the boys at gitmo.

Why? My teams captured some of them and we processed
some
of them.
First, they are not "boys", they are men. Second, at
least
in the case of those members of Al Qaeda and of the
Taliban
that we caught, they were armed, were capable of planning
and or leading groups of persons in either acts of terror
or
of engaging in various forms of "hostile acts" including
acts of terror and had been engaging in "hostile acts"
against both the United Front (Northern or Eastern
Alliance)
and the US Army. Dangerous men, who are detained as
"illegal combatants" as defined in The Laws of Land
Warfare
(FM 27-10).
Which states as follows;
81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile
Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions
pre-scribed
by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see
GPW,
art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or
behind
the lines
of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war
and
may be
tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such
acts
include,
but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of
communications facili-ties,
intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of
prisoners
of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104
and
106 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the
Hague
Regulations.
82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted,
com-mitted,
or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are
subject
to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger
inherent in their
conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.



The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the
Laws and
Customs of War.

So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under
arrest?

Its a matter of established law. They are not under
arrest.

POWs wouldn't be under arrest either. Simply detained
under a
different status.

RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.
61. Prisoners of War Defined
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:
(1)Members of the armed forces of a Party to the
conflict,
as well as members of militias or volunteer corps form-
ing
part of such armed forces.
(2)Members of other militias and members of other
volun-teer
corps, including those of organized resistance
move-ments,
belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating
in or outside their own territory, even if this territory
is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer
corps,
including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the
following conditions:
(a)that of being commanded by a person responsible for
his subordinates;
(b)that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable
at
a distance;
(c)that of carrying arms openly;
(d)that of conducting their operations in accordance with
the laws and customs of war.

Note that the Al Qaeda fall under the category of
Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts,
because they are not Afghani (therefore not a party to
the
conflict as defined under the Geneva Accords). Do not
have
a fixed distinctive sign or uniform. Do not conduct
their
operations (see 9-11-2001 attacks, sabotage of USS Cole
and
US Embassy bombings) in accordance with the laws and
customs
of war as defined in the Geneva Accords.


How do you know that the individuals accused of being Al
Queda or at
least, accused of being part of terrorist attacks on
Americans, were
indeed the people they thought they were?

In the case of those captured by my units, they were quite
proud of the fact that they were Al Qaeda (BTW, only those
suspected of being ranking members or persons having
specific knowledge of terrorist activities or intent were
sent to MCS Guantanamo Bay). Other detainees were turned
over to the interim government of Afghanistan (once it was
formed) by US Forces for disposition by the Afghan
government.

Additionally, at least some people detained at Gitmo were
NOT captured
during fighting of any kind, but along smuggler's routes
that were
being used by Al Queda forces (along with smugglers and,
according to
the Kuwaiti government, a few Kuwaiti nationals trying to
escape the
Afghan war and return home from visiting relatives).

Do you know this for a fact? Under what circumstances were
they captured and detained? Be very careful in your
answer, my teams were those in Pakhtia province and there
are a fair number that were captured and detained by forces
working with them or by members of the teams. Including
several alleged "smugglers" whose fortifications we breached
and captured along with documents and weapons. Others were
captured subsequent to Operation Anaconda by members of US
forces who also claimed to be "smugglers". Smugglers, armed
with 82mm mortars, RPGs and other weapons who had been
engaged in hostile activity against these US forces.

You're aware that as many as 250 detainees have been
released or are
being processed out in the next month or two after a year
or more of
detention because the US finally decided that they had
nothing to do
with Taliban or Al Queda but were actually turned in by
rival
factions in Afghanistan in order to collect bounty, right?

I would say that it is more likely that they are being
released because after extensive debriefings they were found
not to be leaders or to be as important as they claimed to
have been. Are you aware of the screening process under
which detainees were sent to MCS Guantanamo Bay?

While it is possible that some of those sent there may have
been turned in by various warlords from rival factions, I
rather doubt the majority were.

Snark
OEF, Pakhtia Province Nov. 2001-Apr. 2002

Additionally, there are other clauses in the Geneva
Accords IV that
MAY apply to any and all detainees. Certainly, the clause
that states
that if there is any question as to how a detainee is to
be treated,
they are accorded POW status until a tribunal decides
otherwise. This
was NOT done in the case of several hundred detainees, who
were
handed over to American armed forces for bounty, without
any proof
that they were who the bounty hunters said they were.

Again, are you aware of the screening process for detainees
to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay?

Snark

" wrote in message
news:SiGOb.17992
LawsonE wrote:
[...]
How do you know that the individuals accused of being Al
Queda or at
least, accused of being part of terrorist attacks on
Americans, were
indeed the people they thought they were?

In the case of those captured by my units, they were quite
proud of the fact that they were Al Qaeda (BTW, only those
suspected of being ranking members or persons having
specific knowledge of terrorist activities or intent were
sent to MCS Guantanamo Bay). Other detainees were turned
over to the interim government of Afghanistan (once it was
formed) by US Forces for disposition by the Afghan
government.

Fair enough.


Additionally, at least some people detained at Gitmo were
NOT captured
during fighting of any kind, but along smuggler's routes
that were
being used by Al Queda forces (along with smugglers and,
according to
the Kuwaiti government, a few Kuwaiti nationals trying to
escape the
Afghan war and return home from visiting relatives).

Do you know this for a fact? Under what circumstances were
they captured and detained? Be very careful in your
answer, my teams were those in Pakhtia province and there
are a fair number that were captured and detained by forces
working with them or by members of the teams. Including
several alleged "smugglers" whose fortifications we breached
and captured along with documents and weapons. Others were
captured subsequent to Operation Anaconda by members of US
forces who also claimed to be "smugglers". Smugglers, armed
with 82mm mortars, RPGs and other weapons who had been
engaged in hostile activity against these US forces.

That may well be the case. Newsweek had a major article about several
Kuwaiti detainees that the Kuwaitee government was attempting to get
released to no avail (at the time of the article).



You're aware that as many as 250 detainees have been
released or are
being processed out in the next month or two after a year
or more of
detention because the US finally decided that they had
nothing to do
with Taliban or Al Queda but were actually turned in by
rival
factions in Afghanistan in order to collect bounty, right?

I would say that it is more likely that they are being
released because after extensive debriefings they were found
not to be leaders or to be as important as they claimed to
have been. Are you aware of the screening process under
which detainees were sent to MCS Guantanamo Bay?


No, I'm not. Which is, I think, part of the problem.

While it is possible that some of those sent there may have
been turned in by various warlords from rival factions, I
rather doubt the majority were.


I hope that you are correct. However, the circumstances under which at least
some were captured aren't very clear, even now.

Snark
OEF, Pakhtia Province Nov. 2001-Apr. 2002

Additionally, there are other clauses in the Geneva
Accords IV that
MAY apply to any and all detainees. Certainly, the clause
that states
that if there is any question as to how a detainee is to
be treated,
they are accorded POW status until a tribunal decides
otherwise. This
was NOT done in the case of several hundred detainees, who
were
handed over to American armed forces for bounty, without
any proof
that they were who the bounty hunters said they were.

Again, are you aware of the screening process for detainees
to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay?

No. Are you aware of the screening process for ALL the detainees? How do you
know?

LawsonE wrote:
" wrote in
message
news:SiGOb.17992
LawsonE wrote:
[...]
How do you know that the individuals accused of being Al
Queda or at
least, accused of being part of terrorist attacks on
Americans, were
indeed the people they thought they were?

In the case of those captured by my units, they were
quite
proud of the fact that they were Al Qaeda (BTW, only
those
suspected of being ranking members or persons having
specific knowledge of terrorist activities or intent were
sent to MCS Guantanamo Bay). Other detainees were turned
over to the interim government of Afghanistan (once it
was
formed) by US Forces for disposition by the Afghan
government.

Fair enough.


Additionally, at least some people detained at Gitmo
were
NOT captured
during fighting of any kind, but along smuggler's routes
that were
being used by Al Queda forces (along with smugglers and,
according to
the Kuwaiti government, a few Kuwaiti nationals trying
to
escape the
Afghan war and return home from visiting relatives).

Do you know this for a fact? Under what circumstances
were
they captured and detained? Be very careful in your
answer, my teams were those in Pakhtia province and there
are a fair number that were captured and detained by
forces
working with them or by members of the teams. Including
several alleged "smugglers" whose fortifications we
breached
and captured along with documents and weapons. Others
were
captured subsequent to Operation Anaconda by members of
US
forces who also claimed to be "smugglers". Smugglers,
armed
with 82mm mortars, RPGs and other weapons who had been
engaged in hostile activity against these US forces.

That may well be the case. Newsweek had a major article
about several
Kuwaiti detainees that the Kuwaitee government was
attempting to get
released to no avail (at the time of the article).

Not to gainsay Newsweek (we all know that they are the
epitome of accuracy) but there were Kuwaitis among some of
our captured, detained and transferred to Guantanamo who
were anything but innocents caught trying to escape the war.
They were in fact undergoing training at one of the
encampments to become terrorists.

I don't know if that is the same group of Kuwaitis but,
there is a great deal of doubt in my mind as to their
innocence. Perhaps the parents and relatives of this group
of Kuwaitis would like us to return their prodigal children
but, depending upon the circumstances of their capture, I
would recommend a long debriefing period of these people
followed by the findings of a tribunal as proposed and
actions thereafter according to those findings.




You're aware that as many as 250 detainees have been
released or are
being processed out in the next month or two after a
year
or more of
detention because the US finally decided that they had
nothing to do
with Taliban or Al Queda but were actually turned in by
rival
factions in Afghanistan in order to collect bounty,
right?

I would say that it is more likely that they are being
released because after extensive debriefings they were
found
not to be leaders or to be as important as they claimed
to
have been. Are you aware of the screening process under
which detainees were sent to MCS Guantanamo Bay?


No, I'm not. Which is, I think, part of the problem.

I don't see any problem here. Other than the fact that as
usual people are shooting off their mouths and expressing
opinions that are not grounded in fact. Don't expect there
to be a lot of coverage of the screening process. Most of
the journalists that came to Iraq (with a very, very few
exceptions) left very quickly because of the dearth of booze
(none) and the fact that there were no PAO personnel to
coddle them. Many of those who came visited Kabul,
Kandahar, Bagram and might have gone up to Mazar-i-Sharif.
Very few came into the hinterland and usually in the company
of some warlord who fed them whatever he wanted them to
hear. So, for the most part you'll hear what Hekmanytar and
Dostum wanted them to say when they report on my old AO.

While it is possible that some of those sent there may
have
been turned in by various warlords from rival factions, I
rather doubt the majority were.


I hope that you are correct. However, the circumstances
under which
at least some were captured aren't very clear, even now.

LOL!!! War has a habit of having a lot of "murkiness" and a
lack of clear cut delineations especially when dealing with
non-state backed hostile forces.

Snark
OEF, Pakhtia Province Nov. 2001-Apr. 2002

Additionally, there are other clauses in the Geneva
Accords IV that
MAY apply to any and all detainees. Certainly, the
clause
that states
that if there is any question as to how a detainee is to
be treated,
they are accorded POW status until a tribunal decides
otherwise. This
was NOT done in the case of several hundred detainees,
who
were
handed over to American armed forces for bounty, without
any proof
that they were who the bounty hunters said they were.

Again, are you aware of the screening process for
detainees
to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay?

No. Are you aware of the screening process for ALL the
detainees? How
do you know?

I do know the general screening process for _all_ the
detainees since the criteria were clearly laid out. After
all, we didn't want to spend the money to transport just
anyone to Guantanamo Bay. Now the specifics of each and
every situation I am not aware of. But, I'm fairly certain
that unless you were with either an MI, a CIA or an SF unit
you don't know a thing about them.

Snark

"RTO Trainer" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote
in
message ...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
authorities is _not_ under arrest.

Tell that to the boys at gitmo.

The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
Customs of War.

So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest?

Its a matter of established law. They are not under arrest.

Wrong.

But, thanks for playing.