Left can't read well nor do they understand Constitution

" wrote in message
hlink.net...


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,

Nice editing, but that is not what we are discussing.

Now, back to military police arrest of people.

On 17 Jan 2004 21:40:35 GMT, Clark stillnospam@me wrote:

"~Nins~" wrote in

Please post the citations for the 'pertinent case law'? I'd like to
take a look at them, they are cases involving military police and
civilians, right?

Wrong, it has to do with what in practice is arrest as determined by the
courts. It doesn't matter who, civilian, military, LE detains the individual,
merely the fact that the have been detained and are under the control of
someone.

So when a psychiatric patient is committed he has been arrested?

Al Minyard

On 18 Jan 2004 04:31:02 GMT, Clark stillnospam@me wrote:

I'll put it another way. If an American citizen on American soil is detained
by military police and held for civilian authority, that person is considered
by the courts to be under arrest and is due the protections of that status.
You can scream all you want about Posse Comitatus, it won't change a thing.

Those rights are triggered by "custodial" status, not arrest.

Al Minyard

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...


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,

Nice editing, but that is not what we are discussing.

Now, back to military police arrest of people.

The Gitmos are NOT POWs. If they were, certain rights would be available to
them. POW status is give to those that fulfill that status. And since
Afganistan is no longer considered a War, POWs would have to be released.
They don't have rights because they took up arms outside of the rules that
would make them soldiers. Terrorist do not get the same rights. Now, if
Cuba were to sue to instate their own laws since it's their property it
might be different. But I doubt very seriously that any there would want to
be under Castros laws. It might make a very long, slow, painful death.
Wait, that might not be a bad idea afterall.

"Admin" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...


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,

Nice editing, but that is not what we are discussing.

Now, back to military police arrest of people.

The Gitmos are NOT POWs.

Right, that is what I wrote.

Do you have a reading disability?

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

" 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.

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...
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.


Some people in Gitmo were not combatants of ANY kind. Also, the Geneva
Accords allow for non-uniformed irregulars with no formal chain of command,
to take up arms against invaders (the US military), and STILL be accorded
POW status.

Fact is, due to the secrecy surrounding the facility, we have no idea who is
who.

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?