Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Derbig, do you really think there's a commenter called "oomex" or are you just being your usual droll self?
Gosh, I was sure I used to read comments by an "oomex". Maybe I'm wrong. Oh well. At any rate, I was pretty sure how "oomex" would be pronounced. "omooex" is a little more problematic. If only Prof. Higgins was here to help!
Let's drop it. I'll use the "search" function to see what I can find.
My question to you and other legal scholars, though, is has it been clearly decided that the GCs (that we have ratified) legally apply to and govern our conflict with al-Qaida? I'm asking because I don't actually know the true answer.
I've already registered my objections to your qualification about ratification, under Vienna. As for whether or not the Geneva Conventions apply at all to the conflict, if they don't, our soldiers are guilty of murder whenever they kill. You can't have it both ways. Either the conflict is an armed conflict subject to the laws of war, or it is not, in which case soldiers have no right to take human life and are murderers.
.Derbig used to despise me for being the bastard son of William f. Buckley and Edward Said. Although, if I recall as well, he never actually called me 'the bastard', which means the two were married at one time.
Same rigorous honesty that "oomex" had, I see.
Talk about a non sequitur. Are you off your nut today? More than usual?
I would find it rather disconcerting to have his choice of AG be a person who has a history of gaming the system - utilizing inside connections rather than purely legal means to secure favorable treatment of his clients.-- Jebbie
One quick question. For someone to really 'game the system,' would you need to have multiple instances of influence being wielded inappropriately? Does one (possible) instance really qualify?
There was someone who used my name when I first began @ Old UT. brother b.... (nasty somebody? so I changed my name to clownsense. Somebody had Handel, maybe it was Beethoven?
No. tease. Then:
Clowns Scare Me*
I make the rest up:`next appeared @ the old UT- site. goofy, donrumsduck, minnie moose? silly. immature. I've got mumps, and teenager chicken pox skin. Nasty trolls go drooling here?
Character assass'sons (sp). Real Serious Ill folk do that for a pay check, and it use to be called, evil perdition.
Reprobation.
I still don't know enough about Holder to know if he compromised his positions after 9/11, or if he always held those positions. But he certainly should be held accountable for them and should be asked, even now, for clarification on them.</'i>
Absolutely.
Yes, of course.
That would hurt.
the comment was clearly demarked with a :] thingy, perhaps colloquially you would understand this one better ;]...my axe is ground, time to harvest the spelt.
It's funny. While I despised Bush et al and would never vote for him or them, I always felt like I knew what Bush was going to do, and he never disappointed. It was reverse-Midas all the way.
Obama, I like and support. But I am very, very mystified and confused about what he means to do and how. Yes, it's way to soon, but it's a completely different feeling.
One reason I like your blog, Glenn, is that they are well researched. Thanks for the background on Holder.
Either the conflict is an armed conflict subject to the laws of war, or it is not, in which case soldiers have no right to take human life and are murderers.
Couldn't this be taken a step further? Either this conflict is an armed conflict and subject to the laws of war, in which case, pursuant to the War Crimes Act of 1996, members of the Bush administration may be guilty of war crimes, or it is not, in which case soldiers have no right to take human life and are murderers.
Of course, but what if said lawyers chose to ONLY defend the worst of the worst, over and over again, every time, and what if, in their heart of hearts, they did it purely out of greed, and they defended clients that made it sick for them to defend, and what if they used immoral defenses which were nevertheless entirely legal ones?
Derbig, you're going to have to answer this one directly. I can't help you any further.
No worry. Cleanthes was a water boy who was called names,
such as:` 'A Ass'... he was into a watching the sun and moon.
Maybe change your name, Paul Daniel Ash? o got`a go, goof.
Clowns scare me too. Nevertheless, I adored that screen name and always shall.
Still and all... a good, crisp petiole freshens up your day.
As for whether or not the Geneva Conventions apply at all to the conflict, if they don't, our soldiers are guilty of murder whenever they kill. You can't have it both ways. Either the conflict is an armed conflict subject to the laws of war, or it is not, in which case soldiers have no right to take human life and are murderers.
I think you have a general misunderstanding of the rules of war. All the rules of war, certainly the GCs, condition our being bound by the rules to our enemy also accepting and being bound by the same rules.
For example, imagine Canada suddenly became belligerent, withdrew its name from the GCs, Hague Conventions, etc., invaded the US and said, "We will give no quarter to any of your citizens or your military. Anyone who is captured will be executed on the spot."
In such a case, we would be no more bound by the rules of war than these evil Canadians.
In the current situation, what I'm saying is that we are facing an enemy in al-Qaida that does not accept and uphold the tenets of the GCs. Therefore, we are not bound by the GCs in our conduct wrt to them as laid out by common article 2 of the GCs. We are only bound in our conduct by the GCs wrt other parties that also accept and enforce the GCs.
In practice this means that in our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq we certainly have to uphold the GCs (especially common article 3) as those countries are party to the GCs. However, when we capture an enemy that is determined, by a court or tribunal under articles 5 of GIII or GIV, to be a member of al-Qaida, then at that point we are no longer bound by the GCs wrt our actions towards that person. Some law would still apply, just not the GCs.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
