Ashcroft and Evans call it quits

[glatt]

Wow. He actually did it. He chose Gonzales. This is a guy who wrote memos describing the Geneva Conventions as "quaint." Unbelievable.

[russotto]

Originally Posted by alphageek31337

The essential difference is that prisoners of war have right under international law. We simply invented a new term for them, so that, being not prisoners of war, we can do whatever the hell we want to them, and we don't have to go through shady dealings like keeping them off of the books...

The Geneva Convention sets out a definition of exactly who is a prisoner of war. It's not a matter of inventing a new term; there really is a legal distinction. Whether these "enemy combatants" meet the Geneva Conventions requirements is a legal question. How the US should treat enemy combatants who do not meet the definition of prisoners of war is a moral, ethical, and (above all, alas) political question.

[glatt]

That may all be true. But the phrase "enemy combatant" didn't exist four years ago. It was invented by the Bush administration to get around international law. Sort of like saying "ethnic cleansing" when discussing genocide because to call it "genocide" would obligate the UN (and memebr nations) to intervene. If you call it "ethnic cleansing" you can stand on the sidelines and "tsk tsk" all you want without being obliged to act.

[Elspode]

Just another step in the Bush tradition of telling the world to go fuck itself. Give it another year and see if he doesn't start making nuclear weapon bluster toward someone.

He believes that Armageddon is near, right...being a good God-fearing fella? Well, then, what's the problem with starting it? Proactive, that's the ticket!

Yeah, I know...overblowing things again, aren't I?

[tw]

The problem is that we never declared war on anyone. Without a declaration of war, then how do you have prisoners of war? Since the war was invented (illegal), then a new term for prisoners of a non-existant war also had to be created. 'Enemy combatant' conveniently made torture possible without creating messy problems such as 'rule of law' and international treaty violations.

Now that the Supreme Court has weighed in, suddenly 100+ enemy combatants in Gitmo have been released. After all these years, there were no charges to hold them on. No problem. They were not held under arrest and they were not prisoners of war. They had no rights no matter how innocent they were. They were released only to avoid any arguements with the Supreme Court.

Do you think this same administration would have respect for your rights? A question that must be answered by first reviewing how they invent laws. Even torture is now legal according to a 'moral' President of the US. Remember, nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition either.

Originally Posted by glatt

Wow. He actually did it. He chose Gonzales. This is a guy who wrote memos describing the Geneva Conventions as "quaint." Unbelievable.

Yeah, and before the next 4 years are up, the Bill of Rights will probably be considered "quaint," as well. You ain't seen nothing yet!

[garnet]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Yeah, I know...overblowing things again, aren't I?

No, not really...that's the scary thing.

[warch]

More! I read that Gonzales was also counsel for Enron. Yummmy!

[russotto]

Originally Posted by glatt

That may all be true. But the phrase "enemy combatant" didn't exist four years ago. It was invented by the Bush administration to get around international law. Sort of like saying "ethnic cleansing" when discussing genocide because to call it "genocide" would obligate the UN (and memebr nations) to intervene. If you call it "ethnic cleansing" you can stand on the sidelines and "tsk tsk" all you want without being obliged to act.

The phrase "enemy combatant" has been around forever. A quick "google groups" reveals about 400 uses between 1984 and 2000. (and Google won't return more than 400 anyway). The Geneva conventions don't suddenly not apply because the persons involved are "enemy combatants" -- most prisoners of war ARE, or at least WERE before they were taken prisoner.

BTW, the Geneva conventions DO consider the problem of undeclared war; no declaration of war is necessary for them to have effect, "armed conflict" is sufficient.

If you're going to criticize the administration for one or another thing it has done, it pays to criticize it based on what it has actually done, not on some vague generalizations of what they have actually done. If you think they are violating the Geneva conventions, then say how those detained meet the Geneva conventions' criteria for prisoners of war. If you think they aren't violating the Geneva conventions but are torturing prisoners in violation of some other law or just common decency, then say so but don't bring the conventions into it.

[jaguar]

Amazing, he could possibly be worse. The world never ceases to amaze me. I mean at least asscroft had morals, this guy is just a bucket of slime in human form. You know, someone should start distributing leaflets to the suicidal suggesting if they're gonna go down, why not take this piece of shit or Rove with them? They'd be honoured.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by jaguar

this guy is just a bucket of slime in human form.

He was a corporate attorney. Of course he is. Actually, corporate attorneys are a step higher on the food chain than criminal defense attorneys, who technically are lakes of lime in human form.

Okay, humor aside: I don't yet know one damn thing about the guy, and am going to reserve commentary until I do.

[Happy Monkey]

Here is some of his legal advice[pdf]:

"We conclude below that Section 2340A proscribes acts inflicting, and that are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical. Those acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture within the meaning of Section 2340A of the Convention. We further conclude that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A's proscription against torture."

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Here is some of his legal advice[pdf]:

That is positively ghastly. Torquemada has arisen.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Someone help me out...what is the official difference between a "prisoner of war" and an "enemy combatant"?

Uniforms, if you're caught fighting in the war zone without a uniform you're a spy and subject to unpleasantries......like death.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Uniforms, if you're caught fighting in the war zone without a uniform you're a spy and subject to unpleasantries......like death.

Whereas if you're caught fighting in a war zone with a uniform, you're a soldier and only subject to justifiable inconveniences...like death