Great post, Rick. Once again, a very strong contender for the Watcher's Council award, though you have some tough competition from Callimachus' fisking of Mark Kurlansky in "Rant Control".Comment Posted By kreiz On 7.07.2006 @ 14:58
I consider myself a moderate- which, I take it, makes me a tepid fascist poopeyhead. I have been castigated from the right and the left in threads over the last year. Not more than a few weeks ago, a Rightest accused me of behavior unbefitting a citizen of the United States- because I expressed doubts about how the War will eventually play out.
I've decided that it's not worth the energy and consternation arguing with people who don't listen or who aren't engaged in some level of intellectual honesty. Name calling, in that context, would be more emotionally satisfying- but I'm too lukewarm to try it.Comment Posted By kreiz On 22.06.2006 @ 11:49
They don't apply to nonsignatories to the GC or to mercenaries.
That's not my understanding but I could be wrong. Again, I'd love to see a citation, a statute, case law interpretation- something that evidences that you're not just pulling a conclusion out of the air.Comment Posted By kreiz On 12.06.2006 @ 19:08
In other words, Article 3's protections are minimum standards of law that apply to all persons in custody- legal, illegal or otherwise. While additional rights are granted to legal combatants, the Article 3's minimums apply to everyone.Comment Posted By kreiz On 12.06.2006 @ 14:35
I should clarify. Illegal combatants are entitled to the protections of Article 3 of Geneva Convention. There are many other protections afforded under the GC for legal combatants- and they do not apply to illegal combatants. But Article 3 protections do apply to illegal combatants.
For your information, here's Article 3's protections:
"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;Comment Posted By kreiz On 12.06.2006 @ 14:32
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Andy (31). You write: however it is pretty clear that captured AQ and Taliban are illegal combatants and they are not afforded the rights of POWâ€™s. Yet you fail to cite a single legal authority in support of this proposition. I've heard the same meme myself- but bothered to do some research and consult an expert, only to discover the contrary is true.
So please cite authority for your proposition. Simply stating the conclusion is insufficient.Comment Posted By kreiz On 12.06.2006 @ 14:30
Much as we loathe the men who have sworn to kill us all, we simply must come to grips with the idea that if we arenâ€™t able to kill them on the battlefield, they must be granted some of the rights guaranteed by international law and our own constitution.
Bingo, Rick. I never viewed this as a particularly close question of conservative principle. Irrespective of this, it's a public relations nightmare with little apparent upside.Comment Posted By kreiz On 12.06.2006 @ 14:07
Juan #1: you raise a key question, one that I asked myself recently. I had an enlightening exchange with a blogger named Army Lawyer (AL). AL's opinion is that the Geneva Convention Article 3 prohibitions extend to the Gitmo prisoners, regardless of whether they are illegal combatants. He wrotes:
I believe the USâ€™ position is that both Afghantistan and Iraq are CA3 conflicts. Though I could be wrong.
Assuming they are CA3 conflicts, then yes, Gitmo detainees would be entitled to the protections of the provision.
My own opinion is that the Pentagon did not have to exclude CA3 from the Army Field Manual given how I read the language. That being said, the fact that the types of conduct prohibited by CA3 are already prohibited by US policy makes the exclusion of the language not that unreasonable.
AL may or may not be correct- but he provided me with some legal analysis of the issue- something I rarely see otherwise.Comment Posted By kreiz On 12.06.2006 @ 11:54
Set Ann aside for a second and ponder this. Why is it that we have an endless parade of relatively minor but easily accessible stories that grace us each week? The MSM and cable news dig up these sensational mini-controversies to stir up viewership- and it works. So one week it's Tom Cruise and post-partum depression, followed by Rush Limbaugh and prescription drugs, followed by the Terry Schiavo debacle, followed by Ann Coulter saying something crass. A month later, no one remembers how to spell Schiavo.
Do we have national attention deficit disorder?Comment Posted By kreiz On 8.06.2006 @ 07:17
Rick #30. Precisely. It's part of the inherent problem in adopting a shock-jock persona (others include Stern and Madonna). You must keep pushing the envelope to garner attention, inevitably leading to more and more egregious transgressions of social norms. Coulter had a valid point to make; she crossed the line in making it. But I suspect in Ann's world that there's no such thing as bad press.Comment Posted By kreiz On 7.06.2006 @ 07:40