Forums | MacLife

The 6 bosnians were arrested in Bosnia, and the Bosnian prosecutor and Supreme Court said that the evidence wasn't sufficient to prosecute. Ooops. Don't make no matter, they're guilty of something.

Maybe jaywalking.

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

"PROBABLE CAUSE?" 

http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/slapmax.gif

Let's not torture legal terms here, please.  I'm sure they had good reasons to pick up many of these guys.  However, "probable cause" did not play a role in any of this (either apprehension or detention).

Most of them were picked up on the battle field.

What term would you prefer I use opposed to probable cause?

Picked up on the battle field should make them Prisoners of War.

They were not uniformed soldiers, and most of them were not fighting for a government. Some of them may have been taliban, I'm not sure.

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

Most of them were picked up on the battle field.

What term would you prefer I use opposed to probable cause?

Picked up on the battle field should make them Prisoners of War.

They were not uniformed soldiers, and most of them were not fighting for a government. Some of them may have been taliban, I'm not sure.

You better hope that's not the legal justification, because the US also uses non-uniformed fighters. The CIA, for example, played a key role in the 2001 fighting that ousted the Taliban, riding with local militiamen into battle. Then there are the US Special Forces guys who dress up like the locals, beards and all.

No, as best I can figure it, their chief offence was daring to shoot at Americans.

resedit wrote:

No, as best I can figure it, their chief offence was daring to shoot at Americans.

Which gave us two options - take them prisoner or kill them.
I prefer the former. How about you?

Only if they have strategic value. If they are of no strategic value, and they are shooting at us, then I have no problems with taking them out.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

No, as best I can figure it, their chief offence was daring to shoot at Americans.

Which gave us two options - take them prisoner or kill them.
I prefer the former. How about you?

It's not the taking prisoner that's a problem.

It's treating them as war criminals to whom the Geneva Convention doesn't apply rather than prisoners of war.

I've yet to see a legal justification for that.

We are not treating them like war criminals.
War criminals get a trial in the world court.

I do not agree with how gitmo is being run.
However, they are different than POWs.

Saddam's soldiers were POWs and released once Saddam was properly defeated, as the Geneva convention requires.
These are not soldiers of a regular army.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

No, as best I can figure it, their chief offence was daring to shoot at Americans.

Which gave us two options - take them prisoner or kill them.
I prefer the former. How about you?

It's not the taking prisoner that's a problem.

It's treating them as war criminals to whom the Geneva Convention doesn't apply rather than prisoners of war.

I've yet to see a legal justification for that.

We are not treating them like war criminals.
War criminals get a trial in the world court.

I do not agree with how gitmo is being run.
However, they are different than POWs.

Saddam's soldiers were POWs and released once Saddam was properly defeated, as the Geneva convention requires.
These are not soldiers of a regular army.

Bah, we've had this argument so many times over the years I know there's just no hope of convincing you.

As I've said two million times here in MiniThink, US and international law spells out two ways of treating people captured in battle: as POWs, in which case they have rights (the legal thinking is, they were doing their job and now they're just going to wait out the war), or criminals, in which case they have rights and are to be handed over to civilian courts for trial.

Guess what, anything else is just made up Bushian nonsense that grants the occupant of the White House totalitarian powers.

But I know that won't mean a thing ... I just wanted to get on the record one more time.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

Most of them were picked up on the battle field.

What term would you prefer I use opposed to probable cause?

I think what he's trying to say is that "probable cause" is a legal term with a very specific definition.

FINE - so what phrase would he like me to use?

ohh. . . reach into that big ol' brain of yours and find one

ex hoc ergo procto faux pas. . .

resedit wrote:

FINE - so what phrase would he like me to use?

It helps to read what others post in response.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

Newsflash - I agree they are not being properly handled.
They need access to communication with their family.
They need to be charged in a way in which they can defend themselves from the charges in a timely fashion.
I agree with those points. I do not agree that they should be classified as POWs.

In other words, the administration is breaking the law.

I don't think they are breaking the law.
I think there maybe needs to be a law, but there currently isn't - so there is a loophole thing since gitmo technically isn't US.

There is no loophole.

The law is clear.

It amazes me that you still can't see this.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

In other words, the administration is breaking the law.

I don't think they are breaking the law.
I think there maybe needs to be a law, but there currently isn't - so there is a loophole thing since gitmo technically isn't US.

There is no loophole.

The law is clear.

It amazes me that you still can't see this.

Precisely which law is clear?

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

Most of them were picked up on the battle field.

What term would you prefer I use opposed to probable cause?

I think what he's trying to say is that "probable cause" is a legal term with a very specific definition.

FINE - so what phrase would he like me to use?

Personally? I would like you  to actually think abut what you are saying, rather than relying on boilerplate cliches. Even the phrase "picked up on the battlefield" is full of assumptions. It may mean that the individual was wearing the uniform of the Premier Grenadiers, and was captured after the regiment was outflanked by a calvary charge.

It may mean that a skirmish took place in a certain village, and the individual was captured several hours after the incident while working in his fields some distance away--perhaps he had a AK47 hunting rifle.

Or it may mean that a neighbor, hoping to earn  a reward, averred that he was seen with a weapon, in the general area.

Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all.

Probable Cause, btw, is the standard asserted in the fourth amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Given that the Bush administration believes that its determinations are not subject to judicial review, it seems absurd to even bring up Probable Cause. Probable Cause tends to survive review by a neutral third party.

Last edited by jerwin (2008-11-22 7:57 pm)

resedit wrote:

Habeus Corpus has never applied to enemy combatants on a foreign battle field.
Are POWs given Habeus Corpus rights?

Oh! They're POWs? So the Geneva Conventions apply?

But... wait! Oh yah, they're "enemy combatants" so nothing applies. I forgot.