Did You Wear Orange Today? That's Okay, Neither Did I .....
-
Artist:
-
Album:
In case you were to busy, or you just didn't know, today was "Wear Orange Day". Normally I am fairly indifferent to the works of the ACLU. While I feel thehave their hearts in the right place, sometimes I think they are just trying to grab headlines. All in all I feel this is wasted effort. 'Wear Orange Day' is a gimmick to stir up attention for the prisoners at Gitmo, Cuba. Supposedly, Jan. 11th 2002 is when the "first" prisoner of war was incarcerated in the Guantanamo Bay facility. I guess this is where the dance can begin, 'cause I know there are some who would like to punch my card.
Okay, these 'enemy combatants' (EC from here on) were picked up in theatre (the battlefield). And yet they are denied the benefits of the Geneva Convention. I sort of understand that. EC's instead of POW's. But what the hell is an EC. The Council Of Foreign Relations Define them as;*An “enemy combatant†is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.â€*I got that definition here;http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.htmlAnd I got a fine Wiki entry here;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_QuirinEx parte Quirin is been used to detain men who were captured on foreign land.My question is, What gives us the right to treat them as enemy combatants and not POW's under the articles of the Geneva Convention? *Burger, Dasch, Heinck and Quirin traveled from occupied France by submarine U-202 to Amagansett Beach,Long Island, New York, landing in the hours of darkness, on or about June 13, 1942. The remaining four boarded German submarine U-584 which carried them from France to Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. On or about June 17, 1942, they came ashore during the hours of darkness.*These men were captured on US soil. Most of the detainees @ Gitmo were captured on foreign soil. Besides that, it begs the question. These prisoners are held on US sovereign soil. There is assloads of court precedence concerning military affairs on bases abroad. The US has always asserted its autuor-i-ty over its bases as places foreign government dare not tread without permission and likewise to the host country. What about their laws? I for one would (a bit hesitant maybe) give some one up to execution if they asked for it and if this wasn't the case I would give them up to stand trial in their own country in front of their own peers. I say "fish or cut bait"!The treatment of prisoners is not something to be taken lightly. What is good for one is good for another. Just ask Danny Pearl.
Okay, these 'enemy combatants' (EC from here on) were picked up in theatre (the battlefield). And yet they are denied the benefits of the Geneva Convention. I sort of understand that. EC's instead of POW's. But what the hell is an EC. The Council Of Foreign Relations Define them as;*An “enemy combatant†is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.â€*I got that definition here;http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.htmlAnd I got a fine Wiki entry here;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_QuirinEx parte Quirin is been used to detain men who were captured on foreign land.My question is, What gives us the right to treat them as enemy combatants and not POW's under the articles of the Geneva Convention? *Burger, Dasch, Heinck and Quirin traveled from occupied France by submarine U-202 to Amagansett Beach,Long Island, New York, landing in the hours of darkness, on or about June 13, 1942. The remaining four boarded German submarine U-584 which carried them from France to Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. On or about June 17, 1942, they came ashore during the hours of darkness.*These men were captured on US soil. Most of the detainees @ Gitmo were captured on foreign soil. Besides that, it begs the question. These prisoners are held on US sovereign soil. There is assloads of court precedence concerning military affairs on bases abroad. The US has always asserted its autuor-i-ty over its bases as places foreign government dare not tread without permission and likewise to the host country. What about their laws? I for one would (a bit hesitant maybe) give some one up to execution if they asked for it and if this wasn't the case I would give them up to stand trial in their own country in front of their own peers. I say "fish or cut bait"!The treatment of prisoners is not something to be taken lightly. What is good for one is good for another. Just ask Danny Pearl.
Locating MOG account...
Comments (20)
Heh, I must have been on vacation..the supreme court came down on the side of fish,right?