Left can't read well nor do they understand Constitution

[Jarg]

"John Galt" > wrote in message
om...
> Will the military obey the Constitution and arrest Bush?
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/7690067.htm

First, "The report, by visiting professor Jeffrey Record" indicates this was
one man's opinion, not that of the War College.

Second, the militray doesn't have the legal right to arrest the President,
and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

Jarg

[LawsonE]

"Jarg" > wrote in message
. ..
> "John Galt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Will the military obey the Constitution and arrest Bush?
> http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/7690067.htm
>
> First, "The report, by visiting professor Jeffrey Record" indicates this
was
> one man's opinion, not that of the War College.

A visiting professor at the Army War College who usually teaches the same
classes at the Air Force equivalent, apparently.

>
> Second, the militray doesn't have the legal right to arrest the President,
> and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

Hmmmmm.... Can an American civilian ever be arrested by the military? Can a
commanding officer ever be arrested by orders of a subordinate? If the
answer to both of those is "yes," then it is conceivable (but not terribly
likely) that the President of the USA could be arrested by the military. I
wouldn't want to be the poor SP/MP ordered to make the arrest however...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"LawsonE" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Hmmmmm.... Can an American civilian ever be arrested by the military?
>

Yes, on a military installation.

[Tex Houston]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "LawsonE" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Hmmmmm.... Can an American civilian ever be arrested by the military?
> >
>
> Yes, on a military installation.

Not usually. Normally held for civil authorities.

Tex

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not usually. Normally held for civil authorities.
>

In other words, you concur with my statement.

[Colin Campbell]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:17:39 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"LawsonE" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> Hmmmmm.... Can an American civilian ever be arrested by the military?
>>
>
>Yes, on a military installation.

Actually, no.

The military does not have arrest powers for any persons not under the
UCMJ.

What happens in real life is that - for minor offenses - the subject
is cited with a mandatory court appearance before a US Magistrate.
For serious offenses the subject is detained pending the arrival of
the US Marshals or FBI (who conduct the arrest).

(I spent a year pulling 'Military Police Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at
Ft Lewis not long ago and I got to be an expert on jurisdictional
issues.)


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Colin Campbell]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 05:06:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Not usually. Normally held for civil authorities.
>>
>
>In other words, you concur with my statement.

No he does not.

'Arrest' is a precise legal term. Military Police do not have arrest
authority over civilians.


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[B2431]

>From: Colin Campbell (remove underscore)
>Date: 1/16/2004 12:25 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:17:39 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"LawsonE" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>> Hmmmmm.... Can an American civilian ever be arrested by the military?
>>>
>>
>>Yes, on a military installation.
>
>Actually, no.
>
>The military does not have arrest powers for any persons not under the
>UCMJ.
>
>What happens in real life is that - for minor offenses - the subject
>is cited with a mandatory court appearance before a US Magistrate.
>For serious offenses the subject is detained pending the arrival of
>the US Marshals or FBI (who conduct the arrest).
>
>(I spent a year pulling 'Military Police Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at
>Ft Lewis not long ago and I got to be an expert on jurisdictional
>issues.)
>
>

It's still a form of arrest. The miranda card I was issued had warnings for
apprehension of civilians on the reverse of the side for military. All noncoms,
warrants and officers have apprehension authority.

Technically arrest is not used since the UCMJ considers apprehention to be
physical restraint and arrest to be non physical as when an officer is place
under house arrest. He is not guarded.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Cub Driver]

>Second, the militray doesn't have the legal right to arrest the President,
>and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

In less enlightened societies, this is regular practice, and is called
a coup.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
>
> Actually, no.
>
> The military does not have arrest powers for any persons not under the
> UCMJ.
>
> What happens in real life is that - for minor offenses - the subject
> is cited with a mandatory court appearance before a US Magistrate.
> For serious offenses the subject is detained pending the arrival of
> the US Marshals or FBI (who conduct the arrest).
>
> (I spent a year pulling 'Military Police Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at
> Ft Lewis not long ago and I got to be an expert on jurisdictional
> issues.)
>

So if a civilian commits an offense on a military installation the military
police have no power to seize and hold him?

[The Raven]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
in
> message ...
> >
> > Actually, no.
> >
> > The military does not have arrest powers for any persons not under the
> > UCMJ.
> >
> > What happens in real life is that - for minor offenses - the subject
> > is cited with a mandatory court appearance before a US Magistrate.
> > For serious offenses the subject is detained pending the arrival of
> > the US Marshals or FBI (who conduct the arrest).
> >
> > (I spent a year pulling 'Military Police Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at
> > Ft Lewis not long ago and I got to be an expert on jurisdictional
> > issues.)
> >
>
> So if a civilian commits an offense on a military installation the
military
> police have no power to seize and hold him?

Here's a hypothetical. Foreign teenager caught at nuclear storage facility
doing nothing more than shooting rats at the facility rubbish dump (not a
specifically "secure" area). What's going to happen to him/her?


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's a hypothetical. Foreign teenager caught at nuclear storage facility
> doing nothing more than shooting rats at the facility rubbish dump (not a
> specifically "secure" area). What's going to happen to him/her?
>

Well, according to Colin Campbell, who spent a year pulling 'Military Police
Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at Ft Lewis not long ago and got to be an expert
on jurisdictional issues, he won't be arrested. I guess that leaves
"nothing" or "he/she will be shot" as the only alternatives.

[The Raven]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Here's a hypothetical. Foreign teenager caught at nuclear storage
facility
> > doing nothing more than shooting rats at the facility rubbish dump (not
a
> > specifically "secure" area). What's going to happen to him/her?
> >
>
> Well, according to Colin Campbell, who spent a year pulling 'Military
Police
> Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at Ft Lewis not long ago and got to be an
expert
> on jurisdictional issues, he won't be arrested. I guess that leaves
> "nothing" or "he/she will be shot" as the only alternatives.

Now what if they we're the child of someone serving in a foreign military
force (eg. "good guys")?

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Left can't read well nor do they understand Constitution
>From: "The Raven"
>Date: 1/16/04 4:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
>in
>> message ...
>> >
>> > Actually, no.
>> >
>> > The military does not have arrest powers for any persons not under the
>> > UCMJ.
>> >
>> > What happens in real life is that - for minor offenses - the subject
>> > is cited with a mandatory court appearance before a US Magistrate.
>> > For serious offenses the subject is detained pending the arrival of
>> > the US Marshals or FBI (who conduct the arrest).
>> >
>> > (I spent a year pulling 'Military Police Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at
>> > Ft Lewis not long ago and I got to be an expert on jurisdictional
>> > issues.)
>> >
>>
>> So if a civilian commits an offense on a military installation the
>military
>> police have no power to seize and hold him?
>
>Here's a hypothetical. Foreign teenager caught at nuclear storage facility
>doing nothing more than shooting rats at the facility rubbish dump (not a
>specifically "secure" area). What's going to happen to him/her?
>
>
>--
>The Raven
>http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3


There is no such thing as a natural right to tresspass.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[charles krin]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:11:40 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Here's a hypothetical. Foreign teenager caught at nuclear storage facility
>> doing nothing more than shooting rats at the facility rubbish dump (not a
>> specifically "secure" area). What's going to happen to him/her?
>>
>
>Well, according to Colin Campbell, who spent a year pulling 'Military Police
>Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at Ft Lewis not long ago and got to be an expert
>on jurisdictional issues, he won't be arrested. I guess that leaves
>"nothing" or "he/she will be shot" as the only alternatives.
>


Chuckle...Colin didn't say that...he said that usually a summons to
appear before a federal magistrate was issued for minor problems...and
if the problem wasn't minor, then the offender was held pending arrest
by either the FBI or the US Marshals.

ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Left can't read well nor do they understand Constitution
>From: charles krin
>Date: 1/16/04 7:03 AM Pacific

>ck
>--
>country doc in louisiana
>(no fancy sayings right now)
>


Do you know Dr. Paul Shorts in Lake Charles?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Colin Campbell]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:47:12 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>message ...

>> What happens in real life is that - for minor offenses - the subject
>> is cited with a mandatory court appearance before a US Magistrate.
>> For serious offenses the subject is detained pending the arrival of
>> the US Marshals or FBI (who conduct the arrest).
>>

>
>So if a civilian commits an offense on a military installation the military
>police have no power to seize and hold him?

Did you read what I posted?


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[RTO Trainer]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
> message ...
> >
> > Actually, no.
> >
> > The military does not have arrest powers for any persons not under the
> > UCMJ.
> >
> > What happens in real life is that - for minor offenses - the subject
> > is cited with a mandatory court appearance before a US Magistrate.
> > For serious offenses the subject is detained pending the arrival of
> > the US Marshals or FBI (who conduct the arrest).
> >
> > (I spent a year pulling 'Military Police Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at
> > Ft Lewis not long ago and I got to be an expert on jurisdictional
> > issues.)
> >
>
> So if a civilian commits an offense on a military installation the military
> police have no power to seize and hold him?

Of course they do. They just don't have the power to arrest him.

[Tarver Engineering]

"RTO Trainer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
t>...
> > "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
in
> > message ...
> > >
> > > Actually, no.
> > >
> > > The military does not have arrest powers for any persons not under the
> > > UCMJ.
> > >
> > > What happens in real life is that - for minor offenses - the subject
> > > is cited with a mandatory court appearance before a US Magistrate.
> > > For serious offenses the subject is detained pending the arrival of
> > > the US Marshals or FBI (who conduct the arrest).
> > >
> > > (I spent a year pulling 'Military Police Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at
> > > Ft Lewis not long ago and I got to be an expert on jurisdictional
> > > issues.)
> > >
> >
> > So if a civilian commits an offense on a military installation the
military
> > police have no power to seize and hold him?
>
> Of course they do. They just don't have the power to arrest him.

Military police are not trained to collect evidence for a civilian
prosecution and therefore they wait for help in these matters. The person
is already arrested when the military seizes them, but the military police
are not trained for an investigation leading to a conviction, in civilian
courts.

[Colin Campbell]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:06:11 +1100, "The Raven"
> wrote:


>Here's a hypothetical. Foreign teenager caught at nuclear storage facility
>doing nothing more than shooting rats at the facility rubbish dump (not a
>specifically "secure" area). What's going to happen to him/her?

Your hypothetical does not work. First of all, an armed person
attempting to improperly gain entry into a 'Level A' security site
would be shot without warning.

If he were simply on the base proper - he would be disarmed and a
investigation would be made to determine if he had permission to be on
the base (ie signed in as a guest, hunting/fishing permit, contractor
employee, etc).

If he was signed in as a guest then the sponsor would be collected up
for a 'nice' talk with the CI (Counter Intelligence) folks.

Since his status would be both as a foreign national and a juvenile -
the FBI would be called and he would be turned over to them (for some
rather complex legal reasons we cannot 'cite and release' certain
people). The 'on call' JAG lawyer would come by and present him with
a 'Bar Letter' (making it a felony for him to ever come back on post).

BTW, the firearm would be seized and eventually destroyed.



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Colin Campbell]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:03:20 -0600, charles krin >
wrote:


>Chuckle...Colin didn't say that...he said that usually a summons to
>appear before a federal magistrate was issued for minor problems...and
>if the problem wasn't minor, then the offender was held pending arrest
>by either the FBI or the US Marshals.

He needs to improve his reading comprehension skills.



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> >Second, the militray doesn't have the legal right to arrest the President,
> >and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.
>
> In less enlightened societies, this is regular practice, and is called
> a coup.
>


A few countries come to mind, Liberia, Argentina, France, Russia ........

To mention a few with a past history..

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article t>,
says...
>
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Here's a hypothetical. Foreign teenager caught at nuclear storage facility
> > doing nothing more than shooting rats at the facility rubbish dump (not a
> > specifically "secure" area). What's going to happen to him/her?
> >
>
> Well, according to Colin Campbell, who spent a year pulling 'Military Police
> Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at Ft Lewis not long ago and got to be an expert
> on jurisdictional issues, he won't be arrested. I guess that leaves
> "nothing" or "he/she will be shot" as the only alternatives.


I can see you arn't reading what he wrote, or refuse to acknoledge it.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Colin Campbell]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:27:21 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:


>Military police are not trained to collect evidence for a civilian
>prosecution and therefore they wait for help in these matters. The person
>is already arrested when the military seizes them, but the military police
>are not trained for an investigation leading to a conviction, in civilian
>courts.

'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
authorities is _not_ under arrest. And even in detaining somebody
there are specific legal rules that must be followed - or else the
detention turns into the felony of 'false arrest.'



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Tarver Engineering]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:27:21 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Military police are not trained to collect evidence for a civilian
> >prosecution and therefore they wait for help in these matters. The
person
> >is already arrested when the military seizes them, but the military
police
> >are not trained for an investigation leading to a conviction, in civilian
> >courts.
>
> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
> authorities is _not_ under arrest.

Tell that to the boys at gitmo.

> And even in detaining somebody
> there are specific legal rules that must be followed - or else the
> detention turns into the felony of 'false arrest.'

That is because it is an arrest.

[WaltBJ]

Semantics - 'arrest' in its legal sense is a precise term. 'Crime
prevention' is an act that can be performed by any person, military or
civilian. For instance, are you just going to ignore something like a
mugger beating up a grandmother? Or, as in Florida, where two geezers
simultaneously offed an armed robber sticking up the restaurant and
interrupting their lunches. (They were sitting at different tables.)
Better make the correct decision, though.
Walt BJ

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"charles krin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Chuckle...Colin didn't say that...he said that usually a summons to
> appear before a federal magistrate was issued for minor problems...and
> if the problem wasn't minor, then the offender was held pending arrest
> by either the FBI or the US Marshals.
>

Well, if they're being held, they've been arrested. That's what "arrest"
means!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
>
> Did you read what I posted?
>

Yup.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"RTO Trainer" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Of course they do. They just don't have the power to arrest him.
>

I suggest you look up the word "arrest".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
>
> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
> authorities is _not_ under arrest. And even in detaining somebody
> there are specific legal rules that must be followed - or else the
> detention turns into the felony of 'false arrest.'
>

You are mistaken. I suggest you look up the word "arrest".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> I can see you arn't reading what he wrote, or refuse to acknoledge it.
>

No you can't.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Colin Campbell
> writes
>'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
>authorities is _not_ under arrest. And even in detaining somebody
>there are specific legal rules that must be followed - or else the
>detention turns into the felony of 'false arrest.'

Back when I was doing roving patrols with a pickaxe handle, torch and
PRC-349 we couldn't arrest any burglars or other miscreants we caught.
We _could_ detain them and wait for the civil police. (But never had
opportunity or cause to do so).

When the alert state rose and we had rifles, we still weren't allowed to
formally arrest intruders, though subject to ROE we would have been
allowed to shoot them.



In different circumstances, one base I was at had guard patrols of an
armed soldier and a policeman... presumably to keep all options open.
(Intruder threatens violence, intruder gets shot: intruder is detained,
intruder can immediately be arrested.)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Cub Driver]

>Well, according to Colin Campbell, who spent a year pulling 'Military Police
>Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at Ft Lewis not long ago and got to be an expert
>on jurisdictional issues, he won't be arrested. I guess that leaves
>"nothing" or "he/she will be shot" as the only alternatives.

I think that Mr. Campbell mentioned the word "detained." Perhaps the
MPs would choose to detain the kid rather than shoot him.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Well, if they're being held, they've been arrested. That's what "arrest"
>means!

Not really. You're word-chopping. I can detain a burgler until the
cops arrive. That's not an arrest as it is understood in law
enforcement.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>> Did you read what I posted?
>>
>
>Yup.

He read it. He just didn't understand it.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not really.
>

Yes, really.


>
> You're word-chopping.
>

What's "word-chopping"?


>
> I can detain a burgler until the cops arrive.
>

We're talking about military cops doing the detaining.

What's a "burgler"?


>
> That's not an arrest as it is understood in law
> enforcement.
>

See definition two:


ar·rest Pronunciation Key (-rst)
v. ar·rest·ed, ar·rest·ing, ar·rests
v. tr.
1.. To stop; check: a brake that automatically arrests motion; arrested
the growth of the tumor.
2.. To seize and hold under the authority of law.
3.. To capture and hold briefly (the attention, for example); engage.

[LawsonE]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Well, if they're being held, they've been arrested. That's what "arrest"
> >means!
>
> Not really. You're word-chopping. I can detain a burgler until the
> cops arrive. That's not an arrest as it is understood in law
> enforcement.
>

"Citizen's arrest?"

[LawsonE]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:06:11 +1100, "The Raven"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Here's a hypothetical. Foreign teenager caught at nuclear storage
facility
> >doing nothing more than shooting rats at the facility rubbish dump (not a
> >specifically "secure" area). What's going to happen to him/her?
>
> Your hypothetical does not work. First of all, an armed person
> attempting to improperly gain entry into a 'Level A' security site
> would be shot without warning.

NATO procedure (25 years ago at least) required several warnings, THEN you
shoot them. Of course, that was while you were between the first fence and
the second. Once you touched the second fence, I think it was just "shoot to
kill," regardless of how many warnings you managed to make.

[LawsonE]

"RTO Trainer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
t>...
> > "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
in
> > message ...
> > >
> > > Actually, no.
> > >
> > > The military does not have arrest powers for any persons not under the
> > > UCMJ.
> > >
> > > What happens in real life is that - for minor offenses - the subject
> > > is cited with a mandatory court appearance before a US Magistrate.
> > > For serious offenses the subject is detained pending the arrival of
> > > the US Marshals or FBI (who conduct the arrest).
> > >
> > > (I spent a year pulling 'Military Police Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at
> > > Ft Lewis not long ago and I got to be an expert on jurisdictional
> > > issues.)
> > >
> >
> > So if a civilian commits an offense on a military installation the
military
> > police have no power to seize and hold him?
>
> Of course they do. They just don't have the power to arrest him.

"Arrest" as in "formally charge him with a crime," right?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> He read it. He just didn't understand it.
>

I read and understood. Perhaps if you open a dictionary you too will
understand.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Not really.
> >
>
> Yes, really.
>
>
> >
> > You're word-chopping.
> >
>
> What's "word-chopping"?
>
>
> >
> > I can detain a burgler until the cops arrive.
> >
>
> We're talking about military cops doing the detaining.
>
> What's a "burgler"?

In my case, it would be the guy with a 0.45 inch hole in his forehead.

In Dan's case, it might be a citizen's arrest.

[Colin Campbell]

On 17 Jan 2004 00:49:33 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:


>I suggest you check into that further. "Arrest" may be a precise legal term
>but field application of "arrest" may not be. If anyone is "held" (prevented
>from moving at their disgression) then it can be succussfully argued that
>they have been arrested. The question to ask is "Am I free to leave or am I
>being detained?" If the answer is detained then you have been "arrested" and
>are due the protections of that status.

Wrong. Using this rule - anybody has the authority to 'arrest.' This
is why there is such a clear legal distinction between the authority
to 'arrest' and the authority to 'detain.'


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Colin Campbell]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:01:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"charles krin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Chuckle...Colin didn't say that...he said that usually a summons to
>> appear before a federal magistrate was issued for minor problems...and
>> if the problem wasn't minor, then the offender was held pending arrest
>> by either the FBI or the US Marshals.
>>
>
>Well, if they're being held, they've been arrested. That's what "arrest"
>means!

Wrong. For instance - any arrest creates a permanent NCIC entry for
the arrestee. An arrest also requires that the subject be charged
with an offense.


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Colin Campbell]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:


>> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
>> authorities is _not_ under arrest.
>
>Tell that to the boys at gitmo.

The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
Customs of War.


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Colin Campbell]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:04:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>message ...
>>
>> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
>> authorities is _not_ under arrest. And even in detaining somebody
>> there are specific legal rules that must be followed - or else the
>> detention turns into the felony of 'false arrest.'
>>
>
>You are mistaken. I suggest you look up the word "arrest".

Why should I? I had this all explained to me in a class taught by a
JAG lawyer.


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Tarver Engineering]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
> >> authorities is _not_ under arrest.
> >
> >Tell that to the boys at gitmo.
>
> The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
> Customs of War.

So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest? :)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
>
> Wrong. Using this rule - anybody has the authority to 'arrest.' This
> is why there is such a clear legal distinction between the authority
> to 'arrest' and the authority to 'detain.'
>

Look up the damn word, man. You're making a fool of yourself.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
>
> Wrong. For instance - any arrest creates a permanent NCIC entry for
> the arrestee. An arrest also requires that the subject be charged
> with an offense.
>

Look up the damn word.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
>
> Why should I?
>

So that you might gain an understanding of what it means.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:56:46 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:


>>
>> The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
>> Customs of War.
>
>So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest? :)

They're the luckiest *******s this side of the International Date
Line.

THey should be bench-pressing six feet of pig ****.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
>
> No he does not.
>

He indicated that he does.


>
> 'Arrest' is a precise legal term. Military Police do not have arrest
> authority over civilians.
>

"Arrest" is a term used in everyday language. One meaning is "to seize and
hold under the authority of law." If you don't think military police have
the power to seize and hold civilians on a military installation then you
know nothing of military police.

[~Nins~]

Clark wrote:
|| Colin Campbell (remove underscore)>
|| wrote in :
||
||| On 17 Jan 2004 00:49:33 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:
|||
|||
|||| I suggest you check into that further. "Arrest" may be a precise
|||| legal term but field application of "arrest" may not be. If anyone
|||| is "held" (prevented from moving at their disgression) then it can
|||| be succussfully argued that they have been arrested. The question
|||| to ask is "Am I free to leave or am I being detained?" If the
|||| answer is detained then you have been "arrested" and are due the
|||| protections of that status.
|||
||| Wrong. Using this rule - anybody has the authority to 'arrest.'
||| This is why there is such a clear legal distinction between the
||| authority to 'arrest' and the authority to 'detain.'
|||
|||
|| You are mistaken. Read the case law and look up the source of
|| authority to arrest including citizens arrest. Anyone does have the
|| authority to arrest.

But, the power afforded is different for the respective parties - parties
being civilian or security officer, police - there are limitations. Ever
hear the term, "full police power or authority"? I read someplace (forget
where) that a "detainment becomes an arrest when the arresting individual
performs any act that indicates an intention to take the person into custody
and subjects the person arrested to the actual control and will of the
person making the arrest. The specific determination is highly fact based."
Perhaps the distinction would be on how it is clarified in definition in
each State? But, the military is still bound by the Comitatus Act and US
Code in regards to levels of power afforded. They don't actually 'arrest'
but hold until the appropriate agency with the appropriate level of power
can do the actual arrest. Well, that's my input, however accurate or
inaccurate it may be, and take on the issue of whether or not the military
can arrest civilians. It's a matter of definition of the word 'arrest' and
the limitations, and the powers of arrest afforded.

As far as military jurisdiction, as in arrest, over civilians:
"All members of the military have the ordinary right of private citizens to
assist in maintenance of the peace. This includes the right to apprehend
offenders. Citizen's arrest power is defined by local law. In exercising
this power, care should be taken not to exceed the right granted by law.
Service members also must be familiar with the limits imposed upon military
personnel by the Posse Comitatus Act."
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/19-10/Ch10.htm

"Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy
by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78)
clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement
agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling
into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive
and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft,
intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting
direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search,
seizure, and arrests)."
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/Factcards/PosseComitatus.html

Furthermore, Title 10, Chapter 18, Section 375: "The Secretary of Defense
shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any
activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the
assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include
or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or
Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless
participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by
law." Section 378 "The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the
provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any
personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct
participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a
search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in
such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law."
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/stApIch18.html

[~Nins~]

Section 378 below is wrong, here is the correct entry for Section 378:
"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the authority of the
executive branch in the use of military personnel or equipment for civilian
law enforcement purposes beyond that provided by law before December 1,
1981"

~Nins~ wrote:
|| Clark wrote:
|||| Colin Campbell (remove underscore)>
|||| wrote in :
||||
||||| On 17 Jan 2004 00:49:33 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:
|||||
|||||
|||||| I suggest you check into that further. "Arrest" may be a precise
|||||| legal term but field application of "arrest" may not be. If
|||||| anyone is "held" (prevented from moving at their disgression)
|||||| then it can be succussfully argued that they have been arrested.
|||||| The question to ask is "Am I free to leave or am I being
|||||| detained?" If the answer is detained then you have been
|||||| "arrested" and are due the protections of that status.
|||||
||||| Wrong. Using this rule - anybody has the authority to 'arrest.'
||||| This is why there is such a clear legal distinction between the
||||| authority to 'arrest' and the authority to 'detain.'
|||||
|||||
|||| You are mistaken. Read the case law and look up the source of
|||| authority to arrest including citizens arrest. Anyone does have the
|||| authority to arrest.
||
|| But, the power afforded is different for the respective parties -
|| parties being civilian or security officer, police - there are
|| limitations. Ever hear the term, "full police power or authority"?
|| I read someplace (forget where) that a "detainment becomes an arrest
|| when the arresting individual performs any act that indicates an
|| intention to take the person into custody and subjects the person
|| arrested to the actual control and will of the person making the
|| arrest. The specific determination is highly fact based." Perhaps
|| the distinction would be on how it is clarified in definition in
|| each State? But, the military is still bound by the Comitatus Act
|| and US Code in regards to levels of power afforded. They don't
|| actually 'arrest' but hold until the appropriate agency with the
|| appropriate level of power can do the actual arrest. Well, that's
|| my input, however accurate or inaccurate it may be, and take on the
|| issue of whether or not the military can arrest civilians. It's a
|| matter of definition of the word 'arrest' and the limitations, and
|| the powers of arrest afforded.
||
|| As far as military jurisdiction, as in arrest, over civilians:
|| "All members of the military have the ordinary right of private
|| citizens to assist in maintenance of the peace. This includes the
|| right to apprehend offenders. Citizen's arrest power is defined by
|| local law. In exercising this power, care should be taken not to
|| exceed the right granted by law. Service members also must be
|| familiar with the limits imposed upon military personnel by the
|| Posse Comitatus Act."
|| http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/19-10/Ch10.htm
||
|| "Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies
|| to Navy by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted
|| (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance
|| to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast
|| Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United
|| States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and
|| technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft,
|| intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally
|| prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement
|| (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests)."
|| http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/Factcards/PosseComitatus.html
||
|| Furthermore, Title 10, Chapter 18, Section 375: "The Secretary of
|| Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to
|| ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment
|| or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this
|| chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member
|| of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure,
|| arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such
|| activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law." Section
|| 378 "The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as
|| may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the
|| provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail
|| of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit
|| direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or
|| Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity
|| unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise
|| authorized by law."
|| http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/stApIch18.html

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
~Nins~ http://www.churchbulletin.com
In the forest be a clearing where trueness of color and truth dwell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[LawsonE]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
in
> message ...
> >
> > Wrong. For instance - any arrest creates a permanent NCIC entry for
> > the arrestee. An arrest also requires that the subject be charged
> > with an offense.
> >
>
> Look up the damn word.
>
>

Where? The legal definition is what is being used in this thread, or so I
thought. What is the LEGAL defintion of the word, as applied to military
personnel?

[LawsonE]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
> >> authorities is _not_ under arrest.
> >
> >Tell that to the boys at gitmo.
>
> The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
> Customs of War.

I don't think so.

[Colin Campbell]

On 17 Jan 2004 03:42:50 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:

>Colin Campbell (remove underscore)> wrote in
:
>

>You are mistaken. Read the case law and look up the source of authority to
>arrest including citizens arrest. Anyone does have the authority to arrest.

A 'citizen's arrest' can only be performed in the presence of a law
enforcement officer who has jurisdiction.



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[B2431]

>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 1/16/2004 4:01 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: . net>
>
>
>"charles krin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Chuckle...Colin didn't say that...he said that usually a summons to
>> appear before a federal magistrate was issued for minor problems...and
>> if the problem wasn't minor, then the offender was held pending arrest
>> by either the FBI or the US Marshals.
>>
>
>Well, if they're being held, they've been arrested. That's what "arrest"
>means!
>

It is possible to handcuff someone, put them in a vehicle and transport them to
the station without arrest. It's called detention. Detaining an individual for
questioning or identification while awaiting charges for example.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Colin Campbell]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:57:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>message ...
>>
>> Wrong. Using this rule - anybody has the authority to 'arrest.' This
>> is why there is such a clear legal distinction between the authority
>> to 'arrest' and the authority to 'detain.'
>>
>
>Look up the damn word, man. You're making a fool of yourself.

I don't have to 'look it up.' I have dealt with these situations in
the real world and got my training from a better source than
'Websters.'



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Colin Campbell]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:07:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:


>> 'Arrest' is a precise legal term. Military Police do not have arrest
>> authority over civilians.
>>
>
>"Arrest" is a term used in everyday language. One meaning is "to seize and
>hold under the authority of law." If you don't think military police have
>the power to seize and hold civilians on a military installation then you
>know nothing of military police.

And I am using 'arrest' in the manner I have been trained to use it.

As I stated 'arrest' is a specific legal status. I am not using the
'everyday' term because doing so give the impression that the military
has law enforcement powers over civilians.


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Colin Campbell]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:58:51 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>message ...
>>
>> Wrong. For instance - any arrest creates a permanent NCIC entry for
>> the arrestee. An arrest also requires that the subject be charged
>> with an offense.
>>
>
>Look up the damn word.

I am not playing your game.

Since when does your dictionary trump my real world experience and
training?



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Colin Campbell]

On 17 Jan 2004 03:45:40 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:


>> Why should I? I had this all explained to me in a class taught by a
>> JAG lawyer.
>>
>Is it possible that you either misunderstood the JAG lawyer or the JAG lawyer
>was in error? It wouldn't be the first time for either case now would it?

And why should I regard you as more knowledgable than the course
materials?

On one hand I have an expert on military law. On the other hand -
you.

What makes you so sure that you know more about this than I do?




"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Colin Campbell]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:59:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>message ...
>>
>> Why should I?
>>
>
>So that you might gain an understanding of what it means.

I have an understanding. I just refuse to apply the term in a sloppy
and misleading manner.


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Tank Fixer]

In article et>,on Sat,
17 Jan 2004 07:03:25 GMT,
LawsonE attempted to say.....
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
> in
> > message ...
> > >
> > > Wrong. For instance - any arrest creates a permanent NCIC entry for
> > > the arrestee. An arrest also requires that the subject be charged
> > > with an offense.
> > >
> >
> > Look up the damn word.
> >
> >
>
> Where? The legal definition is what is being used in this thread, or so I
> thought. What is the LEGAL defintion of the word, as applied to military
> personnel?
>

Check the army reg pertianing to MP operations.
Should be a 190-* series regulation IIRC


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Cub Driver]

>Look up the damn word, man. You're making a fool of yourself.

He's not making a fool of himself. He's trying to point out that the
word has different (even contradictory) meanings.

The first meaning in the Shorter Oxford is "The act of standing still,
or stopping in one's course; halt; delay." It's only when you get to
the third meaning of the verb intransitive that you get to "Apprehend
.... by legal authority."

Now you have to define apprehend. Sounds like more than detaining to
me.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Admin]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Look up the damn word, man. You're making a fool of yourself.
>
> He's not making a fool of himself. He's trying to point out that the
> word has different (even contradictory) meanings.
>
> The first meaning in the Shorter Oxford is "The act of standing still,
> or stopping in one's course; halt; delay." It's only when you get to
> the third meaning of the verb intransitive that you get to "Apprehend
> ... by legal authority."
>
> Now you have to define apprehend. Sounds like more than detaining to
> me.

In Military Circles, when you arrest, you detain whether it be voluntary or
otherwise. For instance, a person that is confined to quarters is arrested,
meaning, prevented from movement. When you aprehend, you place under
restraints involuntarily, usually by detention of some kind.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:07:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:


>"Arrest" is a term used in everyday language. One meaning is "to seize and
>hold under the authority of law."

This is a problem when one tries to generalize from "everyday
language" into the arcane and precise use of language in law.

"Arrest" has a very precise meaning in the legal sense. That is what
was under discussion. You've obviously never had a JAG briefing.
That's OK. Just realize that you are using words in an "everyday"
context, which is OUT of the context which the service members on the
list were using them.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:03:50 GMT, "LawsonE" > wrote:

>I don't think so.

Three of those four words are true.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:07:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> 'Arrest' is a precise legal term. Military Police do not have arrest
> >> authority over civilians.
> >>
> >
> >"Arrest" is a term used in everyday language. One meaning is "to seize
and
> >hold under the authority of law." If you don't think military police
have
> >the power to seize and hold civilians on a military installation then you
> >know nothing of military police.
>
> And I am using 'arrest' in the manner I have been trained to use it.

Sure and the military told you what they wanted you to believe.

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:01:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"charles krin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Chuckle...Colin didn't say that...he said that usually a summons to
>> appear before a federal magistrate was issued for minor problems...and
>> if the problem wasn't minor, then the offender was held pending arrest
>> by either the FBI or the US Marshals.
>>
>
>Well, if they're being held, they've been arrested. That's what "arrest"
>means!
>
Not really. You can "detain" an individual for several reasons that do
not rise to the level of "arrest". Protective custody, investigative
interrogation, etc.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:56:46 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>message ...
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
>> >> authorities is _not_ under arrest.
>> >
>> >Tell that to the boys at gitmo.
>>
>> The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
>> Customs of War.
>
>So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest? :)
>
No, they are not. They are detainees who have not been
accused of a crime. Being an illegal combatant is a
status, not a criminal offense. They will be released when
circumstances allow it. Many have already been released.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:29:30 -0700, "Admin" > wrote:

>
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >Look up the damn word, man. You're making a fool of yourself.
>>
>> He's not making a fool of himself. He's trying to point out that the
>> word has different (even contradictory) meanings.
>>
>> The first meaning in the Shorter Oxford is "The act of standing still,
>> or stopping in one's course; halt; delay." It's only when you get to
>> the third meaning of the verb intransitive that you get to "Apprehend
>> ... by legal authority."
>>
>> Now you have to define apprehend. Sounds like more than detaining to
>> me.
>
>In Military Circles, when you arrest, you detain whether it be voluntary or
>otherwise. For instance, a person that is confined to quarters is arrested,
>meaning, prevented from movement. When you aprehend, you place under
>restraints involuntarily, usually by detention of some kind.
>
Incorrect. Art 15 hearings can impose "restriction" on an individual. It is
up to the CO to determine the boundaries and scope of such restriction
as long as it does not rise to the level of "imprisonment".

Al Minyard

[Tarver Engineering]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:56:46 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
in
> >message ...
> >> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
> >> >> authorities is _not_ under arrest.
> >> >
> >> >Tell that to the boys at gitmo.
> >>
> >> The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
> >> Customs of War.
> >
> >So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest? :)
> >
> No, they are not. They are detainees who have not been
> accused of a crime. Being an illegal combatant is a
> status, not a criminal offense. They will be released when
> circumstances allow it. Many have already been released.

The boys at gitmo are facing military tribunals. The reason they are facing
military tribunals, is because they were arrested by the military. The
military does not investigate a crime to a standard that could get a
conviction in civilian court.

[Admin]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
in
> message ...
> > On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:07:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> 'Arrest' is a precise legal term. Military Police do not have arrest
> > >> authority over civilians.
> > >>
> > >
> > >"Arrest" is a term used in everyday language. One meaning is "to seize
> and
> > >hold under the authority of law." If you don't think military police
> have
> > >the power to seize and hold civilians on a military installation then
you
> > >know nothing of military police.
> >
> > And I am using 'arrest' in the manner I have been trained to use it.
>
> Sure and the military told you what they wanted you to believe.

Colin is blowing smoke. The Military can "Arrest" Civilians. They cannot
aprehend them. To arrest is to detain or to cease movement. With a
Civilian, that person may be detained until the appropriate authority
arrives. Usually a Federal Marshal or Federal Magistrate who can give the
Military the aprehension powers by the Magistrates authority.

Arrest gets mixed up with Apprehend. Throw out the Civilian meanings.
Apprehend is to take into custody. You may hear the Cowboys say, "You are
under arrest" in the Military but those that do it for a living will say,
"You are under apprehension". That usually means that there is some kind of
legal action going to be sought by some agency in the Military whether it's
a Court Marshal or an investigation that may or may not clear you. But you
are Aprehended.

An Arrest may become an Apprehension depending.

[~Nins~]

Clark wrote:
|| "~Nins~" > wrote in
|| news:gQ3Ob.84718$na.45260@attbi_s04:
||
||| Clark wrote:
||||| Colin Campbell (remove underscore)>
||||| wrote in :
|||||
|||||| On 17 Jan 2004 00:49:33 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:
||||||
||||||
||||||| I suggest you check into that further. "Arrest" may be a precise
||||||| legal term but field application of "arrest" may not be. If
||||||| anyone is "held" (prevented from moving at their disgression)
||||||| then it can be succussfully argued that they have been
||||||| arrested. The question to ask is "Am I free to leave or am I
||||||| being detained?" If the answer is detained then you have been
||||||| "arrested" and are due the protections of that status.
||||||
|||||| Wrong. Using this rule - anybody has the authority to 'arrest.'
|||||| This is why there is such a clear legal distinction between the
|||||| authority to 'arrest' and the authority to 'detain.'
||||||
||||||
||||| You are mistaken. Read the case law and look up the source of
||||| authority to arrest including citizens arrest. Anyone does have
||||| the authority to arrest.
|||
||| But, the power afforded is different for the respective parties -
||| parties being civilian or security officer, police - there are
||| limitations. Ever hear the term, "full police power or authority"?
||| I read someplace (forget where) that a "detainment becomes an
||| arrest when the arresting individual performs any act that
||| indicates an intention to take the person into custody and subjects
||| the person arrested to the actual control and will of the person
||| making the arrest. The specific determination is highly fact
||| based." Perhaps the distinction would be on how it is clarified in
||| definition in each State? But, the military is still bound by the
||| Comitatus Act and US Code in regards to levels of power afforded.
||| They don't actually 'arrest' but hold until the appropriate agency
||| with the appropriate level of power can do the actual arrest.
||| Well, that's my input, however accurate or inaccurate it may be,
||| and take on the issue of whether or not the military can arrest
||| civilians. It's a matter of definition of the word 'arrest' and
||| the limitations, and the powers of arrest afforded.
||
|| Semantics aside, it seems we agree - if a person is held by military
|| personnel for formal arrest by civilian authority, then the military
|| has arrested that person.

Then you didn't read or comprehend what I wrote. :) Sometimes words can be
used by society to encompass all things (such as the word *arrest*), but
that doesn't mean it is appropriate to do so. You used 'formal arrest', is
*informal* arrest an arrest in the specific legal definition of the word,
not the all-encompassing definition of society usage?

[~Nins~]

Clark wrote:
|| Colin Campbell (remove underscore)>
|| wrote in :
||
||| On 17 Jan 2004 03:45:40 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:
|||
|||
||||| Why should I? I had this all explained to me in a class taught
||||| by a JAG lawyer.
|||||
|||| Is it possible that you either misunderstood the JAG lawyer or the
|||| JAG lawyer was in error? It wouldn't be the first time for either
|||| case now would it?
|||
||| And why should I regard you as more knowledgable than the course
||| materials?
||
|| Why shouldn't you question course material?
||
|||
||| On one hand I have an expert on military law. On the other hand -
||| you.
||
|| I have consulted lawyers who are officers of the court. Also, I'm
|| not limited by your "training" to see the world only one way.
||
|||
||| What makes you so sure that you know more about this than I do?
|||
|| Reality. Read the pertinent case law or admit the possibility that
|| there are other, quite valid, positions in the argument. Continuing
|| to argue without looking at the question from several angles will
|| get you nowhere. I've already pointed out that you've overlooked the
|| basic source of all arresting authority: citizens arrest...

Please post the citations for the 'pertinent case law'? I'd like to take a
look at them, they are cases involving military police and civilians, right?

[LawsonE]

"Zippy the Pinhead" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:03:50 GMT, "LawsonE" > wrote:
>
> >I don't think so.
>
> Three of those four words are true.

Heh. What was the topic again?

[~Nins~]

Clark wrote:
|| "~Nins~" > wrote in
|| news:JthOb.87357$I06.391831@attbi_s01:
<snip>
|||||| But, the power afforded is different for the respective parties -
|||||| parties being civilian or security officer, police - there are
|||||| limitations. Ever hear the term, "full police power or
|||||| authority"? I read someplace (forget where) that a "detainment
|||||| becomes an arrest when the arresting individual performs any act
|||||| that indicates an intention to take the person into custody and
|||||| subjects the person arrested to the actual control and will of
|||||| the person making the arrest. The specific determination is
|||||| highly fact based." Perhaps the distinction would be on how it
|||||| is clarified in definition in each State? But, the military is
|||||| still bound by the Comitatus Act and US Code in regards to
|||||| levels of power afforded. They don't actually 'arrest' but hold
|||||| until the appropriate agency with the appropriate level of power
|||||| can do the actual arrest. Well, that's my input, however
|||||| accurate or inaccurate it may be, and take on the issue of
|||||| whether or not the military can arrest civilians. It's a matter
|||||| of definition of the word 'arrest' and the limitations, and the
|||||| powers of arrest afforded.
|||||
||||| Semantics aside, it seems we agree - if a person is held by
||||| military personnel for formal arrest by civilian authority, then
||||| the military has arrested that person.
|||
||| Then you didn't read or comprehend what I wrote. :)
||
|| You wrote: "detainment becomes an arrest when the arresting
|| individual performs any act that indicates an intention to take the
|| person into custody and subjects the person arrested to the actual
|| control and will of the person making the arrest. The specific
|| determination is highly fact based."

I wrote that I had read that someplace. After that I wrote, "But, the
military is still bound by the Comitatus Act and US Code in regards to
levels of power afforded. They don't actually 'arrest' but hold until the
appropriate agency with the appropriate level of power can do the actual
arrest." You didn't read all of it or you just didn't pay attention to it.
Has the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 been revised as was proposed by Sen.
Biden of Del. in 2002? As of that time the prohibition of military
arresting civilians still stood. I found this article:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/22/135458.shtml
If they had or have the power to 'arrest' civilians then why, less than 2
years ago, would a senator want to revise the Act to allow them to arrest?

||
|| Did you mean that or not? Furthermore, since "Colin" reports
|| detainment while holding for civilian authority, is that not arrest?
|| Case law says that it is. Now you may not think the distinction I am
|| making is important but it is because the person the military thinks
|| they have merely detained is in fact due the privileges of a person
|| who is under formal arrest.

Please cite this 'case law' as in-pertinence to the military over civilians.
In the following cases: Whiteley v. Warden 401 US 560 (1971); and, US v.
Hensley 469 US 221 (1985), didn't the holdings in those cases support the
'collective knowledge rule' whereby another officer or agency can be
requested to make the the arrest, the holdings support doing so even if
reasonable suspicion or probable cause does not exist for the action of
detention of the suspect? Correct me if I'm wrong. Here's a link where you
can insert the code to do a search.
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html

"MP and civilian guards or police employed by the Army have the same
authority to apprehend. Their authority is derived from the installation
commander's inherent authority to maintain order on the installation.....As
the authority for the citizen's arrest is the law of the local jurisdiction
and not AR 600-40, any variance between it and AR 600-40 should be made
clear to all concerned......Limited authority exists to apprehend persons
not subject to the UCMJ"
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/19-10/Ch10.htm (read the
link).

|| More specifically, when case law shows that detainment for a
|| sufficient period is considered arrest and the detained individual
|| is due the protections of an arrested person, then that person is
|| under arrest whether the detaining authority makes formal record of
|| it or not.

If you go into another state are the laws and ordinances the same as in your
state? Do substantive and procedural statutes/laws differ from state to
state? And do not the law enforcement agencies of those states have to
operate according to the procedural and substantive laws of that state? If
you go onto a military installation, does not that installation have to
follow federal guidelines and such in its operation by its personnel? Posse
Comitatus Act of 1878, and US Code.

This is one of those topics that can be debated on and and on, but I have a
terrible sinus headache and am signing off now. Think and believe what you
want, it isn't going to change the reality and fact of the Comitatus Act and
that the military are subject to it.

Have a good night! :)

[Colin Campbell]

On 18 Jan 2004 04:31:02 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:

>I'll put it another way. If an American citizen on American soil is detained
>by military police and held for civilian authority, that person is considered
>by the courts to be under arrest and is due the protections of that status.

FYI, the courts will consider him 'detained.'

The courts use the same definition of 'arrest' that I do.

>You can scream all you want about Posse Comitatus, it won't change a thing.

A law that makes it _illegal_ for military personnel to arrest
civilians does not change anything?

The funny thing is that you are so opinionated that you refuse to even
consider it when I tell you how this works in the real world.



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[RTO Trainer]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "RTO Trainer" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Of course they do. They just don't have the power to arrest him.
> >
>
> I suggest you look up the word "arrest".

What would that tellme that I am not already very familiar (though not
as familiar as Colin) with?

Please tell me you aren't going to try to equate vernacular usage with
the legal term.

[RTO Trainer]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
> message ...
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
> > >> authorities is _not_ under arrest.
> > >
> > >Tell that to the boys at gitmo.
> >
> > The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
> > Customs of War.
>
> So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest? :)

Its a matter of established law. They are not under arrest.

POWs wouldn't be under arrest either. Simply detained under a different status.

[RTO Trainer]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:56:46 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" >
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
> in
> > >message ...
> > >> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
> > >> >> authorities is _not_ under arrest.
> > >> >
> > >> >Tell that to the boys at gitmo.
> > >>
> > >> The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
> > >> Customs of War.
> > >
> > >So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest? :)
> > >
> > No, they are not. They are detainees who have not been
> > accused of a crime. Being an illegal combatant is a
> > status, not a criminal offense. They will be released when
> > circumstances allow it. Many have already been released.
>
> The boys at gitmo are facing military tribunals. The reason they are facing
> military tribunals, is because they were arrested by the military. The
> military does not investigate a crime to a standard that could get a
> conviction in civilian court.

"some" of the detainees are facing military tribunals. At whatever
time the decision was made that any individual would face such a
proceeding *then* that individual would have been placed under arrest
by an appropriate authority.

As for the investigative standards of the military, please point out
some of the areas of deficiency WRT civilian standards.

[[email protected]]

RTO Trainer wrote:
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Colin Campbell" (remove
underscore)>
>> wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person
detained by
>>>>> military authorities is _not_ under arrest.
>>>>
>>>> Tell that to the boys at gitmo.
>>>
Why? My teams captured some of them and we processed some
of them.
First, they are not "boys", they are men. Second, at least
in the case of those members of Al Qaeda and of the Taliban
that we caught, they were armed, were capable of planning
and or leading groups of persons in either acts of terror or
of engaging in various forms of "hostile acts" including
acts of terror and had been engaging in "hostile acts"
against both the United Front (Northern or Eastern Alliance)
and the US Army. Dangerous men, who are detained as
"illegal combatants" as defined in The Laws of Land Warfare
(FM 27-10).
Which states as follows;
81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions
pre-scribed
by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW,
art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind
the lines
of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and
may be
tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts
include,
but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of
communications facili-ties,
intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of
prisoners
of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and
106 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague
Regulations.
82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted,
com-mitted,
or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are
subject
to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger
inherent in their
conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.



>>> The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the
Laws and
>>> Customs of War.
>>
>> So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under
arrest? :)
>
> Its a matter of established law. They are not under
arrest.
>
> POWs wouldn't be under arrest either. Simply detained
under a
> different status.

RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
considered Prisoners of War.
61. Prisoners of War Defined
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention,
are
persons belonging to one of the following categories, who
have
fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1)Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict,
as well as members of militias or volunteer corps form- ing
part of such armed forces.
(2)Members of other militias and members of other volun-teer
corps, including those of organized resistance move-ments,
belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating
in or outside their own territory, even if this territory
is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the
following conditions:
(a)that of being commanded by a person responsible for
his subordinates;
(b)that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at
a distance;
(c)that of carrying arms openly;
(d)that of conducting their operations in accordance with
the laws and customs of war.

Note that the Al Qaeda fall under the category of
Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts,
because they are not Afghani (therefore not a party to the
conflict as defined under the Geneva Accords). Do not have
a fixed distinctive sign or uniform. Do not conduct their
operations (see 9-11-2001 attacks, sabotage of USS Cole and
US Embassy bombings) in accordance with the laws and customs
of war as defined in the Geneva Accords.


Snark

[Tarver Engineering]

"RTO Trainer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
in
> > message ...
> > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
> > > >> authorities is _not_ under arrest.
> > > >
> > > >Tell that to the boys at gitmo.
> > >
> > > The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
> > > Customs of War.
> >
> > So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest? :)
>
> Its a matter of established law. They are not under arrest.

Wrong.

But, thanks for playing.

[Tarver Engineering]

" > wrote in message
link.net...

<snip>
> >> So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest? :)
> >
> > Its a matter of established law. They are not under arrest.
> >
> > POWs wouldn't be under arrest either. Simply detained under a
> > different status.
>
> RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
> guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
> considered Prisoners of War.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[Tarver Engineering]

"RTO Trainer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
et>...
> > "RTO Trainer" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > Of course they do. They just don't have the power to arrest him.
> > >
> >
> > I suggest you look up the word "arrest".
>
> What would that tellme that I am not already very familiar (though not
> as familiar as Colin) with?

Clueless then.

[Colin Campbell]

On 18 Jan 2004 09:41:27 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:


>> A law that makes it _illegal_ for military personnel to arrest
>> civilians does not change anything?
>
>If you detain with intent to have charged, then you have arrested.

In your opinion.

Which means squat.



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Colin Campbell]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:


>> RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
>> guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
>> considered Prisoners of War.
>
>Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Then tell us why you think he is wrong.



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[Tarver Engineering]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
> >> guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
> >> considered Prisoners of War.
> >
> >Wrong, but thanks for playing.
>
> Then tell us why you think he is wrong.

The boys at gitmo are not POWs.

I personally go check every fact and figure, when Steve disagrees with me.
Of course, perhaps your ego is bigger than mine. :)

[[email protected]]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> " > wrote in
message
>
link.net..
..
>
> <snip>
>>>> So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under
arrest? :)
>>>
>>> Its a matter of established law. They are not under
arrest.
>>>
>>> POWs wouldn't be under arrest either. Simply detained
under a
>>> different status.
>>
>> RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
>> guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
>> considered Prisoners of War.
>
> Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Is this just your opinion? Or can you back it up with
facts?

Snark

[[email protected]]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Colin Campbell" (remove
underscore)>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
>>>> guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
>>>> considered Prisoners of War.
>>>
>>> Wrong, but thanks for playing.
>>
>> Then tell us why you think he is wrong.
>
> The boys at gitmo are not POWs.
>
We are speaking here of Iraqi Soldiers and Guerrillas. Who,
for your information, are not held at the facilities in MCS
Guantanamo Bay. They are being held in EPW camps in various
locations within Iraq.

The people detained at Guantanamo Bay are, Individuals Not
of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts, IOW Illegal
Combatants.
As defined by the following from FM 27-10 Law of Land
Warfare.
Quoted as follows;
81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions
pre-scribed by the laws of war for recognition as
belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit
hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not
to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and
sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include,
but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of
communications facilities,
intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of
prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles
104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and
Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.
82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted,
committed,
or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are
subject to the extreme penalty of death because of the
danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may,
however, be imposed.

A fact that you have conveniently disregarded.

> I personally go check every fact and figure, when Steve
disagrees
> with me. Of course, perhaps your ego is bigger than mine.
:)

Then you missed at least one and probably two or three facts
when you did your checking.
As to egos, I wouldn't know. I'm just one of the guys who
captured and or processed some of the detainees held at MCS
Guantanamo Bay.

Snark

[Tarver Engineering]

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Colin Campbell" (remove
> underscore)>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
> >>>> guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
> >>>> considered Prisoners of War.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong, but thanks for playing.
> >>
> >> Then tell us why you think he is wrong.
> >
> > The boys at gitmo are not POWs.
> >
> We are speaking here of Iraqi Soldiers and Guerrillas. Who,
> for your information,

Nice editing, but that is not what we are discussing.

Now, back to military police arrest of people.

[Alan Minyard]

On 17 Jan 2004 21:40:35 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:

>"~Nins~" > wrote in

>> Please post the citations for the 'pertinent case law'? I'd like to
>> take a look at them, they are cases involving military police and
>> civilians, right?
>>
>Wrong, it has to do with what in practice is arrest as determined by the
>courts. It doesn't matter who, civilian, military, LE detains the individual,
>merely the fact that the have been detained and are under the control of
>someone.

So when a psychiatric patient is committed he has been arrested?

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 18 Jan 2004 04:31:02 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:

>I'll put it another way. If an American citizen on American soil is detained
>by military police and held for civilian authority, that person is considered
>by the courts to be under arrest and is due the protections of that status.
>You can scream all you want about Posse Comitatus, it won't change a thing.

Those rights are triggered by "custodial" status, not arrest.

Al Minyard

[Admin]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
> >
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > "Colin Campbell" (remove
> > underscore)>
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>> RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
> > >>>> guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
> > >>>> considered Prisoners of War.
> > >>>
> > >>> Wrong, but thanks for playing.
> > >>
> > >> Then tell us why you think he is wrong.
> > >
> > > The boys at gitmo are not POWs.
> > >
> > We are speaking here of Iraqi Soldiers and Guerrillas. Who,
> > for your information,
>
> Nice editing, but that is not what we are discussing.
>
> Now, back to military police arrest of people.

The Gitmos are NOT POWs. If they were, certain rights would be available to
them. POW status is give to those that fulfill that status. And since
Afganistan is no longer considered a War, POWs would have to be released.
They don't have rights because they took up arms outside of the rules that
would make them soldiers. Terrorist do not get the same rights. Now, if
Cuba were to sue to instate their own laws since it's their property it
might be different. But I doubt very seriously that any there would want to
be under Castros laws. It might make a very long, slow, painful death.
Wait, that might not be a bad idea afterall.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Admin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > > "Colin Campbell" (remove
> > > underscore)>
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>> RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
> > > >>>> guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
> > > >>>> considered Prisoners of War.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Wrong, but thanks for playing.
> > > >>
> > > >> Then tell us why you think he is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > The boys at gitmo are not POWs.
> > > >
> > > We are speaking here of Iraqi Soldiers and Guerrillas. Who,
> > > for your information,
> >
> > Nice editing, but that is not what we are discussing.
> >
> > Now, back to military police arrest of people.
>
> The Gitmos are NOT POWs.

Right, that is what I wrote.

Do you have a reading disability?

[Colin Campbell]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:17:41 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>message ...
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
>> >> guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
>> >> considered Prisoners of War.
>> >
>> >Wrong, but thanks for playing.
>>
>> Then tell us why you think he is wrong.
>
>The boys at gitmo are not POWs.

Of course they are not. Since only lawful combatants can become POWs
the people in Gitmo are internees.

However, the comment (see above) was discussing Iraqi soldiers.



"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

[LawsonE]

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
> RTO Trainer wrote:
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> "Colin Campbell" (remove
> underscore)>
> >> wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person
> detained by
> >>>>> military authorities is _not_ under arrest.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell that to the boys at gitmo.
> >>>
> Why? My teams captured some of them and we processed some
> of them.
> First, they are not "boys", they are men. Second, at least
> in the case of those members of Al Qaeda and of the Taliban
> that we caught, they were armed, were capable of planning
> and or leading groups of persons in either acts of terror or
> of engaging in various forms of "hostile acts" including
> acts of terror and had been engaging in "hostile acts"
> against both the United Front (Northern or Eastern Alliance)
> and the US Army. Dangerous men, who are detained as
> "illegal combatants" as defined in The Laws of Land Warfare
> (FM 27-10).
> Which states as follows;
> 81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
> Persons who, without having complied with the conditions
> pre-scribed
> by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW,
> art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind
> the lines
> of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and
> may be
> tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts
> include,
> but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of
> communications facili-ties,
> intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of
> prisoners
> of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and
> 106 of the
> Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague
> Regulations.
> 82. Penalties for the Foregoing
> Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted,
> com-mitted,
> or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are
> subject
> to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger
> inherent in their
> conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.
>
>
>
> >>> The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the
> Laws and
> >>> Customs of War.
> >>
> >> So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under
> arrest? :)
> >
> > Its a matter of established law. They are not under
> arrest.
> >
> > POWs wouldn't be under arrest either. Simply detained
> under a
> > different status.
>
> RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
> guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
> considered Prisoners of War.
> 61. Prisoners of War Defined
> A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention,
> are
> persons belonging to one of the following categories, who
> have
> fallen into the power of the enemy:
> (1)Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict,
> as well as members of militias or volunteer corps form- ing
> part of such armed forces.
> (2)Members of other militias and members of other volun-teer
> corps, including those of organized resistance move-ments,
> belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating
> in or outside their own territory, even if this territory
> is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
> including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the
> following conditions:
> (a)that of being commanded by a person responsible for
> his subordinates;
> (b)that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at
> a distance;
> (c)that of carrying arms openly;
> (d)that of conducting their operations in accordance with
> the laws and customs of war.
>
> Note that the Al Qaeda fall under the category of
> Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts,
> because they are not Afghani (therefore not a party to the
> conflict as defined under the Geneva Accords). Do not have
> a fixed distinctive sign or uniform. Do not conduct their
> operations (see 9-11-2001 attacks, sabotage of USS Cole and
> US Embassy bombings) in accordance with the laws and customs
> of war as defined in the Geneva Accords.
>

How do you know that the individuals accused of being Al Queda or at least,
accused of being part of terrorist attacks on Americans, were indeed the
people they thought they were?

Additionally, at least some people detained at Gitmo were NOT captured
during fighting of any kind, but along smuggler's routes that were being
used by Al Queda forces (along with smugglers and, according to the Kuwaiti
government, a few Kuwaiti nationals trying to escape the Afghan war and
return home from visiting relatives).

You're aware that as many as 250 detainees have been released or are being
processed out in the next month or two after a year or more of detention
because the US finally decided that they had nothing to do with Taliban or
Al Queda but were actually turned in by rival factions in Afghanistan in
order to collect bounty, right?

Additionally, there are other clauses in the Geneva Accords IV that MAY
apply to any and all detainees. Certainly, the clause that states that if
there is any question as to how a detainee is to be treated, they are
accorded POW status until a tribunal decides otherwise. This was NOT done in
the case of several hundred detainees, who were handed over to American
armed forces for bounty, without any proof that they were who the bounty
hunters said they were.

[LawsonE]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:17:41 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
in
> >message ...
> >> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:43 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
> >> >> guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
> >> >> considered Prisoners of War.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong, but thanks for playing.
> >>
> >> Then tell us why you think he is wrong.
> >
> >The boys at gitmo are not POWs.
>
> Of course they are not. Since only lawful combatants can become POWs
> the people in Gitmo are internees.
>
> However, the comment (see above) was discussing Iraqi soldiers.
>
>
Some people in Gitmo were not combatants of ANY kind. Also, the Geneva
Accords allow for non-uniformed irregulars with no formal chain of command,
to take up arms against invaders (the US military), and STILL be accorded
POW status.

Fact is, due to the secrecy surrounding the facility, we have no idea who is
who.

[[email protected]]

LawsonE wrote:
> " > wrote in
message
>
link.net..
..
>>
>>
>> RTO Trainer wrote:
>>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>> "Colin Campbell" (remove
>> underscore)>
>>>> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver
Engineering"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person
>> detained by
>>>>>>> military authorities is _not_ under arrest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell that to the boys at gitmo.
>>>>>
>> Why? My teams captured some of them and we processed
some
>> of them.
>> First, they are not "boys", they are men. Second, at
least
>> in the case of those members of Al Qaeda and of the
Taliban
>> that we caught, they were armed, were capable of planning
>> and or leading groups of persons in either acts of terror
or
>> of engaging in various forms of "hostile acts" including
>> acts of terror and had been engaging in "hostile acts"
>> against both the United Front (Northern or Eastern
Alliance)
>> and the US Army. Dangerous men, who are detained as
>> "illegal combatants" as defined in The Laws of Land
Warfare
>> (FM 27-10).
>> Which states as follows;
>> 81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile
Acts
>> Persons who, without having complied with the conditions
>> pre-scribed
>> by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see
GPW,
>> art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or
behind
>> the lines
>> of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war
and
>> may be
>> tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such
acts
>> include,
>> but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of
>> communications facili-ties,
>> intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of
>> prisoners
>> of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104
and
>> 106 of the
>> Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the
Hague
>> Regulations.
>> 82. Penalties for the Foregoing
>> Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted,
>> com-mitted,
>> or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are
>> subject
>> to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger
>> inherent in their
>> conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the
>> Laws and
>>>>> Customs of War.
>>>>
>>>> So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under
>> arrest? :)
>>>
>>> Its a matter of established law. They are not under
>> arrest.
>>>
>>> POWs wouldn't be under arrest either. Simply detained
>> under a
>>> different status.
>>
>> RTO Trainer is absolutely correct. Iraqi Soldiers and
>> guerrillas who fall under the following definition are
>> considered Prisoners of War.
>> 61. Prisoners of War Defined
>> A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present
Convention,
>> are
>> persons belonging to one of the following categories, who
>> have
>> fallen into the power of the enemy:
>> (1)Members of the armed forces of a Party to the
conflict,
>> as well as members of militias or volunteer corps form-
ing
>> part of such armed forces.
>> (2)Members of other militias and members of other
volun-teer
>> corps, including those of organized resistance
move-ments,
>> belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating
>> in or outside their own territory, even if this territory
>> is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer
corps,
>> including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the
>> following conditions:
>> (a)that of being commanded by a person responsible for
>> his subordinates;
>> (b)that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable
at
>> a distance;
>> (c)that of carrying arms openly;
>> (d)that of conducting their operations in accordance with
>> the laws and customs of war.
>>
>> Note that the Al Qaeda fall under the category of
>> Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts,
>> because they are not Afghani (therefore not a party to
the
>> conflict as defined under the Geneva Accords). Do not
have
>> a fixed distinctive sign or uniform. Do not conduct
their
>> operations (see 9-11-2001 attacks, sabotage of USS Cole
and
>> US Embassy bombings) in accordance with the laws and
customs
>> of war as defined in the Geneva Accords.
>>
>
> How do you know that the individuals accused of being Al
Queda or at
> least, accused of being part of terrorist attacks on
Americans, were
> indeed the people they thought they were?
>
In the case of those captured by my units, they were quite
proud of the fact that they were Al Qaeda (BTW, only those
suspected of being ranking members or persons having
specific knowledge of terrorist activities or intent were
sent to MCS Guantanamo Bay). Other detainees were turned
over to the interim government of Afghanistan (once it was
formed) by US Forces for disposition by the Afghan
government.

> Additionally, at least some people detained at Gitmo were
NOT captured
> during fighting of any kind, but along smuggler's routes
that were
> being used by Al Queda forces (along with smugglers and,
according to
> the Kuwaiti government, a few Kuwaiti nationals trying to
escape the
> Afghan war and return home from visiting relatives).
>
Do you know this for a fact? Under what circumstances were
they captured and detained? Be very careful in your
answer, my teams were those in Pakhtia province and there
are a fair number that were captured and detained by forces
working with them or by members of the teams. Including
several alleged "smugglers" whose fortifications we breached
and captured along with documents and weapons. Others were
captured subsequent to Operation Anaconda by members of US
forces who also claimed to be "smugglers". Smugglers, armed
with 82mm mortars, RPGs and other weapons who had been
engaged in hostile activity against these US forces.

> You're aware that as many as 250 detainees have been
released or are
> being processed out in the next month or two after a year
or more of
> detention because the US finally decided that they had
nothing to do
> with Taliban or Al Queda but were actually turned in by
rival
> factions in Afghanistan in order to collect bounty, right?
>
I would say that it is more likely that they are being
released because after extensive debriefings they were found
not to be leaders or to be as important as they claimed to
have been. Are you aware of the screening process under
which detainees were sent to MCS Guantanamo Bay?

While it is possible that some of those sent there may have
been turned in by various warlords from rival factions, I
rather doubt the majority were.

Snark
<OEF, Pakhtia Province Nov. 2001-Apr. 2002>

> Additionally, there are other clauses in the Geneva
Accords IV that
> MAY apply to any and all detainees. Certainly, the clause
that states
> that if there is any question as to how a detainee is to
be treated,
> they are accorded POW status until a tribunal decides
otherwise. This
> was NOT done in the case of several hundred detainees, who
were
> handed over to American armed forces for bounty, without
any proof
> that they were who the bounty hunters said they were.

Again, are you aware of the screening process for detainees
to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay?

Snark

[LawsonE]

" > wrote in message
news:SiGOb.17992
> LawsonE wrote:
[...]
> > How do you know that the individuals accused of being Al
> Queda or at
> > least, accused of being part of terrorist attacks on
> Americans, were
> > indeed the people they thought they were?
> >
> In the case of those captured by my units, they were quite
> proud of the fact that they were Al Qaeda (BTW, only those
> suspected of being ranking members or persons having
> specific knowledge of terrorist activities or intent were
> sent to MCS Guantanamo Bay). Other detainees were turned
> over to the interim government of Afghanistan (once it was
> formed) by US Forces for disposition by the Afghan
> government.

Fair enough.

>
> > Additionally, at least some people detained at Gitmo were
> NOT captured
> > during fighting of any kind, but along smuggler's routes
> that were
> > being used by Al Queda forces (along with smugglers and,
> according to
> > the Kuwaiti government, a few Kuwaiti nationals trying to
> escape the
> > Afghan war and return home from visiting relatives).
> >
> Do you know this for a fact? Under what circumstances were
> they captured and detained? Be very careful in your
> answer, my teams were those in Pakhtia province and there
> are a fair number that were captured and detained by forces
> working with them or by members of the teams. Including
> several alleged "smugglers" whose fortifications we breached
> and captured along with documents and weapons. Others were
> captured subsequent to Operation Anaconda by members of US
> forces who also claimed to be "smugglers". Smugglers, armed
> with 82mm mortars, RPGs and other weapons who had been
> engaged in hostile activity against these US forces.

That may well be the case. Newsweek had a major article about several
Kuwaiti detainees that the Kuwaitee government was attempting to get
released to no avail (at the time of the article).


>
> > You're aware that as many as 250 detainees have been
> released or are
> > being processed out in the next month or two after a year
> or more of
> > detention because the US finally decided that they had
> nothing to do
> > with Taliban or Al Queda but were actually turned in by
> rival
> > factions in Afghanistan in order to collect bounty, right?
> >
> I would say that it is more likely that they are being
> released because after extensive debriefings they were found
> not to be leaders or to be as important as they claimed to
> have been. Are you aware of the screening process under
> which detainees were sent to MCS Guantanamo Bay?
>

No, I'm not. Which is, I think, part of the problem.

> While it is possible that some of those sent there may have
> been turned in by various warlords from rival factions, I
> rather doubt the majority were.
>

I hope that you are correct. However, the circumstances under which at least
some were captured aren't very clear, even now.

> Snark
> <OEF, Pakhtia Province Nov. 2001-Apr. 2002>
>
> > Additionally, there are other clauses in the Geneva
> Accords IV that
> > MAY apply to any and all detainees. Certainly, the clause
> that states
> > that if there is any question as to how a detainee is to
> be treated,
> > they are accorded POW status until a tribunal decides
> otherwise. This
> > was NOT done in the case of several hundred detainees, who
> were
> > handed over to American armed forces for bounty, without
> any proof
> > that they were who the bounty hunters said they were.
>
> Again, are you aware of the screening process for detainees
> to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay?

No. Are you aware of the screening process for ALL the detainees? How do you
know?

[[email protected]]

LawsonE wrote:
> " > wrote in
message
> news:SiGOb.17992
>> LawsonE wrote:
> [...]
>>> How do you know that the individuals accused of being Al
>> Queda or at
>>> least, accused of being part of terrorist attacks on
>> Americans, were
>>> indeed the people they thought they were?
>>>
>> In the case of those captured by my units, they were
quite
>> proud of the fact that they were Al Qaeda (BTW, only
those
>> suspected of being ranking members or persons having
>> specific knowledge of terrorist activities or intent were
>> sent to MCS Guantanamo Bay). Other detainees were turned
>> over to the interim government of Afghanistan (once it
was
>> formed) by US Forces for disposition by the Afghan
>> government.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>>
>>> Additionally, at least some people detained at Gitmo
were
>> NOT captured
>>> during fighting of any kind, but along smuggler's routes
>> that were
>>> being used by Al Queda forces (along with smugglers and,
>> according to
>>> the Kuwaiti government, a few Kuwaiti nationals trying
to
>> escape the
>>> Afghan war and return home from visiting relatives).
>>>
>> Do you know this for a fact? Under what circumstances
were
>> they captured and detained? Be very careful in your
>> answer, my teams were those in Pakhtia province and there
>> are a fair number that were captured and detained by
forces
>> working with them or by members of the teams. Including
>> several alleged "smugglers" whose fortifications we
breached
>> and captured along with documents and weapons. Others
were
>> captured subsequent to Operation Anaconda by members of
US
>> forces who also claimed to be "smugglers". Smugglers,
armed
>> with 82mm mortars, RPGs and other weapons who had been
>> engaged in hostile activity against these US forces.
>
> That may well be the case. Newsweek had a major article
about several
> Kuwaiti detainees that the Kuwaitee government was
attempting to get
> released to no avail (at the time of the article).
>
Not to gainsay Newsweek (we all know that they are the
epitome of accuracy) but there were Kuwaitis among some of
our captured, detained and transferred to Guantanamo who
were anything but innocents caught trying to escape the war.
They were in fact undergoing training at one of the
encampments to become terrorists.

I don't know if that is the same group of Kuwaitis but,
there is a great deal of doubt in my mind as to their
innocence. Perhaps the parents and relatives of this group
of Kuwaitis would like us to return their prodigal children
but, depending upon the circumstances of their capture, I
would recommend a long debriefing period of these people
followed by the findings of a tribunal as proposed and
actions thereafter according to those findings.


>
>>
>>> You're aware that as many as 250 detainees have been
>> released or are
>>> being processed out in the next month or two after a
year
>> or more of
>>> detention because the US finally decided that they had
>> nothing to do
>>> with Taliban or Al Queda but were actually turned in by
>> rival
>>> factions in Afghanistan in order to collect bounty,
right?
>>>
>> I would say that it is more likely that they are being
>> released because after extensive debriefings they were
found
>> not to be leaders or to be as important as they claimed
to
>> have been. Are you aware of the screening process under
>> which detainees were sent to MCS Guantanamo Bay?
>>
>
> No, I'm not. Which is, I think, part of the problem.
>
I don't see any problem here. Other than the fact that as
usual people are shooting off their mouths and expressing
opinions that are not grounded in fact. Don't expect there
to be a lot of coverage of the screening process. Most of
the journalists that came to Iraq (with a very, very few
exceptions) left very quickly because of the dearth of booze
(none) and the fact that there were no PAO personnel to
coddle them. Many of those who came visited Kabul,
Kandahar, Bagram and might have gone up to Mazar-i-Sharif.
Very few came into the hinterland and usually in the company
of some warlord who fed them whatever he wanted them to
hear. So, for the most part you'll hear what Hekmanytar and
Dostum wanted them to say when they report on my old AO.

>> While it is possible that some of those sent there may
have
>> been turned in by various warlords from rival factions, I
>> rather doubt the majority were.
>>
>
> I hope that you are correct. However, the circumstances
under which
> at least some were captured aren't very clear, even now.
>
LOL!!! War has a habit of having a lot of "murkiness" and a
lack of clear cut delineations especially when dealing with
non-state backed hostile forces.

>> Snark
>> <OEF, Pakhtia Province Nov. 2001-Apr. 2002>
>>
>>> Additionally, there are other clauses in the Geneva
>> Accords IV that
>>> MAY apply to any and all detainees. Certainly, the
clause
>> that states
>>> that if there is any question as to how a detainee is to
>> be treated,
>>> they are accorded POW status until a tribunal decides
>> otherwise. This
>>> was NOT done in the case of several hundred detainees,
who
>> were
>>> handed over to American armed forces for bounty, without
>> any proof
>>> that they were who the bounty hunters said they were.
>>
>> Again, are you aware of the screening process for
detainees
>> to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay?
>
> No. Are you aware of the screening process for ALL the
detainees? How
> do you know?

I do know the general screening process for _all_ the
detainees since the criteria were clearly laid out. After
all, we didn't want to spend the money to transport just
anyone to Guantanamo Bay. Now the specifics of each and
every situation I am not aware of. But, I'm fairly certain
that unless you were with either an MI, a CIA or an SF unit
you don't know a thing about them.

Snark

[RTO Trainer]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "RTO Trainer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> et>...
> > > "RTO Trainer" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > >
> > > > Of course they do. They just don't have the power to arrest him.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I suggest you look up the word "arrest".
> >
> > What would that tellme that I am not already very familiar (though not
> > as familiar as Colin) with?
>
> Clueless then.

Hardly.

You dispute that there is a difference between the legal term "arrest"
and the vernacular useage of the word?

arrest
to take or hold a suspected criminal with legal authority, as by a
law enforcement officer. An arrest may be made legally based on a
warrant issued by a court after receiving a sworn statement of
probable cause to believe there has been a crime committed by this
person, for an apparent crime committed in the presence of the
arresting officer, or upon probable cause to believe a crime has been
committed by that person. Once the arrest has been made, the officer
must give the arrestee his/her rights ("Miranda rights") at the first
practical moment, and either cite the person to appear in court or
bring him/her in to jail. A person arrested must be brought before a
judge for arraignment in a short time (e.g. within two business days),
and have his/her bail set. A private "security guard" cannot actually
arrest someone except by citizen's arrest, but can hold someone
briefly until a law officer is summoned. A "citizen's arrest" can be
made by any person when a crime has been committed in his/her
presence. However, such self-help arrests can lead to lawsuits for
"false arrest" if proved to be mistaken, unjustified or involving
unnecessary holding.



Ckecked with the JAG officer yesterday as well. I've lead no one
astray.

[Alan Minyard]

On 18 Jan 2004 21:26:36 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>
>> On 17 Jan 2004 21:40:35 GMT, Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:
>>
>>>"~Nins~" > wrote in
>>
>>>> Please post the citations for the 'pertinent case law'? I'd like to
>>>> take a look at them, they are cases involving military police and
>>>> civilians, right?
>>>>
>>>Wrong, it has to do with what in practice is arrest as determined by the
>>>courts. It doesn't matter who, civilian, military, LE detains the
>>>individual, merely the fact that the have been detained and are under
>>>the control of someone.
>>
>> So when a psychiatric patient is committed he has been arrested?
>>
>I don't know. Is it a civil or criminal matter?

Civil. But he is being detained against his will, which, to some,
constitutes "arrest".

The point being that simply because on is being detained
does not mean that they are "under arrest".

Al Minyard