Left can't read well nor do they understand Constitution

"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.

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

"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.

" 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.

"RTO Trainer" wrote in message
om...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...
"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.

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

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

"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.

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

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