PDA

View Full Version : Let's talk about the election


Roguish Lawyer
05-04-2004, 08:25
I know we're pretty much all Republicans here, but what do you guys think Kerry's chances are? What do you think Bush and Kerry each need to do in order to win in November? What external factors (i.e., things not within the candidates' direct control, such as war progress, economy, etc.) will be most important in determining the outcome of the election?

Libs please chime in too. :)

DunbarFC
05-04-2004, 08:41
I think it will be close but Bush will win

The economy has recovered enough so that Kerry can't use that as effectively

I see a constant barrage on Iraq and why haven't we gotten OBL but in the end as I said I see Bush pulling it off

I will go out on a limb and say that Kerry will carry Massachusetts in a landslide :D

Bill Harsey
05-04-2004, 08:45
First lesson, I never thought Bill Clinton had a chance, let alone twice. Next factor, it's my opinion based on recent observations that our "main stream media" will flush this country down the toilet (example, Iraq war coverage) to get a Democrat elected. Another wild card, Are our enemy combatants savvy enough to try and effect the outcome of a United States Presidential election? Our own media is complicit in this endeavor as judged by tone of news coverage of the alleged Iraq prison abuses.

brownapple
05-04-2004, 09:06
I think it'll be a landslide (assuming Kerry gets the nomination). Kerry will self-destruct.

Bill Harsey
05-04-2004, 09:13
Greenhat, Thanks, I could see that happening. My day just got a lot better.

Sacamuelas
05-04-2004, 09:25
It will be close.

I think it is early to tell what issues will become focused on by the undecided voters in the run-up to the election. That is because Kerry's camp hasn't really given ANY details as to how he actually plans on leading the country if elected.

While this does keep the Bush camp from attacking Kerry's position, it hurts him more in the long run because he is being portrayed as a wiffle waffle/non decisive middleman LIB politician.

BTw- I think the current portrayal of Kerry is accurate. :D

Sigi
05-04-2004, 09:44
Sadly, most people I talk to in my part of town will not be voting for Bush. I do not share the enthusiasm of the rest of the board that Bush will be re-elected. I am very worried.

Sigi
05-04-2004, 09:48
Originally posted by Sacamuelas


it hurts him more in the long run because he is being portrayed as a wiffle waffle/non decisive middleman LIB politician.


I am not seeing this in the mainstream press, and lets face it that is where most people are getting their information.

Roguish Lawyer
05-04-2004, 09:48
Originally posted by Bill Harsey
Next factor, it's my opinion based on recent observations that our "main stream media" will flush this country down the toilet (example, Iraq war coverage) to get a Democrat elected. Another wild card, Are our enemy combatants savvy enough to try and effect the outcome of a United States Presidential election? Our own media is complicit in this endeavor as judged by tone of news coverage of the alleged Iraq prison abuses.

This raises an interesting tangent, which is how you handle public relations for a long war in the information age. I believe that we are breaking new ground in that regard. Americans are impatient, so I think this is quite a challenge for the administration. Do you try to sell progress, or does that set you up for future media criticism?

rubberneck
05-04-2004, 09:53
I don't think it will even be close. The President has had a very rough go of it the past few weeks. Despite the bad news coming out of Iraq, the Dick Clarke affair and the constant sniping by the media the Presidents poll numbers have either remained constant or gone up. That tells me that the people know what they are getting with the President and the alternative is less attractive to them.

Keep in mind that the President's men haven't even begun to seriously dig through Kerry's voting record, personal past and history of flip flops. The Dems on the other hand used up every dirty trick during the election and it didn't have an effect. When it comes down to brass tacks the President has a very large advantage whne it comes to capital and at the end of the day he will be able to define Kerry and keep him on the defensive through November. The President will win by 10% points going away.

Bill Harsey
05-04-2004, 10:01
RL, Your speaking to serious attention span issues. Look at what advertising on television does to get and keep peoples attention for 15 seconds. Of course we are set up for future media criticism, that's their stock in trade. This may be naive but I never underestimate the capacity for Americans to handle the truth even when it's not good news. Has anyone in broadcast media worked at showing REAL progress in Iraq? All I see spotlighted are the worst possible negatives and this in turn is what the rest of the world judges us by.

DunbarFC
05-04-2004, 10:13
Americans are more focused on Friends ending and who the next Bachelorette is

That I think is the real issue

Getting their attention long enough to make sure they understand the issues that are really before them

Para
05-04-2004, 10:13
I think that one of the more serious threats is not whether the population wants Kerry to be President as much as people not wanting President Bush to remain. That, in and of itself, is deeply disturbing that people may not be voting for a canidate, but rather a vote and statement against the other one. IMO, this nation will be in serious trouble if Kerry wins the elections, both domestically and internationally.

Roguish Lawyer
05-04-2004, 10:15
Originally posted by DunbarFC
Americans are more focused on Friends ending and who the next Bachelorette is

That I think is the real issue

Getting their attention long enough to make sure they understand the issues that are really before them

That, and also financial results for this quarter rather than for the long term.

Solid
05-04-2004, 10:37
This is what De Tocqueville argued was a major flaw in the concept of US "democracy" (or whatever the more accurate nomenclature is)- the common person is not well educated when it comes to the economy, society, and politics. He/She therefore looks for short-term indicators, or worse the demagoguery of candidates/media/third parties for advice on who to vote for.
While Bush is by no means 'clean' of demagoguery (no president is), the Dem's are certainly doing it at a high degree.

Solid

eyes
05-04-2004, 10:51
..........

Murphy's Law
05-05-2004, 14:09
I agree with Sacamuelas that not elaborating on how he plans to lead is hurting him. The most important FACT that i have heard thus far is that Kerry has never led anything before in his life. That alone is enough for me to vote for GW which i plan on doing.

Ghostrider
05-08-2004, 19:09
As long as the President can weather the hits of the last couple weeks and the economy stays on track he should defeat Kerry. Alot of it depends on how the electoral votes end up being distributed. The local paper had a break down of states that were "definites" and those "leaning" to either side. As of right now (if you believe the breakdown) it was about 205 for each with another approximately 128 in "undecided" states.

As for those people not voting Bush just to not give him a vote?
Well, that is precisely why the president is elected via the electoral college as opposed to a popular vote.

Those guys who wrote the constitution were pretty sharp.:)

Bill Harsey
05-09-2004, 09:13
Is it just me or does anyone here notice the media created and now sustained frenzy around those prisoner photos? NBC (Mothers Day morning) showed it's series of "prisoner abuse" photos three seperate times while TELLING the question, "Will this impact the presidents re-election campaign?" At the breaking of this "prisoner abuse photo story" I stated that sights (sites?) would be set high on this hunt.

The Reaper
05-09-2004, 09:25
Originally posted by Bill Harsey
Is it just me or does anyone here notice the media created and now sustained frenzy around those prisoner photos? NBC (Mothers Day morning) showed it's series of "prisoner abuse" photos three seperate times while TELLING the question, "Will this impact the presidents re-election campaign?" At the breaking of this "prisoner abuse photo story" I stated that sights (sites?) would be set high on this hunt.

No lie.

I watched Fox News Sunday, thought they gave it roughly appropriate coverage, then turned off Russert, who has become more of a shill for the Democrats than even Stephanopolis, when he continued to bash the PotUS, SecDef, soldiers, etc.

Russert is so biased now that I just watch the second echelon shows, like Chris Matthews, when he is on.

They report was complete in January, actions have been and should continue to be taken against the idiots who perpetrated this black eye on America, and we should ruck up, shut up, and Charlie Mike.

The sights of the major media outlets are the same as the aims of the DNC - the President, not the perpetrators.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

Ghostrider
05-09-2004, 10:42
No doubt, the media has it's own agenda.....I certainly think that the soldiers and their immediate leadership must be held accountable, but the continued dragging on and exposure of the abuse can only serve one purpose. By keeping it in the spotlight they (media) are hoping that it will have a negative affect on the the POTUS re-election.

My question is after a few days of exposure the Blackwater mutilation have all but dissappeared......where is the international outrage on that incident? Why aren't there calls for bringing those responsible to justice?

It's outrageous for the media to even pretend that they are displaying any level of unbiased coverage.:rolleyes:

Gypsy
05-09-2004, 10:42
Originally posted by Bill Harsey
Is it just me or does anyone here notice the media created and now sustained frenzy around those prisoner photos? NBC (Mothers Day morning) showed it's series of "prisoner abuse" photos three seperate times while TELLING the question, "Will this impact the presidents re-election campaign?" At the breaking of this "prisoner abuse photo story" I stated that sights (sites?) would be set high on this hunt.

No Sir it is not just you. It is a constant barrage of showing the pics over and over and with more to follow. IE: "Is this the tip of the iceburg"...there are "more disturbing videos, pics etc". "The American people have a right to know" blah blah blah. I agree news should not be censored but I firmly believe that unless it is reported without bias all they are doing is subliminally and overtly making commentary in the hopes of affecting the election.

Haven't heard too many of the talking heads provide info that the Military has been investigating since January and taking action. And the liberal left continues to feed the frenzy, all the while aiding the BG in their zeal and personal agendas to unseat President Bush at the expense of our Country and on the backs of our Military. They incite the masses and are so transparent, at least to me.

DunbarFC
05-09-2004, 11:01
This more and more proves to me that the media thinks we love scandal and tragedy more than real news

How else can you explain their fascination with Scott Peterson, Kobe Bryant, the Iraqi prisoner story ?

I do think there is political bias in network and cable news, but I also think it' more telling about our media itself. They want stories they don't have to work for. They want stories that have a shelf life so that they can claim some glory.

Look how fast Pat Tillman has vanished from the news. Stories about a man willing to give his all for his beliefs aren't something reporters can relate to.

Makes me want to go back to school and get a journalism degree and take them over from the inside

Ghostrider
05-09-2004, 11:48
Well let's face it, our society is used to immediate gratification and the news media know that. So in an effort to keep their ratings share high it is imperative that they are first with the "breaking news", thus getting the attention from the viewing public. This in itself (people wanting information) is not a bad thing. But, on the viewing public's part, there is a lack of effort to step back and do a critical analysis of what they have just seen.

The overall effect of this of course means stories are reported without adequate confirmation (eg. 2000 election results.....1st Gore won, then Bush won, then we don't know who won), a high percentage of viewers believe the reports without reservation, and people make conclusions/decisions based on those reports. In addition, controversial topics are given priority presentation in order to inflame public opinion which in turn creates more of a need for extra attention paid to those topics.

As you stated DFC, people love scandal, melodrama, and tragedy.....otherwise how else can one explain the popularity of soap operas, Jerry Springer, and the "reality" based tv programs? The sad part is that it has encroached into the realm of actual journalism.:(

Solid
05-09-2004, 12:03
Should the US Govt. prevent the news channels from showing pictures/videos of captives under the Geneva Convention ruling that it was illegal to parade POWs on TV?
Or would that serve to exacerbate the govt's position by making them seem authoritarian (both in the eyes of the US public and the ME)?

Thank you,

Solid

The Reaper
05-09-2004, 12:07
Originally posted by Solid
Should the US Govt. prevent the news channels from showing pictures/videos of captives under the Geneva Convention ruling that it was illegal to parade POWs on TV?
Or would that serve to exacerbate the govt's position by making them seem authoritarian (both in the eyes of the US public and the ME)?

Thank you,

Solid

No. First Amendment.

What should happen is that people grow tired of hearing the same reports every night, and quit watching, causing the major media outlets to consider the reason for the loss of viewers.

TR

Solid
05-09-2004, 17:11
That's interesting, I thought that Int' law would supersede the first amendment. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Solid

brownapple
05-10-2004, 09:43
Originally posted by Solid
That's interesting, I thought that Int' law would supersede the first amendment. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Solid

By definition, the US Constitution is the highest law of the land. Agreeing to a treaty which attempted otherwise (like the International Court fiasco) would be unconstitutional.

Roguish Lawyer
05-10-2004, 09:48
Originally posted by The Reaper
What should happen is that people grow tired of hearing the same reports every night, and quit watching, causing the major media outlets to consider the reason for the loss of viewers.

Or maybe Boeing could buy CNN? LOL

Airbornelawyer
05-10-2004, 21:27
Originally posted by Solid
That's interesting, I thought that Int' law would supersede the first amendment. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Solid Apples and oranges in this case.

The applicable international laws, in this case the Third Geneva Convention (Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument)) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument)), apply to states. The First Amendment applies against the state. The U.S. government does not have First Amendment rights and non-government actors, in this case the media, are not parties to the Geneva Conventions.

It does get more complicated if you were to change the facts though. If Fox were to start running a reality show called "When animals attack ... enemy detainees", the government might try to censor such a program in the name of the Conventions' duty to protect the detainees "against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." Fox might scream First Amendment violation. I doubt they would win, but not because the treaty trumped the Constitution, but rather because the First Amendment is not absolute, and fulfilling the Convention's goals would be a compelling government interest.

If the government tried to enforce a blanket prohibition on media coverage of prisoners on the grounds of the Geneva Conventions, it might lose though. The Supreme Court has recognized that while a treaty might impact the exercise of a Constitutional right (see, e.g., Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920)), it cannot take them away. Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1(1957) ("This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."). See also De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890):

"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."

Roguish Lawyer
05-10-2004, 22:43
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
Apples and oranges in this case.

The applicable international laws, in this case the Third Geneva Convention (Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument)) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument)), apply to states. The First Amendment applies against the state. The U.S. government does not have First Amendment rights and non-government actors, in this case the media, are not parties to the Geneva Conventions.

It does get more complicated if you were to change the facts though. If Fox were to start running a reality show called "When animals attack ... enemy detainees", the government might try to censor such a program in the name of the Conventions' duty to protect the detainees "against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." Fox might scream First Amendment violation. I doubt they would win, but not because the treaty trumped the Constitution, but rather because the First Amendment is not absolute, and fulfilling the Convention's goals would be a compelling government interest.

If the government tried to enforce a blanket prohibition on media coverage of prisoners on the grounds of the Geneva Conventions, it might lose though. The Supreme Court has recognized that while a treaty might impact the exercise of a Constitutional right (see, e.g., Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920)), it cannot take them away. Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1(1957) ("This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."). See also De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890):

"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."

F'ing lawyers. :rolleyes: LOL

Bill Harsey
05-10-2004, 22:44
Airbornelawyer, Are the Iraqi prisoners in question here subject to the Geneva Convention laws? They are not uniformed combatants. Does this make a difference?

Bill Harsey
05-10-2004, 22:46
Oops, posted out of sequence (knifemaker...) RL, Same question as I asked Airborne.

Roguish Lawyer
05-10-2004, 23:00
Originally posted by Bill Harsey
Oops, posted out of sequence (knifemaker...) RL, Same question as I asked Airborne.

I know very little about international law, so I have to defer to my esteemed colleague. Sorry, Bill.

Solid
05-11-2004, 02:16
My research skills have been very poor for a while (some my say forever). I need to get back on the ball.

Thank you very much, AL, as always.

Solid

The Reaper
05-11-2004, 06:47
Originally posted by Bill Harsey
Airbornelawyer, Are the Iraqi prisoners in question here subject to the Geneva Convention laws? They are not uniformed combatants. Does this make a difference?

In Iraq, AFAIK, we are currently housing combatants, war criminals, terrorists, suspects, subjects, and criminals, or combinations thereof.

Some are protected by the GC, some are not, and some are protected by other laws.

All have human rights.

TR

Bill Harsey
05-11-2004, 09:21
Reaper, Very clear answer, especially the last line. Thank you, Bill

Airbornelawyer
05-11-2004, 13:13
As with pretty much anything in the military, actions regarding enemy detainees (the catch-all covers lawful combatants, common criminals and the other categories in between) are governed by law, regulations, orders and SOPs. The relevant ones are:

1. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949

2. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in the Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949

3. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949

4. Geneva Convention Protocol Relative to the Status of Refugees, 1967

5. Geneva Convention Relative to the Status of Refugees, 1951

6. Geneva Convention for the Protection of War Victims, 12 August 1949

7. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949

8. Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://mjlink.jag.af.mil/ucmj.htm) and Manual for Courts Martial (http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/mcm2002.pdf)

9. DoD Directive 2310.1, DoD Program for Enemy Prisoners of War (EPOW) and Other Detainees, 18 August 1994 (updating DoD Directive 5100.69, DOD Program for Prisoners of War and other Detainees, 27 December 1972) - pdf format (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d23101_081894/d23101p.pdf)

10. DoD Directive 5100.77 DOD Law of War Program, 10 July 1979 - pdf format (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d510077_120998/d510077p.pdf)

11. STANAG No. 2044, Procedures for Dealing with Prisoners of War (PW) (Edition 5), 28 June 1994

12. STANAG No. 2033, Interrogation of Prisoners of War (PW) (Edition 6), 6 December 1994

13. AR 190-8, Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees, 1 October 1997 - pdf format (http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_8.pdf)

14. AR 190-47, The Army Corrections System, 15 August 1996 - pdf format (http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_47.pdf)

15. AR 190-14, Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties, 12 March 1993 - pdf format (http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_14.pdf)

16. AR 27-10, Military Justice, 6 September 2002 - pdf format (http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r27_10.pdf)

17. AR 715-9, Contractors Accompanying the Force, 29 October 1999 - pdf format (http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r715_9.pdf)

18. FM 3-19.40, Military Police Internment/Resettlement Operations, 1 August 2001 - html format (http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-19.40/toc.htm)

19. FM 3-19.1, Military Police Operations, 22 March 2001 - html format (http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-19.1/toc.htm)

20. FM 3-19.4, Military Police Leaders' Handbook, 4 March 2002 - html format (http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-19.4/toc.htm)

21. FM 3-05.30, Psychological Operations, 19 June 2000 - not approved for public release

22. FM 33-1-1, Psychological Operations Techniques and Procedures, 5 May 1994 - not approved for public release

23. FM 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation, 28 September 1992 - not approved for public release

24. FM 19-15, Civil Disturbances, 25 November 1985 - html format (http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/19-15/toc.htm)

25. Coalition Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF-7) FRAGO #749, Subject: Intelligence and Evidence-Led Detention Operations Relating to Detainees, 24 August 2003

26. 800th MP Brigade FRAGO #89, Subject: Rules of Engagement, 26 December 2003

27. CG CJTF-7 Memo: CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy, 12 October 2003

28. CG CJTF-7 Memo: Dignity and Respect While Conducting Operations, 13 December 2003

29. 205th MI BDE, Interrogation Rules of Engagement, unknown date

Roguish Lawyer
05-11-2004, 14:10
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
As with pretty much anything in the military, actions regarding enemy detainees (the catch-all covers lawful combatants, common criminals and the other categories in between) are governed by law, regulations, orders and SOPs. The relevant ones are:

1. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949

2. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in the Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949

3. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949

4. Geneva Convention Protocol Relative to the Status of Refugees, 1967

5. Geneva Convention Relative to the Status of Refugees, 1951

6. Geneva Convention for the Protection of War Victims, 12 August 1949

7. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949

8. Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://mjlink.jag.af.mil/ucmj.htm) and Manual for Courts Martial (http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/mcm2002.pdf)

9. DoD Directive 2310.1, DoD Program for Enemy Prisoners of War (EPOW) and Other Detainees, 18 August 1994 (updating DoD Directive 5100.69, DOD Program for Prisoners of War and other Detainees, 27 December 1972) - pdf format (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d23101_081894/d23101p.pdf)

10. DoD Directive 5100.77 DOD Law of War Program, 10 July 1979 - pdf format (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d510077_120998/d510077p.pdf)

11. STANAG No. 2044, Procedures for Dealing with Prisoners of War (PW) (Edition 5), 28 June 1994

12. STANAG No. 2033, Interrogation of Prisoners of War (PW) (Edition 6), 6 December 1994

13. AR 190-8, Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees, 1 October 1997 - pdf format (http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_8.pdf)

14. AR 190-47, The Army Corrections System, 15 August 1996 - pdf format (http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_47.pdf)

15. AR 190-14, Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties, 12 March 1993 - pdf format (http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_14.pdf)

16. AR 27-10, Military Justice, 6 September 2002 - pdf format (http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r27_10.pdf)

17. AR 715-9, Contractors Accompanying the Force, 29 October 1999 - pdf format (http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r715_9.pdf)

18. FM 3-19.40, Military Police Internment/Resettlement Operations, 1 August 2001 - html format (http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-19.40/toc.htm)

19. FM 3-19.1, Military Police Operations, 22 March 2001 - html format (http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-19.1/toc.htm)

20. FM 3-19.4, Military Police Leaders' Handbook, 4 March 2002 - html format (http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-19.4/toc.htm)

21. FM 3-05.30, Psychological Operations, 19 June 2000 - not approved for public release

22. FM 33-1-1, Psychological Operations Techniques and Procedures, 5 May 1994 - not approved for public release

23. FM 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation, 28 September 1992 - not approved for public release

24. FM 19-15, Civil Disturbances, 25 November 1985 - html format (http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/19-15/toc.htm)

25. Coalition Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF-7) FRAGO #749, Subject: Intelligence and Evidence-Led Detention Operations Relating to Detainees, 24 August 2003

26. 800th MP Brigade FRAGO #89, Subject: Rules of Engagement, 26 December 2003

27. CG CJTF-7 Memo: CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy, 12 October 2003

28. CG CJTF-7 Memo: Dignity and Respect While Conducting Operations, 13 December 2003

29. 205th MI BDE, Interrogation Rules of Engagement, unknown date

But which of these provide a private right of action under international law? Or is there such a thing?

Airbornelawyer
05-11-2004, 15:07
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
But which of these provide a private right of action under international law? Or is there such a thing? There is (probably) no private right of action under customary international law. There would have to be a statutory basis. But because of Johnson v. Eisentrager ("a nonresident enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime"), I don't know if an enemy detainee would have standing to bring suit in Federal court even where the court has subject matter jurisdiction under 1331 (Federal questions) or 1346 (US as defendant).

Bill Harsey
05-11-2004, 19:04
AirborneLawyer, I'll take your response as meaning yes, Iraqi non uniform combatants are both subject to and covered by the Geneva Conventions.

The Reaper
05-11-2004, 19:10
Originally posted by Bill Harsey
AirborneLawyer, I'll take your response as meaning yes, Iraqi non uniform combatants are both subject to and covered by the Geneva Conventions.

Not exactly.

IIRC, in order to be entitled to the GC POW/combatant protections, combatants must:

1. Wear a recognizable uniform.

2. Have a responsible Chain of Command.

3. Adhere to the GC themselves.

I think they are missing some key elements to be ENTITLED to the protections, but we may choose to AFFORD them the protections, whether they are entitled, or not.

TR

Bill Harsey
05-11-2004, 21:13
Reaper, Thanks.

Roguish Lawyer
05-11-2004, 21:15
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
There is (probably) no private right of action under customary international law. There would have to be a statutory basis. But because of Johnson v. Eisentrager ("a nonresident enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime"), I don't know if an enemy detainee would have standing to bring suit in Federal court even where the court has subject matter jurisdiction under 1331 (Federal questions) or 1346 (US as defendant).

Is this also true in international courts like The Hague or whatever it's called (you can see how much attention I pay to these things)?

Bill Harsey
05-11-2004, 21:32
Ok, what I've learned here is that this could be more complicated than what the cartoon version of the news (networks) tells me.

The Reaper
05-11-2004, 21:42
Originally posted by Bill Harsey
Ok, what I've learned here is that this could be more complicated than what the cartoon version of the news (networks) tells me.

Sir, I am shocked and outraged to hear that you would doubt the integrity of the Fourth Estste!!

Next thing we know, you will be telling us they propagate falsehoods about Santa and the Easter Bunny.

TR

Bill Harsey
05-11-2004, 21:53
Uhh, I'd been meaning to sit down and speak with you about those guys.

Airbornelawyer
05-11-2004, 22:48
Originally posted by The Reaper
Not exactly.

IIRC, in order to be entitled to the GC POW/combatant protections, combatants must:

1. Wear a recognizable uniform.

2. Have a responsible Chain of Command.

3. Adhere to the GC themselves.

I think they are missing some key elements to be ENTITLED to the protections, but we may choose to AFFORD them the protections, whether they are entitled, or not.

TR Essentially right for POWs*. If they are unlawful combatants, they are not protected by the Third Geneva Convention (Treatment of Prisoners of War). If they are combatants at all, they are not protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention (Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War).

However, US laws and regulations have broader reach. AR 190–8/OPNAVINST 3461.6/AFJI 31–304/MCO 3461.1 covers all armed services. Its categories are "Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees". The EPW definition follows the Third Geneva Convention, as does that of Retained Personnel (essentially medical personnel, chaplains, Red Cross personnel and the like). A Civilian Internees is "a civilian who is interned during armed conflict or occupation for security reasons or for protection or because he has committed an offense against the detaining power." This category would appear to cover a number of Abu Ghraib inmates, especially regular criminals. The last category, Other Detainee, catches pretty much everyone else. They are to be treated as EPWs: "Persons in the custody of the U.S. Armed Forces who have not been classified as an EPW, RP, or CI, shall be treated as EPWs until a legal status is ascertained by competent authority."

I just noticed that the links in my first post go to the same 4th Geneva Convention, rather than 3rd and 4th. The right link to the Third Geneva Convention (Treatment of Prisoners of War) is here (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument)

* There are four conditions for militias and guerrillas to get GC EPW protection (from Art. 4(2) of the 4th GC): (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.

dickens
05-15-2004, 16:11
Being new here, I think the original question was about Bush's re-election. Someone said they never expected Willie to get elected either. I know I'm still in shock about it. I was not shocked at his re-election since my party seemed to roll over play dead. I am worried. But I am hopeful because people just don't seem to like Kerry. He is cold and distant. He's been caught in so many lies I can't count them...but not sure that matters to people anymore. I think the debates may well tell the tale. Everyone said Gore would clean GW's clock and that isn't the way it turned out. I think Kerry will come across as what he is...mean and cold.
On another question: Not being military myself...is it me or does it seem as though we are the only people on the face of the planet that actually tries to abide by the Geneva Convention?

Airbornelawyer
05-15-2004, 22:36
Originally posted by dickens
Being new here, I think the original question was about Bush's re-election. Someone said they never expected Willie to get elected either. I know I'm still in shock about it. I was not shocked at his re-election since my party seemed to roll over play dead. I am worried. But I am hopeful because people just don't seem to like Kerry. He is cold and distant. He's been caught in so many lies I can't count them...but not sure that matters to people anymore. I think the debates may well tell the tale. Everyone said Gore would clean GW's clock and that isn't the way it turned out. I think Kerry will come across as what he is...mean and cold.
On another question: Not being military myself...is it me or does it seem as though we are the only people on the face of the planet that actually tries to abide by the Geneva Convention? You must be new to the Internet in general to think that after 47 posts anyone even remembers the original question. ;)

On the election, since I cannot understand why even a flaming liberal would consider voting for Kerry, I do not understand why he is consistently in the mid- to high-40s. I guess ABB is the only thing that matters to a lot of Dem-leaning voters. So the big question will likely be that perennial cliche - voter turnout. Bush supporters generally are strongly supportive of Bush politically and personally, while Kerry supporters just don't like Bush or his policies. Will ABB be enough of a motivator to get them into the polling booths?

As for international humanitarian law, I would not limit your characterization to Americans, but it is true that the only countries who usually abide by the Conventions' rules are the Western countries whose cultures and laws are such that they would play by those rules even if there were no treaties. As noted with regard to the regulations "Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees" (AR 190–8/OPNAVINST 3461.6/AFJI 31–304/MCO 3461.1), by regulation all services default to the Geneva Convention categories even when they don't technically apply. When the SecDef says a particular category of detainee is not subject to the GC, he is not saying "...so we can hook batteries to their genitals if we want", despite the attempts by the media and international "humanitarian" groups to imply otherwise.