Newt

[guido911]

Generally not a good idea to take on Gingrich.

[Ed W]

Sorry, Guido, but he's wrong and you know it.  Given that line of logic, anyone who 'wages war' on American citizens should face summary execution.  So Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber, should have been shot in the head on the tarmac as soon as he was taken off the flight.  Likewise, our home-grown terrorists bent on bombing abortion clinics, a MLK parade, or attacking police officers should simply be executed on the spot.  We have the rule of law so a President or a counter-terrorism officer cannot become judge, jury, and executioner.  It works well in the movies and it has an obvious, visceral appeal, but it's simply contrary to American principles.

Again, this is not a matter of right or left.  It's a matter of right or wrong.

[Red Arrow]

Sorry, Guido, but he's wrong and you know it.  Given that line of logic, anyone who 'wages war' on American citizens should face summary execution.  So Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber, should have been shot in the head on the tarmac as soon as he was taken off the flight.  Likewise, our home-grown terrorists bent on bombing abortion clinics, a MLK parade, or attacking police officers should simply be executed on the spot.  We have the rule of law so a President or a counter-terrorism officer cannot become judge, jury, and executioner.  It works well in the movies and it has an obvious, visceral appeal, but it's simply contrary to American principles.

Again, this is not a matter of right or left.  It's a matter of right or wrong.

Where would you draw the line?  Would you have put all the Japanese pilots that bombed Pearl Harbor on trial in US Civil courts if you could get them?  How about the Germans during WWII?  It appears from what Newt said that it was not Prez Obama alone but a panel or group of some sort that determined that this "American citizen" was an enemy combatant.  Were you in the military?  It is possible that a service person could be sentenced to death at a Court Martial.  No jury there.  As I remember it, when I (was forced to, because of the draft) joined the US Navy, I agreed to be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in place of the Constitutional rights of civilians.   Sentencing a person to death without a full civilian jury trial is NOT without precedent.

[guido911]

Sorry, Guido, but he's wrong and you know it.  Given that line of logic, anyone who 'wages war' on American citizens should face summary execution.  So Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber, should have been shot in the head on the tarmac as soon as he was taken off the flight.  Likewise, our home-grown terrorists bent on bombing abortion clinics, a MLK parade, or attacking police officers should simply be executed on the spot.  We have the rule of law so a President or a counter-terrorism officer cannot become judge, jury, and executioner.  It works well in the movies and it has an obvious, visceral appeal, but it's simply contrary to American principles.

Again, this is not a matter of right or left.  It's a matter of right or wrong.

My agreement with Newt on this was kinda difficult since I am anti-death penalty. However, war is war. That's what that American traitor declared on us making him, in my opinion, an enemy soldier and fair target. As for your Reid comparison, I considered him a POW. Not all enemy soldiers are killed. Some are taken prisoner.

[Ed W]

Wow.  Authoritarian much?

So if the President decides someone should die, it's OK with you?  If some sort of committee makes that decision, it's OK too?  So what's the difference between that and the death squads in some banana republic? 

We fought a revolutionary war against a country that used military force against the civilian population, and our reaction to that was a system of checks and balances that has worked for over two centuries. 

[Red Arrow]

Wow.  Authoritarian much?
So if the President decides someone should die, it's OK with you?  If some sort of committee makes that decision, it's OK too?  So what's the difference between that and the death squads in some banana republic? 
We fought a revolutionary war against a country that used military force against the civilian population, and our reaction to that was a system of checks and balances that has worked for over two centuries. 

Wow! A bit too idealistic?  Think every person who ever fought against the USA deserves a civilian trial by jury?  Again, where do you draw the line?  It's not a rhetorical question.

[Red Arrow]

Wow.  Authoritarian much?
So if the President decides someone should die, it's OK with you?  If some sort of committee makes that decision, it's OK too?  So what's the difference between that and the death squads in some banana republic? 
We fought a revolutionary war against a country that used military force against the civilian population, and our reaction to that was a system of checks and balances that has worked for over two centuries. 

Another thought.... What is a jury other than an committee?  How many people do you require to be on the committee?

[Conan71]

Wow.  Authoritarian much?

So if the President decides someone should die, it's OK with you?  If some sort of committee makes that decision, it's OK too?  So what's the difference between that and the death squads in some banana republic? 

We fought a revolutionary war against a country that used military force against the civilian population, and our reaction to that was a system of checks and balances that has worked for over two centuries. 

President Obama gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden as well as anyone else in the residence with him.  Did that bother you?

[heironymouspasparagus]

My agreement with Newt on this was kinda difficult since I am anti-death penalty. However, war is war. That's what that American traitor declared on us making him, in my opinion, an enemy soldier and fair target. As for your Reid comparison, I considered him a POW. Not all enemy soldiers are killed. Some are taken prisoner.

The big fallacy here is what Newt and the rest of the "you-know-who" are trying to convince the country of is that there IS such a thing as an enemy combatant, and that somehow the concept makes legitimate the killing of an American citizen outside of the legal system.  There is not legal entity in our legal system, or the international codes that we subscribe to in treaties.  It is an artificial declaration by the Bush administration that does not in fact exist.  (Same guys that tried to convince you that torture was legal...which it is not.)

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sorry, Guido, but he's wrong and you know it.  Given that line of logic, anyone who 'wages war' on American citizens should face summary execution.  So Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber, should have been shot in the head on the tarmac as soon as he was taken off the flight.  Likewise, our home-grown terrorists bent on bombing abortion clinics, a MLK parade, or attacking police officers should simply be executed on the spot.  We have the rule of law so a President or a counter-terrorism officer cannot become judge, jury, and executioner.  It works well in the movies and it has an obvious, visceral appeal, but it's simply contrary to American principles.

Again, this is not a matter of right or left.  It's a matter of right or wrong.

Newt is wrong, but not for the reason you advance.  (And "guilty under review"??  After the fact.)

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention covers that type of thing regarding someone in custody, which shoe bomber was.  And it applies to anyone taken in custody. The only question is the determination by a tribunal of whether the person would fall into POW status (giving military justice procedures), or civilian status (giving court procedures).

By definition, no one is allowed to be outside of one of those two categories.

Here is Article 3 - keeping in mind this refers to persons in custody (not the above situation).  C and D are interesting.  Can you spell "Gitmo"?


In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

[we vs us]

Thank you for posting that. You are exactly correct.  According to the Geneva Conventions, regardless of whether you are a lawful or unlawful combatant, you are 1) guaranteed a hearing to determine your status and 2) either are guaranteed a military tribunal or a trial under the domestic law of the land.  The enemy combatant status was created by the Bush Administration to keep certain (all?) detainees completely outside the scope of the law. 

The irony is that the Fourth Geneva Convention -- in which international POW law is established -- was specifically negotiated and put into practice by the United States, which at that point (1949), was the pre-eminent world power (the Cold War had yet to really ramp up).  So, for all intents and purposes, we built these international laws, and then 50 years later decided to circumvent them entirely.

And Obama's order for the Bin Laden raid was capture or kill. Not that anyone thought that Bin Laden would be taken alive but at least the Seals' orders allowed for that possibility.  It wasn't (at least on paper) a hit squad. 

[Red Arrow]

The first step to getting POW rights under any law or convention is to become a prisoner, the "P" in POW.

[heironymouspasparagus]

When they are still out on the loose, all bets are off - they are fair game.  Bin Laden, the guy targeted a few weeks ago.  Both in cross-hairs.  The shoe bomber was taken into custody and had an immediate status change - he is subject to Article 3.  THEN the determination is made whether POW or civilian courts apply.  But a final determination must be made before final disposition of the case can be done.

Gitmo - undefined...still.  But until their status is determined by some legal tribunal or other legal method, they are still subject to Article 3.  And that is just another point where the Bush administration failed so miserably.

[guido911]

The first step to getting POW rights under any law or convention is to become a prisoner, the "P" in POW.

Yep. Because there's a chance the enemy may become KIA.

http://www.hark.com/clips/ckpsqgxgxq-excuse-me-sir-seeing-as-how-the-vp-is-such-a-vip-shouldnt-we-keep-the-pc-on-the-qt-because-if-it-leaks-to-the-vc-you-could-end-up-an-mia-and-then-wed-all-be-put-on-kp

[Ed W]

President Obama gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden as well as anyone else in the residence with him.  Did that bother you?

Was Bin Laden an American citizen?

Yet our president ordered the death of a citizen, attacking him with a Predator drone strike.  Sure, he was likely an enemy of the US, but American citizens still retain their legal rights.  This is no different from taking him out on the White House lawn and putting a bullet in his head.