U.S. Troops Accused of Killing Iraq Family

[gurey25]

in the past both guns and ammunition were in short supply
so they had to make every shot count.

thats according to my grandpa
these days somalis subscribe to the Spray and Pray philosophy

[The Arabman]

And now comes news that the young Muslim woman wasn't a young woman, but a teenage girl of 14.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/ ... ?from=top5

[The rebel]

I have seen it. They don't marry underage girls but they rape them and kill them.

Cowards.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Rebel
"They" don't subscribe to rape and you know it. If these guys are found guilty the punishment will be harsh.

[Ina Baxar]

It happens in war.
Why should the US soldiers make the headlines, when everyday the gudhu do the same ?
War is a difficult exercise, it touches me too, laakiin what is rape compared mass killing.
I'm not defending anyone , but I am merely putting myself in that guy's shoes.
Kala saara politics, iyoo the guy on the ground.The guy {more than 1 actually} is gonna be tried by a court.
The difference between us and civilizedpeople , waxa weeyi , civilized peepstake time , and invistigate , and ultimately trial.
Anaga waxa weeyi, "justice expeditive" , wich in the Quran is xaran.
Marka bal soomaley , xooga yar isku noqdo and try 2 stay as close 2 God as you're saying you are.

[The rebel]

[quote="MAD MAC"]Rebel
"They" don't subscribe to rape and you know it. If these guys are found guilty the punishment will be harsh.[/quote]

Well, maybe but they still rape anm kill and accupy my land.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

First of all, they kill those who are trying to kill them. Those who rape, and it's rare, aer punished severely when caught. Lastly, it ain't your land, no matter how much you identify with your Iraqi brothers. And if you crossed the border and claimed it was your land, let's see how long you'd last. I dare you, cross the border, go to Haditha, and try and join the resistance. See what happens. Don't forget to let them know you are Shi'ite.

[The Arabman]

"Why should the US soldiers make the headlines"

Because they are unlawful combatants.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Arabman
Are you now making up your own definition of lawful and unlawful combatants?

Soldiers in an official Army by a recognized state are by definition lawful combatants. What a moron.

[The rebel]

'they' are official terrorist and scum.

[The Arabman]

"Are you now making up your own definition of lawful and unlawful combatants?"

No, not my own ones. Nearly all Muslims and many non-Muslims (Cubans, Venezuelans, Europeans, etc) agree the occupiers/invaders of Iraq are unlawful combatants. Clearly, the occupiers/invaders are in Iraq unlawfully.

"Soldiers in an official Army by a recognized state are by definition lawful combatants."

It doesn't matter; a recognized state does not make them lawful combatants by default. If they aren't occupying or invading a country lawfully, then by definition of law they are unlawful combatants.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"It doesn't matter; a recognized state does not make them lawful combatants by default. If they aren't occupying or invading a country lawfully, then by definition of law they are unlawful combatants."

You just aren't paying attention. Even if the war is illegal, aggressive, however you want to define it, the status of the combatants does not change. So, for example, German soldiers in WW II were not illegal combatants.

Illegal combatants has a LEGAL MEANING. VERY SPECIFIC. It's not just what some dipshits think.

[The Arabman]

"You just aren't paying attention."

You are equally not paying attention. In order to consider the occupiers/invaders of Iraq as lawful combatants, they should have "lawfully" occupied/invaded Iraq. Since they "unlawfully" occupied/invaded Iraq, they are considered unlawful combatants. Go ahead and post a poll asking whether the occupiers/invaders are lawful or unlawful combatants; I assure you most would vote unlawful. I know semantics bothers you, but I equally dislike arguing for the sake of argument.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"You are equally not paying attention. In order to consider the occupiers/invaders of Iraq as lawful combatants, they should have "lawfully" occupied/invaded Iraq. Since they "unlawfully" occupied/invaded Iraq, they are considered unlawful combatants. Go ahead and post a poll asking whether the occupiers/invaders are lawful or unlawful combatants; I assure you most would vote unlawful. I know semantics bothers you, but I equally dislike arguing for the sake of argument."

Again, you are just flat out wrong. It doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 people say it's true. It's still wrong. Unlawful Combatant has a legal definition. Period, end of story. If I took a poll and 99 out of 100 people voted the world was flat, would it be?

[Kamal35]

[b]Unlawful combatant[/b]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An unlawful combatant (also unlawful enemy combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent) is a person who is accorded neither the rights a soldier would normally have under the laws of war, nor the civil rights a common criminal would normally have.[citation needed]

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. "Prisoner of war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant." Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration in particular has suggested that those who do not meet this definition should be determined to be "unlawful combatant." It is opined that by this definition legal protection under the Geneva Conventions is not warranted. Nathaniel Berman in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law observes that by declaring that some detainees do not merit the protections of criminal law, because of their combatant activities, and that they do not merit the protections of jus in bello due to the unlawful nature of their combat, the use of the term in current legal discourse seems "designed to put detainees beyond the reach of any law."[1]

Should there be doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a "competent tribunal" and until such time they are to be treated as prisoners of war.[2] After such "competent tribunals" have determined their status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord detained unlawful combatants the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. Unlawful combatants do retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".[3] This latter Convention also applies to civilian non-combatants who are affected by the conflict and due special protections as "protected persons."[4]

Human rights groups have said that the treatment of unlawful combatants by the U.S. falls short of the standards required under international humanitarian law. There are indications the Bush Administration’s policy of classification and detention of persons designated as "unlawful enemy combatants" is based on a presumption that the Geneva Conventions and Constitutional safeguards are an obstacle in the pursuit of the ‘War on Terrorism’ according to Terry Gill and Elies van Sliedregt in the Utrecht Law Review.[5]

Contents [hide]
1 International law and practice
1.1 Prisoners of war
1.1.1 Persons who are not prisoners of war in an international conflict
1.1.2 Persons who are not prisoners of war in an internal conflict
1.1.3 Combatant who does not qualify for POW status under the Geneva Conventions
1.2 Mercenaries
1.3 Child soldiers
2 Domestic law
2.1 United States
2.1.1 1942 Quirin case
2.1.2 September 18, 2001 Presidential Military Order
2.1.3 Legal challenges
2.1.4 Combatant Status Review Tribunal
2.1.5 Critics and proponents
2.2 Other countries
3 International criticism of unlawful combatant status
4 See also
5 Articles
6 Footnotes
7 External links



[edit]
International law and practice
The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law. However—unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian"—the term "unlawful combatant", or similar, is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.[6][3]

[edit]
Prisoners of war
Main article: Prisoners of war
The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949 (GCIII) of 1949 defines the requirements for a captive to be eligible for treatment as a prisoner of war (POW). A lawful combatant is a person who commits belligerent acts but if captured, would be a considered POW. An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts, but does not qualify under GCIII Articles 4 and 5.

Article 4
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 forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, 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, fulfill 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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews [of civil ships and aircraft], who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country...
...
Article 5
...
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
These terms thus divide people in a war zone into two classes. Those in armies and militias and the like (lawful combatants), and then those who are not. Those in armies and militias and the like have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture and those not in armies and militias do not have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture.

The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" (defined above) cannot be held personally responsible for acts prosecuting that combat, unless they commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. And if captured, they have to be treated as prisoners of war - basically they can be detained (more humane than killing them), but must be provided for, treated with respect, and so on.

If there is any doubt about whether an alleged combatant is a "lawful combatant" then they must be held as a Prisoner of War until their status has been determined by "a competent tribunal". If that tribunal rules that the combatant is an "unlawful combatant" then their status changes to that of a civilian which may give them some rights under Fourth Geneva Convention.[7]

[edit]
Persons who are not prisoners of war in an international conflict
A non-combatant civilian "in the hands" of an enemy or an Occupying Power often gains rights through Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949 (GCIV) if they qualify as a "protected person".

Article 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

If they fulfill the criteria they are a 'protected person' and are entitled to all the protections mentioned in GCIV. It should be emphasised that a national of neutral state, with normal diplomatic representation, in a war zone is not a protected person under GCIV.

But what of a combatant who does not qualify for POW status? If they qualify as a 'protected person' they get all the rights which a non-combatant civilian gets under GCIV but the Party to the conflict may invoke Articles of GCIV to curtail those rights. The relevant Articles are Article 5 and Article 42.

Part I. General Provisions
...
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
...
Section II. Aliens in the territory of a party to the conflict
...
Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.

It is likely that if they have been found to be "unlawful combatant" by "a competent tribunal" under GCIII Article 5 and they are a protected person under GCIV, that the Party to the conflict will invoke GCIV Article 5. In which case the "unlawful combatant" does not have the "rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State". They do however retain the right "to be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention."

If after "fair and regular trial" they are found guilty of a crime then the "unlawful combatant" can be punished by whatever lawful methods are available to the Party to the conflict.

If the Party does not use Article 5 the Party may invoke Article 42 of GCIV and use "internment" to detain the "unlawful combatant".

[edit]
Persons who are not prisoners of war in an internal conflict
Civilians are covered by GCIV Article 3:

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.
...
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
...
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.
...
[edit]
Combatant who does not qualify for POW status under the Geneva Conventions
Under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions can expect to be treated humanely and before they are punished they can expect to get a trial in "a regularly constituted court".

The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was the Luanda Trial as mercenaries.[8]

[edit]
Mercenaries
Under Article 47 of Protocol I ( Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts) it is stated in the first sentence "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war."

On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34 the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention[9]. Article 2 makes it an offence to employ a mercenary and Article 3.1 states that "A mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, who participates directly in hostilities or in a concerted act of violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention."[10]

[edit]
Child soldiers
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38, (1989) proclaimed: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities".

In a 2003 briefing[11] for the 4th UN Security Council open debate on children and armed conflict by Human Rights Watch they state in their introduction that:

In recent years progress has been made in developing a legal and policy framework for protecting children involved in armed conflict. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on children in armed conflict, which came into force in February 2002, prohibits the direct use of any child under the age of 18 in armed conflict and prohibits all use of under-18s by non-state armed groups. By mid-December 2003, 67 states had ratified the Optional Protocol, including seven mentioned in this report (The seven are: Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Philippines, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Uganda). The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child had begun examining governmentsÂ’ reports on steps taken to implement the Protocol. [Articles 8(2)(b)(xxvi), (e)(vii)[12] of] the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) defines the recruitment of children under the age of 15 as a war crime.[13]
On July 26, 2005, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed UN Security Council Resolution 1612, the sixth in a series of resolutions about children and armed conflict[14]. Resolution 1612 established the first comprehensive monitoring and reporting system for enforcing compliance among those groups using child soldiers in armed conflict.[15]

[edit]
Domestic law
[edit]
United States
David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, former US Justice Department lawyers, wrote:

Before the 1970s, the category of unlawful enemy combatant was widely understood and accepted as a critical part of the laws of war. Such individuals do not fight on behalf of sovereign states, have no regular and transparent command structure, do not wear uniforms, do not carry their arms openly and do not obey the laws of war. As a result, they present a particularly dangerous threat to civil society in general and the civilian population in particular. To deter this type of illegitimate, asymmetric warfare, unlawful combatants have historically been denied the rights of prisoners of war and could be severely punished after the most abbreviated of proceedings.[16]
[edit]
1942 Quirin case
The term unlawful combatant has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law[3]. The Bush administration seems to have appropriated the concept of "unlawful combatants" from a 1942 United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin, through which it was introduced into US domestic law.[17] In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
The validity of this case, as basis for denying prisoners in the War on Terrorism protection by the Geneva Conventions, has been disputed.[18][19][20] A report by the American Bar Association commenting on this case, states:

The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, “The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission ... is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States. “ Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin,11 that right could hardly be denied to U. S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all.[21]
Since the 1942 Quirin case, the US signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which are, therefore, considered to be a part of US domestic law. The court cases which are currently making their way through the US judicial system should clarify the US administration's domestic legal position and its international treaty obligations.[22]

[edit]
September 18, 2001 Presidential Military Order
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks the United States Congress passed a resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on September 18, 2001. In this, Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution and stated:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.[23]
Using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"[24] which allowed "individuals ... to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals", where such individuals are a member of the organization known as al Qa'ida; or has conspired or committed acts of international terrorism, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy. The order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely.

The length of time for which a detention of such individuals can continue before being tried by a military tribunal is not specified in the military order. The military order uses the term "detainees" to describe the individuals detained under the military order. The U.S. administration chooses to describe the detainees held under the military order as "Illegal enemy combatants".

With the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan some lawyers in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Aid and in the office of White House counsel Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush that he did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions in handling detainees in the War on Terrorism. This applied not only to members of al Qa'ida but the entire Taliban, because, they argued, Afghanistan was a "failed state".[25]

Despite opposition from the U.S. State Department, which warned against ignoring the Geneva Conventions, the Bush administration thenceforth began holding such individuals captured in Afghanistan under the military order and not under the usual conditions of Prisoners of War [26]. For those U.S. citizens detained under the military order, US officials, such as Vice President ceeb Cheney, argue that the urgency of the post-9/11 environment called for such tactics in administration's war against terrorism.

Most of the individuals, detained by the U.S. military on the orders of the U.S. administration were initially captured in Afghanistan. The foreign detainees, are held in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Guantánamo Bay, Cuba was chosen because although it is under the de facto control of the United States administration, it is not a sovereign territory of the United States and a previous Supreme Court ruling Johnson v. Eisentrager in 1950 had ruled that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over enemy aliens held outside the USA.

Following international criticism, the US has increasingly used other facilities, most notably Bagram in Afghanistan.



IT WAS JUST A CUT AND COPY JOB...