Military Comissions.. Not even enough files to prosecute.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Direct support for power structures and political policies which cause suffering does effect the moral character of a person; therefore political affiliation effects moral character. I consider Republicans in general and Bush voters in 2000 and 2004 to bear more moral responsibility for the Iraq War, torture, and other immoral actions than those opposed to those decision makers and policies.

[Ender]

Direct support for power structures and political policies which cause suffering does effect the moral character of a person; therefore political affiliation effects moral character. I consider Republicans in general and Bush voters in 2000 and 2004 to bear more moral responsibility for the Iraq War, torture, and other immoral actions than those opposed to those decision makers and policies.

If you are talking specific cases like those, then yes. Support for immoral actions demonstrates a culpably immoral character. I was thinking more in the generalities, like "is a Party X supporter more likely to donate to a bum on the streets than a Party Y" supporter. In those cases your reaction is likely to be born our of your moral system rather than your political affiliation. I don't think anyone would argue that people who embrace, say, stoicism or Christian morality are less likely to vote Republican than democrat, but that doesn't mean in and of itself whether they are moral or immoral. That would be a reflection of the actions they take and support rather then the broad definition of "who am I registered with"



And despite the fact that he either needs to get back on his meds or start taking some meds, I'm giving more thought to Dice's contention of a summary court martial delivering a death sentence is moral or not. To really debate it, you would need to establish firmly the facts of the case and see 1) If the appropriate legal system was used 2) Is the legal system moral 3) Was the legal system followed in a just and honest fashion and 4) Is the punishment ethical. Given that the final point is essentially a debate over the death penalty I'd say that is far beyond the scope of what has thus far been presented here, and more deserving of a separate thread. I'm going to pop over to SLAM and create one on it now.

[Graeme Dice]

[quote="Ender""]You know what? No, fuck you. Not because I concede the point - I don't know the facts of that case and thus cannot evaluate if the court martial was conducted in a just fashion or not.[/quote]

Thanks. You just admitted what I lnew from the start, that you think that legality has a bearing on the morality of that action. It doesn't matter whether the court martial was conducted in a just fashion, because the deliberate killing of a human that is completely unavoidable is _never_ the morally correct action. That soldier did not have to kill his prisoner, and thus he is a murderer, and should have been locked away to protect society.

Wheee, no true scotsman! Obama is a left wing politician within the American political spectrum. Care to try again?

Since when does the American political spectrum define the political spectrum of the rest of the world?

[quoteAnd of course such policies are cut and dried immoral vs moral scenarios, and not representative of the shades of gray that constitute the real world, right? And lets not forget, yours is the only system of ethics out there, so it is easy to decide what is moral or what is immoral, it isn't like philosophers have been debating such things for thousands of years or anything.[/quote]

Some policies are cut and dried immoral vs. moral scenarios. Supporting the actions of the right in the U.S. when those policies routinely cause massive avoidable suffering is one of those instances. Have you ever been to, say, Cincinnati and seen the massive slums that make up the area between the river and the zoo?

Yet as a democrat and thus "left wing" within America and your earlier statements, he is on the moral side of things because it is a reflection of the policies he supports.

Nope, political affiliation is a good indicator of morality, but is not sufficient in and of itself. Being a right-winger means that one is almost certainly unethical because the economic policies of the right are inherently unethical, but not being a right-winger does not mean that one is ethical, only that it is more likely. Please don't try and pretend that the converse of a true statement is also necessarily true.

[Thanas]

[quote="Ender""]You know what? No, fuck you. Not because I concede the point - I don't know the facts of that case and thus cannot evaluate if the court martial was conducted in a just fashion or not.

Thanks. You just admitted what I lnew from the start, that you think that legality has a bearing on the morality of that action. It doesn't matter whether the court martial was conducted in a just fashion, because the deliberate killing of a human that is completely unavoidable is _never_ the morally correct action. That soldier did not have to kill his prisoner, and thus he is a murderer, and should have been locked away to protect society.[/quote]

Are you stupid? If a killing is completely unavaidoble and legal to boot, it is a morally correct action.

But in case you merely substituted unavoidable for avoidable, he still is not a murderer, as that would mean he would be guilty of murder, which is a crime. A legal execution is not a crime.

[Graeme Dice]

But in case you merely substituted unavoidable for avoidable, he still is not a murderer, as that would mean he would be guilty of murder, which is a crime. A legal execution is not a crime.

This is what I meant. And the term murderer applies to anybody who deliberately kills another human being, whether they are found guilty or not. O.J. Simpson is a murderer even though he was found to be innocent because he deliberately killed two people.

[Ender]

Thanks. You just admitted what I lnew from the start, that you think that legality has a bearing on the morality of that action. It doesn't matter whether the court martial was conducted in a just fashion, because the deliberate killing of a human that is completely unavoidable is _never_ the morally correct action. That soldier did not have to kill his prisoner, and thus he is a murderer, and should have been locked away to protect society.

So apparently refusing to debate you because you are a troll is an admission that you are absolutely right about everything under the sun, based off your personality. You are one of those guys who, at a party, picks a fight and screams, yells, and berates at the guy ignoring him until the cops show up and drag him away, aren't you?

Since when does the American political spectrum define the political spectrum of the rest of the world?

When you have limited choices holy shit you have limited options. Within the context of America, this being my country and thus the politicians I can choose among, Obama is a left wing politician. SO yes you jackfuck, I support the most feasible left wing politician available to me. Yet according to you, this still makes me a right winger and thus inherently immoral.

Of course, you declared Elfdart to be ethical earlier in the thread. Elfdart is also an American, and also backed the most feasible left wing politician, Barack Obama. But since You have now reversed and decided Obama is a right winger, I guess that makes Elfdart "ethically bankrupt" and immoral as well, right?

Whoops, I'm apply logic again, aren't I?

Some policies are cut and dried immoral vs. moral scenarios. Supporting the actions of the right in the U.S. when those policies routinely cause massive avoidable suffering is one of those instances. Have you ever been to, say, Cincinnati and seen the massive slums that make up the area between the river and the zoo?

Oh, so it's some now. Funny, earlier it was supporting them was an absolute condemnation.

Nope, political affiliation is a good indicator of morality, but is not sufficient in and of itself. Being a right-winger means that one is almost certainly unethical because the economic policies of the right are inherently unethical, but not being a right-winger does not mean that one is ethical, only that it is more likely. Please don't try and pretend that the converse of a true statement is also necessarily true.

ALL WHO DISAGREE WITH ME ARE EVIL! I AM DICE< ABSOLUTE ARBITER OF WORLD MORALITY!

Fuck off troll. You aren't even making sense at this point.

[General Zod]

This is what I meant. And the term murderer applies to anybody who deliberately kills another human being, whether they are found guilty or not. O.J. Simpson is a murderer even though he was found to be innocent.

The rest of the world would disagree with your definition of "Murder".

[Graeme Dice]

So apparently refusing to debate you because you are a troll is an admission that you are absolutely right about everything under the sun, based off your personality.

No, your blatant statement that the legality of the killing matters in determining whether it is moral is what makes me right when I call you an immoral bastard.

Yet according to you, this still makes me a right winger and thus inherently immoral.

No, your statements in other threads on this board dealing with economics makes you a right winger. Your statements in this thread demonstrate that you are immoral.

Oh, so it's some now. Funny, earlier it was supporting them was an absolute condemnation.

Sigh. If people support right wing politicians, then they also support the policies that lead to increased poverty. This should have been easy to understand.

Fuck off troll. You aren't even making sense at this point.

I'm not sure what's hard to understand in the simple statement that while being a supporter of the right wing makes one immoral, it does not necessarily follow that being a supporter of the left makes one moral.

[Thanas]

This is what I meant. And the term murderer applies to anybody who deliberately kills another human being, whether they are found guilty or not. O.J. Simpson is a murderer even though he was found to be innocent.

The rest of the world would disagree with your definition of "Murder".

Exactly. By his definition, if I were to shoot someone in self defence, I would be a murderer as well. After all, I deliberately fired the shot that ended his life in full knowledge of the consequences.


EDIT: I also find it amusing that he first claims this to be about morality and then uses that to argue in favor of a LEGAL designation.

[Graeme Dice]

Exactly. By his definition, if I were to shoot someone in self defence, I would be a murderer as well. After all, I deliberately fired the shot that ended his life in full knowledge of the consequences.

You're right. I was using the wrong definition there.

[Thanas]

Exactly. By his definition, if I were to shoot someone in self defence, I would be a murderer as well. After all, I deliberately fired the shot that ended his life in full knowledge of the consequences.

You're right. I was using the wrong definition there.

Then why do you persist in calling Ender immoral when this whole thread has been about legality? Ender is not saying killing that guy was moral, he is saying it was legal.

[Graeme Dice]

Then why do you persist in calling Ender immoral when this whole thread has been about legality? Ender is not saying killing that guy was moral, he is saying it was legal.

A lawful killing can easily be immoral. As for why I'm calling him immoral, it's demonstrated by this quote.

Not because I concede the point - I don't know the facts of that case and thus cannot evaluate if the court martial was conducted in a just fashion or not.

which he made when we were specifically discussing whether the killing was moral. Whether the court martial was conducted in a just fashion is immaterial to whether the killing was moral. It was immoral because it was not necessary, thus any argument about the legality is nothing more than a smokescreen.

[Thanas]

Then why do you persist in calling Ender immoral when this whole thread has been about legality? Ender is not saying killing that guy was moral, he is saying it was legal.

A lawful killing can easily be immoral. As for why I'm calling him immoral, it's demonstrated by this quote.

Not because I concede the point - I don't know the facts of that case and thus cannot evaluate if the court martial was conducted in a just fashion or not.

which he made when we were specifically discussing whether the killing was moral. Whether the court martial was conducted in a just fashion is immaterial to whether the killing was moral. It was immoral because it was not necessary, thus any argument about the legality is nothing more than a smokescreen.

Your personal definitions of morality are pretty shaky grounds to call a legal tradition dating back several hundreds of years immoral.

[Graeme Dice]

Your personal definitions of morality are pretty shaky grounds to call a legal tradition dating back several hundreds of years immoral.

The fact that its a legal tradition has no bearing on whether its moral. Legality is derived from morality, and can approximate it, but is the output of the function, not the input. Further, calling deliberate, unnecessary, killings immoral can hardly be dismissed as "personal definitions of morality."

[Thanas]

Your personal definitions of morality are pretty shaky grounds to call a legal tradition dating back several hundreds of years immoral.

The fact that its a legal tradition has no bearing on whether its moral. Legality is derived from morality, and can approximate it, but is the output of the function, not the input. Further, calling deliberate, unnecessary, killings immoral can hardly be dismissed as "personal definitions of morality."

How nice of you to ignore the underlying reasons for the killing. But carry on, I predict this will end up HoS'ed in a few hours.

[Elfdart]

Well Elfdart, though reading your continued mental unraveling now that you have lost Bush to rail against is amusing, having to be the one who deals with it is incredibly tedious. Thus I will no longer be addressing you directly, but those reading the exchange.

Concession accepted.

[Edi]

Well Elfdart, though reading your continued mental unraveling now that you have lost Bush to rail against is amusing, having to be the one who deals with it is incredibly tedious. Thus I will no longer be addressing you directly, but those reading the exchange.

Concession accepted.

You're in no position to accept any concessions in this particular thread, Elfdart, since Ender seems to have more than a few points against you that you have not contested or addressed.

Graeme, you took this thread completely off topic and have been essentially just trolling it. Either address the points directly without weaseling or shut the fuck up.

[Elfdart]

You're in no position to accept any concessions in this particular thread, Elfdart, since Ender seems to have more than a few points against you that you have not contested or addressed.

He did? all I saw was a series of straw men, bullshit and outright lies topped off with his decision to stop debating me. Not that it matters.

Given that in the past five years you have never applied rational thought in any situation where you could instead froth at the mouth, I doubt this change in tone will impact whatever "thought" processes go on in that little reptilian hind brain of yours.

Is there a point to this preamble?

At this point in the exchange Elfdart doesn't have much left. The bulk of the last exchange has been trimmed out, apparently because he had no legitimate rebuttal for it. The bulk of this attack from him is actually distorted BBS coding leaving my reply in, deliberately ignoring a major point of mine to attack me for "not covering it", and flat out lying. Lets wade through this nonsense.

Unlike you, I actually prefer to get to the point of the matter. Cutting the lard out of your little tantrums is a service I provide for the other readers who, if they really want to wade into your garbled prose can simply scroll up.

As I have said before, such captured personnel are afforded the same rights and privileges, but the legal system they would be held under is wholly different. This is the crux of the issue, a point which Elfdart continues to employ a "stone deaf" trolling technique against. POW status is grossly different from captured personnel status in this regard, and as article 5 states the re must be a determination of POW status before they can be processed as such. To do otherwise would be at best a gross miscarriage of justice.

Who decides if someone is a POW or not? According to the Geneva Conventions, it's a "competent tribunal". According to Ender, a military officer can decide on his own and shoot a handcuffed prisoner on a city street -without any legal proceedings whatsoever! I brought up the famous shooting from Vietnam because Shep said that such shootings are legal for American troops. I asked for proof of that statement, at which point Ender joined in to start flinging his monkeyshit in every direction.

Here's what I wrote:

They took up arms to defend the government of their host country. To the extent that they joined with the Taliban's forces, they would meet the standard.If a competent tribunal found that they hadn't, or they didn't meet the other criteria, they wouldn't. But a tribunal makes that decision.

And here's Ender's attempt to strawman by twisting the plain meaning of what I wrote:

Here again Elfdart applied "stone deaf", coupled with argumentum ad nauseum. He thinks that repeating that Al-Queda operatives are POWs makes it true. This is not the case. Elfdart is well aware of the criteria required by Article 4, clause 6 as he quoted it himself.

(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.

It takes a truckload of gall to accuse me of lying when Ender deliberately misinterprets what I wrote in plain English. But then, he is getting owned (as he always does when he tangles with me, by the way) and he knows it. I took the liberty of bolding in red the part of what I wrote earlier that he chooses to ignore. This isn't Ender cutting out fatty prose for the sake of the reader, it's just his dishonesty boiling to the surface. I said that Al-Queda members were POWs unless it was determined that they weren't through due process. I even mentioned grounds under which they wouldn't qualify as POWs. Ender twists this around into some kind of special pleading on behalf of Al-Queda members who didn't qualify.

It's the equivalent of one person pointing out that a man is considered mentally fit to stand trial unless and until a pre-trial hearing determines that he isn't; and some asshole starts shrieking that the first person thinks all defendants are sane whether they are or not. It's stupid and dishonest. And it's pure Ender. Want to see more of his bullshit?

I quoted from the Third Geneva Convention:

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

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.

and added:

You're a POW until you've been determined not to be one by a competent tribunal. Learn to read.

Then Ender, in a classic example of his knack for bullshitting:

Here we have selective quoting. A long time favorite of creationists, hoaxsters, trolls and other idiots, it is about all Elfdart has to fall back on. Here he presents article 5 of the Hague convention of 1907 and presents it as the definitive ruling on the matter. The dishonesty here should be self evident - Article 5 of the 1949 Geneva convention revised and expanded on this. Elfdart is well aware of this, having quote it earlier in the thread. But the current laws disprove his claims, so he tries to pass off the older ones as current. Yet he actually manages to outdo himself with this magnificent piece of lying later. In any event, here again is Article 5 of the 1949 convention.

In point of fact, I wasn't quoting the Hague Convention. The quote above is from the Third Geneva Convention (you know -the one that describes who is protected as a POW and who isn't). But then, facts are of little use to Ender when he gets his panties in a wad.

And yet, ladies and gentlemen, legal scholars do not agree on this one.

You can find legal scholars to argue for or against almost anything. As a practical matter, whoever has legal custody of the suspect gets to try them or hand them over to other venues to be tried. Apparently, this is too complicated for Ender to comprehend.

Attempts to simultaneous apply rulings on confidential information restriction and constitutional legal proceedings have been roundly struck down by the courts.

That's not a problem with the courts or the law as much as a problem with attorneys trying to skirt the law and no one in the judiciary having the backbone necessary to call their bluff. If evidence is so top secret that it can't be used for prosecution or defense, then (in a just ruling) the defendant gets off since the state has possession of the evidence and either cannot or will not produce it.

Edi, you're right: he kinda sorta made a fraction of a point here.

There is no system in place to prosecute said terrorists that does not result in double jeopardy.

Tell that to the numerous "terrorists" who sit in federal prison after being tried and convicted in federal courts. Tell it to Terry Nichols, who was convicted in state and federal courts for the Oklahoma City Bombing.

There are no agreements in place for the transference of prisoners between powers with divergent opinions on justice (eg death penalty states vice those that forbid it).

Really? Didn't the French hand over Ira Einhorn?

There is no agreement on the appropriate court to try criminals in. In short, to claim that there is a legal framework in place is not only false, but deliberately denies decisions that have rebuked the Bush administrations attempts to apply multiple legal rulings at once with the end result of violating due process.

In US law, the federal government takes precedence over state prosecution. It's been settled law for over a hundred years. If one country has a suspect in custody, they get to decide (within treaty obligations) if they'll try the defendant themselves or extradite or do nothing. I guess the fact that we have extradition treaties with many countries slipped your mind. What's so complicated about that?

At this point, Ender is getting desperate and starts groping for anything to toss at me. Ender thinks extrajudicial killing of prisoners is legal, as in the case of the shooting in the picture. As it turns out the officer is a South Vietnamese officer. But since the subject of the thread is what Americans are allowed to do with prisoners, I wrote:

Leaving aside the fact that this is an ARVN officer and not one from the US, show me where under the UCMJ an officer is allowed to carry out a shooting like this one. Contrary to your claims, a

As usual, Ender misses by a mile.

Here Elfdart deliberately ignores a clarification I supplied to have grounds to attack me. This is of course in violation of board rules.

I didn't ignore it, I mentioned it you lying fucktard. You claimed (with no evidence to support your claim) that this ARVN officer acted within the law. I got the impression that you thought he had acted legally (or would have if he had been an American soldier) when you wrote:

That incident was a legal execution for a spy/saboteur under article 106, as metted out by a summary court martial by the officer in charge.

So you think a shooting like this one would've been legal if an American officer had done it.

And thus we continue to see what a truly dishonest piece of shit Elfdart is. Beyond his selective quoting, wall of ignorance, refusal to address points, and to brazenly lie ignore an entire post dealing with a topic he attacks me on, here he intentionally lies. The topic of discussion is that of a courts martial, covered under Articles 16 and 22.

The topic is whether American servicemen can kill prisoners out of hand as the ARVN officer in the photo did. You claimed (falsely) that Loan had carried out a lawful killing after a summary court martial. Then you started caviling, that Loan wasn't an American officer.

The point is, NONE of those courts-martial allows for prisoners to be killed in that manner. Not Summary, not General, not Special. Even the worst of the military commissions called for by Dubya doesn't allow shooting a handcuffed prisoner in cold blood without so much as a hearing.

But according to Ender, it's dishonest to bring up these facts and others when he's lying full throttle.

Elfdart doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, much less is he competent to discuss the UCMJ, and much less with someone who dealt with it daily for the better part of a decade.

Appeal to Authority, I love it.

But despite being an utter failure, Elfdart still has, for some bizarre reason, pride. And his pride won't let him admit to being wrong. So when it is pointed out that Articles 16 and 22 define the Court-Martial Jurisdiction and Composition, which defeats his claims, he cannot admit to it. So what does he do? He quotes Article 15, on Non Judicial Punishment, and then claims that it is Article 16.

Where to start? One, I quoted from an attorney's web page, which didn't mention which article of the UCMJ the quote came from, as anyone who bothered to click the link can tell. Second, a Summary Court Martial can't hand out a death sentence. Period:

820 ART. 20. JURISDICTION OF SUMMARY COURTS-MARTIAL
Subject to section 817 of this title (article 17), summary courts-martial have jurisdiction to try persons subject to this chapter, except officers, cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman, for any noncapital offense made punishable by this chapter. No person with respect to whom summary courts- martial have jurisdiction may be brought to trial before a summary court- martial if he objects thereto. If objection to trial by summary court- martial is made by an accused, trial may be ordered by special or general court-martial as may be appropriate. Summary courts-martial may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter except death, dismissal, dishonorable or bad- conduct discharge, confinement for more than one month, hard labor without confinement for more than 45 days, restrictions to specified limits for more than two months, or forfeiture of more than two-thirds of one month's pay.

So Ender is caught in two lies in paragraph. Par for the course for this lying twat.

This is beyond trolling, this is straight up no balls lying.

On your part it certainly is.

"By a military commission" includes summary court martial, thus demonstrating again that Elfdart is a blustering fuckup.

Really?

As to where it is allowed, I will now do something Elfdart is so loath to do, and tell the truth.

I guess there's a first time for everything.

ART. 19. JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

Subject to section 817 of this title (article 17), special courts-martial have jurisdiction to try persons subject to this chapter for any noncapital offense made punishable by this chapter and, under such regulations as the President may prescribe, for capital offenses. Special courts-martial may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter except death, dishonorable discharge, dismissal, confinement for more than six months, hard labor without confinement for more than three months, forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds pay per month, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months. A bad-conduct discharge may not be adjudged unless a complete record of the proceedings and testimony has been made, counsel having the qualifications prescribed under section 827(b) of this title (article 27(b)) was detailed to represent the accused, and a military judge was detailed to the trial, except in any case in which a military judge could not be detailed to the trial, the convening authority shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the record, stating the reason or reasons a military judge could not be detailed.

Watch those goalposts fly! For all your professed expertise on the subject, you might try reading the fucking thing. Article 19 refers to a Special Court Martial not a Summary Court Martial. In any event, no form of court martial in US law allows for killing prisoners out of hand.

That's Ender for you: he lies, he whines, he flails about...

...and still gets owned. What a pitiful schmuck.

[Edi]

Elfdart, seems to me that you miss his point without understanding it, even if you have points of your own.

The status of being a POW vs being just a captured civilian AND the treatment of captured POWs and civilians. Those are two different matters. Ender's argument focuses on the first, your argument focuses on the latter.

Ender says captured people are not considered POWs before being determined to be so, meaning that unless they are determined to be POWs, they go before a civilian court and if POWs, are subject to military courts.

You talk about how they should be treated on capture and after it, from what I can see. This is a point Ender never even contested, at least if I'm reading this thread correctly. As far as it goes, both classes of prisoners should be treated the same (according to the conventions) while their status is yet to be determined and once it is, they are dealt with by the appropriate authority.

I'm not sure if you are both inadvertently or intentionally confusing the distinction between the two arguments, or if it's a mixture of the two, fueled by your dislike of each other. It is actually a fairly easy mistake to make, especially in light of the past eight years of Bush administration conduct related to this. I have to admit that I could easily have made a similar mistake myself if my own time as a conscript had not been in a military police company, where this sort of thing was thoroughly drilled into our heads.

Do you think there is anything to this? Or am I wrong in your opinion to interpret events this way?

[Elfdart]

Elfdart, seems to me that you miss his point without understanding it, even if you have points of your own.

The status of being a POW vs being just a captured civilian AND the treatment of captured POWs and civilians. Those are two different matters. Ender's argument focuses on the first, your argument focuses on the latter.

Ender says captured people are not considered POWs before being determined to be so, meaning that unless they are determined to be POWs, they go before a civilian court and if POWs, are subject to military courts.

Those are two separate issues. For example:

The Marines storm a warehouse where the enemy is stationed. They round up twenty people who are inside. Ten are clearly soldiers (uniforms, insignia, the works), six aren't in uniform but have weapons on them or with them. The other four are Bill O'Reilly and his camera crew from Fox News.

Now, let's be generous here and assume that your characterization of Ender's position is right. According to Ender, O'Reilly and his crew are not to be treated like POWs. They are simply civilians who were caught up in the action, as would civilians who found themselves detained by the military in any number of ways would be treated. A fair point, but one that has NOTHING to do with the treatment of people suspected of being "terrorists".

My focus was on the six who aren't in uniform, but are found with weapons. According to Shep, they could be shot out of hand, and from what Ender wrote, he thinks they can killed after a summary court martial, which is little more than fiat of the ranking officer on the scene. Apparently, he confused a summary execution, which is an extrajudicial killing (and something the UCMJ does not allow) with a summary court martial (which can't hand out any severe sentence, let alone the death penalty). The Third Geneva Convention is clear: they are to be treated as POWs until due process (which does not exist at Guantanamo) determines that they aren't. There's a reason for this. Those six could be civilians pressed into service (cooks, cleaning staff, nurses) just as easily as they could be spies and saboteurs. They could even be soldiers in their pajamas. But according to Shep, they can be capped on the spot; and according to Ender they can be capped after a summary court martial. Both are wrong.

You talk about how they should be treated on capture and after it, from what I can see. This is a point Ender never even contested, at least if I'm reading this thread correctly. As far as it goes, both classes of prisoners should be treated the same (according to the conventions) while their status is yet to be determined and once it is, they are dealt with by the appropriate authority.

If you're right about Ender's position, then we were arguing about separate issues -but the issue I was talking about is actually relevant to the thread. Of course the military will end up with custody over people during a war who are nothing more than civilians caught up in the action. Obviously, these people aren't to be treated as POWs since they had nothing to do with the fighting. But that sure as hell wouldn't entitle the troops on the scene to shoot Bill O'Reilly and his crew (tempting though it may be). That's entirely different from the case of the people locked up in Guantanamo and elsewhere who are accused of being combatants who violated the laws of war.

I'm not sure if you are both inadvertently or intentionally confusing the distinction between the two arguments, or if it's a mixture of the two, fueled by your dislike of each other. It is actually a fairly easy mistake to make, especially in light of the past eight years of Bush administration conduct related to this. I have to admit that I could easily have made a similar mistake myself if my own time as a conscript had not been in a military police company, where this sort of thing was thoroughly drilled into our heads.

All I did was look up the claim and look up the wording of the law. The great thing about the GCs and the UCMJ is that one doesn't need semesters of Latin and legalese to understand them since they were written in the plainest language possible. I learned this lesson the hard way a few years ago when I said (based on what I had heard somewhere) that it's against the law to use 50-caliber machineguns against personnel. Either Ma Deuce or Sea Skimmer (I can't remember which one) corrected me and pointed out that those laws only applied to explosive or incendiary rounds. So when someone claims that certain prisoners can be summarily shot (as Yellow Rain Man did) or shot after summary court martial (as Ender did), I looked it up.

Do you think there is anything to this? Or am I wrong in your opinion to interpret events this way?

I don't know. Even if you put the best face on Ender's argument, he's still wrong as well as being off-topic. If he was talking only about people who clearly aren't combatants of any kind, then he's right as far as that goes. The only way that would be relevant where Guantanamo is concerned is if he assumes that most of the people caged in that place weren't combatants of any sort (regulars, militiamen or partisans without uniforms). In that case, he's right. More importantly, people who never took part in combat shouldn't be locked up at all, whether in Cuba or arywhere else.

[Ekiqa]

But in case you merely substituted unavoidable for avoidable, he still is not a murderer, as that would mean he would be guilty of murder, which is a crime. A legal execution is not a crime.

This is what I meant. And the term murderer applies to anybody who deliberately kills another human being, whether they are found guilty or not. O.J. Simpson is a murderer even though he was found to be innocent because he deliberately killed two people.

Murder only applies when the killing is illegal and criminal. If it is a legal killing, then it is NOT murder.