Law

[Adam]

Recently the US goverment issued an arrest warrant (charge of murder) for an Iraqi citizen on Iraqi soil. Does the US government have the legal authority to take such actions on foreign soil?

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17475
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17664
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17663

[Njorl]

When one nation invades another, and dissolves that nation's government, it is required to make and enforce laws until a new government is formed. Not only does the US have the right to make and enforce laws in parts of Iraq, it has no choice but to do so.

Njorl

[schwarzchildradius]

So how does this not contradict holding indefinitely "enemy combatants" in Cuba?

[russ_watters]

So how does this not contradict holding indefinitely "enemy combatants" in Cuba? Not enemy combatants, illegal combatants. Big difference. And most are not Iraqi.

[phatmonky]

Not enemy combatants, illegal combatants. Big difference. And most are not Iraqi.

Precisely.

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

You mean the entire USA Military force in Iraq, right?
They are ALL illegal combatants (except in the small minds of the truly insane).

[phatmonky]

You mean the entire USA Military force in Iraq, right?
They are ALL illegal combatants (except in the small minds of the truly insane).

Woohoo! Dogon, I truly missed you :) Sure am glad to see you haven't left us yet.
Please, prove to me that the Iraq was is illegal in it's entirety, for that is the only way your statement can be proven true. As such, to my most recent knowledge preemptive strike (also coupled with multiple UN resolutions and a failed armistice agreement) falls into a grey area that is apparently so unclear as the UN doesn't know what to do about legal charges.....and are presently leaning on the side of legal, since there is no talk of pressing war crime charges against anyone but Saddam and his cohorts. Please, enlighten us on what you know that isn't being made public to anyone else

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Saddam's War Crime seems to me is that he lost the war.
After all, he didn't authorise the use of Depleted-Uranium bullets (who did that?), he didn't lob any Scuds at Israel this time.
Exactly what is his crime?
Defending his Third World Nation against the naked aggression of the World's Strongest Military Nation?

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

[phatmonky]

Recently the US goverment issued an arrest warrant (charge of murder) for an Iraqi citizen on Iraqi soil. Does the US government have the legal authority to take such actions on foreign soil?

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17475
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17664
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17663


http://www.civicwebs.com/cwvlib/constitutions/un/e_un_geneva_convention_4.htm#Article%2070
You can pick the geneva convention apart yourself. There are guidelines for arrest, detainment, trial, and defense set forth.
I didn't know murder was only against USA law :rolleyes:

[phatmonky]

Saddam's War Crime seems to me is that he lost the war.
After all, he didn't authorise the use of Depleted-Uranium bullets (who did that?), he didn't lob any Scuds at Israel this time.
Exactly what is his crime?
Defending his Third World Nation against the naked aggression of the World's Strongest Military Nation?

I love Dogon!

[phatmonky]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:oyZy7H9gvbQJ:www.usembassy.at/en/download/pdf/iraq_intlaw.pdf+preemptive+strike+international+la w&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

And lawyers that argue against that, and do a great job of explaining how it's such a grey area.
So, again I say, when will we be seeing Bush charged with war crimes since this is illegal?:)

[Adam]

http://www.civicwebs.com/cwvlib/constitutions/un/e_un_geneva_convention_4.htm#Article%2070
You can pick the geneva convention apart yourself. There are guidelines for arrest, detainment, trial, and defense set forth.
I didn't know murder was only against USA law :rolleyes:

1) I just started a thread about it, wasn't able to put everything in it though, so I'll set it up on a webpage.

2) I have thoroughly been through the laws regarding this, here at PF.

[kat]

1)

2) I have thoroughly been through the laws regarding this, here at PF.

Yes, and despite that you still continue to put forth your opinion as fact, even after having it shown to be faulty.

[Adam]

Kat, please come back to the real world. Else demonstrate the veracity of your words.

[schwarzchildradius]

Not enemy combatants, illegal combatants. Big difference. And most are not Iraqi.
no,no, they're definitely called "enemy combatants," and captured in Afghanistan, although some are apparently european and at least 1 american. Somebody made up the term "enemy combatant" so that they could put them in a cage indefinitely. Keeping dangerous terrorists in cages is fine with me, but the problem is that if you never have any due process, nobody knows if they are dangerous terrorists or not-- they become political prisoners.

[pelastration]

Please, prove to me that the Iraq was is illegal in it's entirety, for that is the only way your statement can be proven true.
Better prove us the Iraq war was legal. The proof is on you.

[russ_watters]

1) I just started a thread about it, wasn't able to put everything in it though, so I'll set it up on a webpage.

2) I have thoroughly been through the laws regarding this, here at PF. So....you're saying your opening post was in error? Or maybe I missed your point: what exactly was your point here? It appeared that you were saying the US shouldn't be arresting Iraqi citizens. Is that your assertion? Or is this just yet another flame-bait thread? Kat, please come back to the real world. Else demonstrate the veracity of your words. Irony....meter....on....overload.....Arrrrrrghh... . Somebody made up the term "enemy combatant" so that they could put them in a cage indefinitely. No. An enemy combatant is a legal combatant under the Geneva convention and as such is entitled to POW status. Better prove us the Iraq war was legal. The proof is on you. Sorry, no. That's not how this works. In a political discussion [b]everyone, including you (and yes, even Adam), is expected to back up their opinion with a logical and factual argument.

[Adam]

So....you're saying your opening post was in error? Or maybe I missed your point: what exactly was your point here? It appeared that you were saying the US shouldn't be arresting Iraqi citizens. Is that your assertion? Or is this just yet another flame-bait thread? Irony....meter....on....overload.....Arrrrrrghh... . No. An enemy combatant is a legal combatant under the Geneva convention and as such is entitled to POW status. Sorry, no. That's not how this works. In a political discussion [b]everyone, including you (and yes, even Adam), is expected to back up their opinion with a logical and factual argument.

I hope that little rant made you feel better, but once again you've made a post cnotaining not one actual fact, not one actual contribution to the discussion. Congratulations.

Now for an actual contribution: The laws involved.
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18606
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18607

[kat]

Unlawful combatants....It was first used in ex parte quirin (sp?) when the supreme court confirmed the jurisdiction of a US military tribunal in regards to the trial of the German saboteurs in the US.

[phatmonky]

Better prove us the Iraq war was legal. The proof is on you.

Really? I didn't realize that everything was illegal until proven otherwise :rolleyes: So all the laws created are now goign to be created backwards saying what is legal?

Like I've said, there's already a thead on the first page about this with rebuttals and links.
Again, where are the war crime charges since this is so cut and dry?

[Adam]

It helps to have all the lawyers, guns, and money.

[russ_watters]

once again you've made a post cnotaining not one actual fact, not one actual contribution to the discussion. Congratulations. Ok.... well, you on the other hand have started five threads in the past couple of days and refused to make a point in any of them. Pot:kettle.

Btw, right smack in the middle of that jumbled together quote is a pretty key point to this thread. I wasn't responding to you (since you made no point, there wasn't any point to argue against), but to schwarzchildradius, who though wrong, at least made an argument and defended it.

[Adam]

Russ_waters, the material contained within the posts comprises the topic for discussion. In other words, if the post is started with details of laws, then the thread exists to discuss those laws. Is that so hard to figure out?