ATTENTION ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS

[sgreger1]

I agree with that. I don't agree with internationalism, and globalism, or capitalism played in that stage. That's why I tend to agree more with the nationalistic ideals of Fascism, Stalinism, NS, and Juche.

Oooh, okay I think i'm getting the picture. Well me and you are in the same boat. i'm not all about fascism by a long shot but I am about nationalism, in the sense that one needs to remember that you were born in your country, be proud of it, and make sure to keep your side of the street clean so that the country may prosper. because when it prospers, than you do. Kind of like an ultra-patriot.

But oo often evil government forces use patriotism and nationalism to promote their won agenda. We here in America were ment to be different. A gov of the people, by the people, and for the people. The dems/reps idea of us all trying to emulate europe and be homies with the UN is contrary to everything we fought for in the past.

USA: Quit worrying about what Japan thinks about your "green initiatives", or any other crap. Do what is right, regardless of what anyone says. And remember, politicians, you were elected to make the US kick ass, not pimp us out to other countries agendas.

And now Obama is bowing to China as well... since when do we bow to anyone? I know it sounds trivial but this is what I am tlaking about, we are forgetting our roots. Rugged individualism, and patriotism and loyalty to ones country and the grand project that was created here in the states so many years ago. We recognize no king, no dictator, and no regime as supreme to us or worthy of a bow.

[Skimo]

Once again, you spew a lot of Fox News -esque propaganda at me. I will ask once more: is an Afghani civilian that never targets civilians, but chooses to direct his ire at enemy soldiers, a terrorist or not?

Dip sh*t

L . O . A . C.

Law Of Armed Conflict.

Your question would be answered if you read, you are not contributing to this forum.

However, here is a section of an article you may find interesting should you actually want to contribute instead of simply argue.
Insurgent Status
To get the privileges[20] and protections[21] afforded by the LOAC, i.e. the privilege to kill for military necessity, the insurgent must first prove his status as a combatant fighting as part of a belligerency within the meaning of the LOAC. There are currently three ways of looking at this issue of insurgent status. 1) Insurgents are civilians, not combatants and therefore cannot be lawfully targeted and killed by a U.S. Soldier. This means that the insurgent gets none of the privileges of a combatant and are therefore is not immune to a murder charge under municipal law. This also likely means that the insurgent lacks the capacity to commit a war crime. 2) Insurgents are combatants, which means they must be fighting as part of a belligerent group. This means the insurgent get the privilege to kill for military purposes, but can be lawfully targeted and killed by a U.S. Soldier. Combatant status also means that the insurgent is liable for any war crimes he commits under the LOAC. To receive the privileges of combatant status, the insurgent must show first that he is fighting for a belligerent (which may require a showing of a legitimate belligerency e.g. analogies to other legitimate occupational insurgent groups) and, second, that his actions furthered a military objective. 3) Insurgents are unlawful combatant, the Bush Administration’s view, that places the insurgent somewhere between combatant and civilian. This means the insurgent enjoys none of the privileges (privileged military kills) or protections (civilian non-targeting status) of the Geneva Conventions.
A. Insurgents are Civilians
Classifying the insurgent as a civilian is means that he is not part of a recognized military organization. As such, he lacks the legal capacity to commit a war crime within the meaning of the War Crimes Act of 1996. This is because the Geneva Conventions govern only belligerents and the crimes they can commit.[22] A civilian is not governed by the Geneva Conventions and not liable for the corresponding war crimes. Therefore, the war crimes tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This does not mean that the insurgent is off the hook as this classification renders the insurgent liable for murder in a local civilian court. Depending on the local courts and the popularity of the insurgency, or who controls the courts, this may or may not be an attractive option for the insurgent or prosecutor.
B. Insurgents are Combatants
Charging the insurgent as a combatant eliminates the need for any determination of belligerency or combatant status. In essence, the prosecution stipulates that the insurgent was a combatant fighting as part of a lawful belligerency. Although, depending on the sympathies of the local community, the insurgent may argue for civilian status.
While this may simplify the issues to present at trial, it may also prove to be a politically unavailable choice. If, as in Iraq, the insurgents are viewed by the general public (here and worldwide) as fighting for an unjust cause, there may be political pressure not to concede the issue of status. Giving the defendant lawful combatant status would give credibility to the insurgency as a whole and may create a more persistent insurgency.
C. Insurgents are Unlawful Combatants
In between combatant and civilian is a gap in the law that has been filled by the Bush Administration and the use of the “unlawful combatant” status.[23] The administration has classified as an unlawful combatant any person who participates in combat operations but fails to abide by the rules of the LOAC.[24] As the LOAC currently only recognizes two classifications, civilian or combatant, there are no real rules for how to treat people under this classification. In current practice, an unlawful combatant may be killed but will not enjoy POW status when captured. The Bush Administration has labeled insurgents captured in Afghanistan and Iraq as unlawful combatants.[25] While maintaining that captives are unlawful combatants, the administration has nonetheless treated these people as combatants and given them POW like status.[26]
For the purpose of charging the captive insurgent in this example, the prosecution will likely continue to label the insurgent as an unlawful combatant. This position is not desirable for the defendant as it precludes legitimacy, without which the defendant enjoys no privilege to kill. Without privilege, the defendant has no defense.

Cited http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/cours...gle-spaced.htm

Inform yourself troll.

[sgreger1]

@ Skimo


This is what i've been saying all along. These insurgents for the most part have put both sides in a weird position because the geneva conventions and laws regarding war (LOAC) put them in a weird place since they are technicly not soldiers.


Judge will claim you heard that on Fox news or Glenn beck or something and say that it is illegal for us to kill them and that we are just murdering civilians as part of an empire that wants to take over the world to enforce tyranny or something. I don't even know where he's coming from at this point.