Am I the only one that homed in on the vagueness of "unlawful enemy combatant"?

Before I can say one way or another what I think of this, I want to see a legal definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" that omits "armed and self-defensive persons who are civillians" and "unarmed individuals that give no support to armed combatants, but happened to be in their proximity."

As of yet, I have seen no definition. It's as vague and frankly insipid a term as ever I've seen one.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I think the only thing wrong with the Geneva Convention (ok, theres nothing wrong with that, im just saying that becuase I don't know how else to word it) is that we are fighting an enemy who has NOT agreed to the Geneva convention.

Not only that, but war has change drasticly since the early 50's.


I understand what your saying that HC shoudn't be denied, but I would assume that in a vast majority of cases, I'm going to take the stance that American military personel are competent and compassionate.

I know that you don't agree, and it is true, a vast majority of governments have become tyrannical, but our system of government was established to prevent tyranny from being completely possible.

I guess thats why I put faith into the government

yes our constitution was the best attempt possible to structure a gvnmt so that it could not and any branch therein could not become tyranical/unconstitutional

but it is bills like this that start to widdle away the things set out in the constitution to prevent the gvnmt from behaving improperly.


we have already lost a bunch with stupid crap like executive orders, auth of force, signing statements etc etc...






Creative Draft Art Media Forums