Since Bush declared a war on terror, why did he call the prisoners "enemy combatants"?

Question

Why not "prisoners of war"?

Anything to do with the violation of international law and the geneva conventions?

Also, did anyone attend the recent funeral of habeus corpus?

"Well they weren't friendly combatants" . . . hehe, good one . . .

"Who do you want to protect, suspected terrorists or your fellow Americans?"

My fellow Amercans - especially the troops who are probably going to be treated the same way as captives as we treat our enemies.

"As for habeus corpus, it is alive and well... if you are an American Citizen. Since when should *foreign* enemy combatants be rewarded with the same rights you and I have?"

Since around 1200 CE, they have been at least offered the right to freedom from arbitrary imprisonment by any state.

I imagine the US wouldn't like it if US citizens who were in foreign countries start to be jailed for no reason and held indefinitely with no legal recourse.

"First off, to be a prisoner of war you have to be fighting under the flag of a country. These people were/are fighting for a cause, not a specific country."

Have you actually read the Geneva Convention?
We are basically talking about people taken prisoner in Afghanistan and in Iraq . . .Numerous articles apply, however, two may be most relevant:

4.1.6 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.

(Article 5): "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

I stand corrected - it should be "Habeas Corpus"

Answer 1

Of course--it has everything to do w/ internat'l law. You see, the Geneva Conventions spell out the rights of "prisoners of war". "Enemy combatants" & "detainees" are terms not used within the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, using such terms as the label for those captured denies them coverage from the Geneva Conventions.

As for the suspension of habeus corpus, Republican & Democratic lawmakers agree that if the law is reviewed by the Supreme Court, the provision suspending habeus corpus will surely be struck down. Of course, there is always the problem of the fact that the Supreme Court can only review cases brought to it--they can't just decide they don't like the law, & yes, i attended the funeral.

Answer 2

First off, to be a prisoner of war you have to be fighting under the flag of a country. These people were/are fighting for a cause, not a specific country.

As for habeus corpus, it is alive and well... if you are an American Citizen. Since when should *foreign* enemy combatants be rewarded with the same rights you and I have?

Who do you want to protect, suspected terrorists or your fellow Americans?

Answer 3

Yes that is exactly the reason. By declaring them "prisoners of war" he would had had to treat them in accordance with the geneva convention. Realizing that the enemy has not, is not, and will not treat prisoners as such, he felt that there was no reason to use it, their logic being that it is okay to break the rules if the enemy isn't following them anyway. In fact, countries that did not sign the geneva convention are not bound by it anyway and obviously bush figured that our hands should not be tied by it. While I understand the reasoning....I can only say this, "If you become like your enemy then you BECOME your enemy."

Habeus corpus. THAT has been dead for a long time...in truth the funeral of which you speak was only the official acknowledgement that it hasn't actually existed for several years....but then why shoulod it...after all the forth amendment hasn't existed in decades...ever since the introduction of the concept of "probable cause". Basically, if a cop thinks you did something, they can search you or your premisis without a warrend take you nto custody and keep you until you tell them what they want to hear...and they can get it by any means they want...guess the terrorists win after all, they got the AMERICAN government to turn on its own people, treat US like criminals when we didn't do anything at all...(been to an ariport lately...).beleive me the next to go is free speech...(freedom of religion has been gone for decades as well...)

Answer 4

Because to be a prisoner of war by the Geneva Convention you have to a member of another countries armed forces. The terrorist's are not soldiers of any country, do not represent any countries army, and are not in a recognizable uniform, so they are not due the protection of the Geneva Accord. By the standards of the Geneva Convention we can and SHOULD shoot them when captured. That is what would have happened in WWI, WW II, Korea, etc..etc.. As for Habeus Corpus as you put it, that is only a protection for American Citizens, and the American Citizens that have been captured are getting their day in court and are getting court appointed lawyers. The Terrorist's are the ones in complete violation of international law.

Answer 5

Just to put it nicely. Not to upset anyone. Why not 'prisoners of war? That term was used during the different world wars.

It probably has to do with the violation of international law and the Geneva conventions.

Answer 6

You know, the electorate gets all worked up about Congressman Foley's indiscretions (especially red-staters), but possibly the darkest day in our history was when that mu'fcuka deleted Habeas Corpus.
Hardly anyone realizes.
(Hey, I think the Repulsicans are controlling Yahoo Answers. The spell check won't accept "Habeas" [or your "habeus"] as legitimate!!).

Answer 7

If they are described as prisoners of war then they would be entitled to certain rights, unfortunately Bush's advisors found a linguistic loophole to get around this. Just look at the human rights violations at Gitmo.

Answer 8

i imagine we will be more effective perfect off if we were quite struggling with a warfare on terror. We now comprehend Al-Quaida is alive and prospering in Pakistan, I have a buddy struggling with the Taliban in Afghanistan, in spite of the indisputable fact that the President insists that Iraq is the position almost all of our forces must be and that is the position the priority is. Please!! the guy referred to as for a warfare on terror, yet typically asks the Israelis to proceed to be calm even as self proclaimed terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, and Hamas attack them. As on your aspect about Palestinians, sure, they do have a correct to a native land. Their militant terrorist factions do not have a correct to kill the chance free to get it. (You confirmed problem for chance free Muslims on your question- do you've problem for chance free Israelis?) as far as even if the U.S. has a correct to interfere with politics contained in the Arab international, if those arab countries are hiding, funding, or helping any crew that declares themselves terrorists than sure. i'm one hundred% for the warfare on terror- I in basic terms desire we were struggling with it.

Answer 9

To complicate matters more, it's a war on an abstract noun! So, just who/what are we fighting??

As for the funeral, my condolences...

Answer 10

Well they weren't friendly combatants