User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 4:49:56 AM EDT
[#1]
"This comes straight from Hot Air"
  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 4:51:32 AM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 4:54:36 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "This comes straight from Hot Air" Hotair.com is legit
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 4:56:42 AM EDT
[#4]
I must have been in this business too long. That actually made sense to me.
Shoot me now. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 4:57:05 AM EDT
[#5]
So even if true it doesn't change anything.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 4:58:37 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: "This comes straight from Hot Air" Hotair.com is legit |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 4:59:33 AM EDT
[#7]
Assuming the information presented is correct, it seems to have nothing what-so-ever to do with the leftist's idea of economic based "privilege," and rather, the fact that they are not granted the privileges of a uniformed combatant under the Geneva Convention. Here's a quick google reference on the same topic, with a few quotes from law journals: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Privileged+combatant
There's nothing at all to be offended about, or to get hackles raised over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:04:35 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I must have been in this business too long. That actually made sense to me. Shoot me now. Why not just call them terrorists, one word, and be done? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:06:24 AM EDT
[#9]
This way BHO can claim that the "war on terrorism" came to an end during his term.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:06:52 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"This comes straight from Hot Air"
Huff Po is on the door to the Left. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:09:10 AM EDT
[#11]
Can't we just call them the bad guys.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:11:06 AM EDT
[#12]
"Sir, today's tally is 32 UEB's and 77 PEB's." "Sergeant, what exactly is a P-E-B?" "Sir, them's the ones what got their virgins today..." Now we can privilege the hell out of some <<Insert COC Compliant Term>>. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:12:59 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Huff Po is on the door to the Left. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: "This comes straight from Hot Air" Huff Po is on the door to the Left. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:13:19 AM EDT
[#14]
Check yo privilege you belligerent fool..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:20:05 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not just call them terrorists, one word, and be done? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I must have been in this business too long. That actually made sense to me. Shoot me now. Why not just call them terrorists, one word, and be done? Because an out-of-uniform combatant calling in mortars on an enemy military base is not terrorism, it is combat. A terrorist is a person who expressly uses violence against a civilian or an other-wise non-combatant-perceived population to force political or ideological shift in the targeted populace. Words lose their meanings when they are misused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:21:13 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: ????? Quoted: Quoted: "This comes straight from Hot Air" Hotair.com is legit |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:23:12 AM EDT
[#17]
Hotair.com has some problems, but it's mostly about Noah Rothman's poor command of the English language.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:29:02 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because I don't take a shitty blog as gospel does not make me some huff po liberal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"This comes straight from Hot Air"
Huff Po is on the door to the Left. We know.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:33:07 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because an out-of-uniform combatant calling in mortars on an enemy military base is not terrorism, it is combat. A terrorist is a person who expressly uses violence against a civilian or an other-wise non-combatant-perceived population to force political or ideological shift in the targeted populace. Words lose their meanings when they are misused. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why not just call them terrorists, one word, and be done? Because an out-of-uniform combatant calling in mortars on an enemy military base is not terrorism, it is combat. A terrorist is a person who expressly uses violence against a civilian or an other-wise non-combatant-perceived population to force political or ideological shift in the targeted populace. Words lose their meanings when they are misused. On the flip side, using bland words is an attempt to obfuscate or downplay the reality of the situation or actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:33:49 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Assuming the information presented is correct, it seems to have nothing what-so-ever to do with the leftist's idea of economic based "privilege," and rather, the fact that they are not granted the privileges of a uniformed combatant under the Geneva Convention. Here's a quick google reference on the same topic, with a few quotes from law journals: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Privileged+combatant There's nothing at all to be offended about, or to get hackles raised over. this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:45:19 AM EDT
[#21]
actually seems like a more precise, less emotionally-charged term.
i'm not seeing the problem.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 6:17:20 AM EDT
[#22]
I'll call those cretin slags whatever the fuck I want , fuck off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 7:38:51 AM EDT
[#23]
But true Americans that want to return to the protections afforded by the Constitution and a dramatic reduction in the size and scope of the gluttonous and wasteful federal government are still considered terrorist's?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 7:53:46 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
illegal combatants ( which means the can be summarily executed on the spot per the Geneva Convention ). Please cite the part of the Geneva Conventions which says that. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 8:00:51 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please cite the part of the Geneva Conventions which says that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
illegal combatants ( which means the can be summarily executed on the spot per the Geneva Convention ). Please cite the part of the Geneva Conventions which says that. It's not in the Geneva convention. It's an often repeated urban legend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 8:04:22 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Assuming the information presented is correct, it seems to have nothing what-so-ever to do with the leftist's idea of economic based "privilege," and rather, the fact that they are not granted the privileges of a uniformed combatant under the Geneva Convention. Here's a quick google reference on the same topic, with a few quotes from law journals: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Privileged+combatant There's nothing at all to be offended about, or to get hackles raised over. Yea, this. It doesn't mean that they're lacking economic opportunity in their country and are therefore belligerents. It refers to their Geneva Conventions Category. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 8:04:54 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not in the Geneva convention. It's an often repeated urban legend. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
illegal combatants ( which means the can be summarily executed on the spot per the Geneva Convention ). Please cite the part of the Geneva Conventions which says that. It's not in the Geneva convention. It's an often repeated urban legend. It should be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 8:28:23 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I must have been in this business too long. That actually made sense to me. Shoot me now. This. The "unprivileged" has nothing to do about their socioeconomic status and merely denotes that they do not fall into a category of prisoner according to the Geneva convention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 8:32:59 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because an out-of-uniform combatant calling in mortars on an enemy military base is not terrorism, it is combat. A terrorist is a person who expressly uses violence against a civilian or an other-wise non-combatant-perceived population to force political or ideological shift in the targeted populace. Words lose their meanings when they are misused. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I must have been in this business too long. That actually made sense to me. Shoot me now. Why not just call them terrorists, one word, and be done? Because an out-of-uniform combatant calling in mortars on an enemy military base is not terrorism, it is combat. A terrorist is a person who expressly uses violence against a civilian or an other-wise non-combatant-perceived population to force political or ideological shift in the targeted populace. Words lose their meanings when they are misused. Like the word insurgent? Ask the average American what that word means, they will likely answer terrorist. Think that is by accident? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 8:33:12 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
actually seems like a more precise, less emotionally-charged term. i'm not seeing the problem. Not all are unpriviledged, why make it an identifier? What problem did you have before? It's less accurate, silly and long-winded......all to appeal to the emotional. If this offends then may be DOD work isn't for ya. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 8:35:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not in the Geneva convention. It's an often repeated urban legend. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: illegal combatants ( which means the can be summarily executed on the spot per the Geneva Convention ). Please cite the part of the Geneva Conventions which says that. It's not in the Geneva convention. It's an often repeated urban legend. They can be court martialed as an illegal combatant and theoretically a death sentence could ensue. That's a long way from summary executions on the battlefield. Unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 8:41:40 AM EDT
[#32]
Sweet Lord, there are people defending this liberal bullshit? We're screwed. Next thing ya know we're gonna have daily meetings for the troops to talk about their feelings...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 8:55:49 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sweet Lord, there are people defending this liberal bullshit? We're screwed. Next thing ya know we're gonna have daily meetings for the troops to talk about their feelings... Quote HistoryQuoted: Sweet Lord, there are people defending this liberal bullshit? We're screwed. Next thing ya know we're gonna have daily meetings for the troops to talk about their feelings... I am a 31E - Internment/Resettlement Specialist - i.e. Detainee operations/cage kicking is our thing. This: (6) Privileged belligerent.— The term "privileged belligerent” means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. (7) Unprivileged enemy belligerent.— The term "unprivileged enemy belligerent” means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who— (A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; (B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter. So let's look at what Article 4 says, and what the eight categories of privileged belligerent is: Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. (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. B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention. We have struggled for years to properly classify these individuals - in wars past, they would have been called spies and hung. However, the phrase "unprivileged belligerent" again only refers to the fact they do not meet the requirements to fall into any one of those 8 categories. It has NOTHING to do with their socioeconomic status. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 8:55:51 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because I don't take a shitty blog as gospel does not make me some huff po liberal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"This comes straight from Hot Air"
Huff Po is on the door to the Left. ouch, sounds like he hit a nerve, must be some truth to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 9:02:53 AM EDT
[#35]
Cue Chef telling the boys why "black folk" word everything so strangely...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 9:11:42 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I must have been in this business too long. That actually made sense to me. Shoot me now. Shoot yourself, we're too busy shopping.........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 9:22:24 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Assuming the information presented is correct, it seems to have nothing what-so-ever to do with the leftist's idea of economic based "privilege," and rather, the fact that they are not granted the privileges of a uniformed combatant under the Geneva Convention. Here's a quick google reference on the same topic, with a few quotes from law journals: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Privileged+combatant There's nothing at all to be offended about, or to get hackles raised over. This. You guys need to check your privilege. So to speak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 9:53:08 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Snip There is no place for that type of talk in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 10:10:39 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not just call them terrorists, one word, and be done? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I must have been in this business too long. That actually made sense to me. Shoot me now. Why not just call them terrorists, one word, and be done? Does it really matter what you call one imaginary hobgoblin from another? In the end, it still keeps the populace alarmed. We can now use terrorist to better describe any citizen in the good ol' USA who is a recalcitrant. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 10:14:04 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not just call them terrorists, one word, and be done? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I must have been in this business too long. That actually made sense to me. Shoot me now. Why not just call them terrorists, one word, and be done? Because they've been separated into two categories, shoot on sight terrorists and coddle on sight terrorists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 2:19:25 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not all are unpriviledged, why make it an identifier? What problem did you have before? It's less accurate, silly and long-winded......all to appeal to the emotional. If this offends then may be DOD work isn't for ya. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: actually seems like a more precise, less emotionally-charged term. i'm not seeing the problem. Not all are unpriviledged, why make it an identifier? What problem did you have before? It's less accurate, silly and long-winded......all to appeal to the emotional. If this offends then may be DOD work isn't for ya. wanna know how we know you didn't read?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 2:35:21 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can't we just call them the bad guys. No, naughty men. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 2:38:46 PM EDT
[#43]
Will this make our military feel bad for using it's technology privilege?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2014 4:44:27 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sweet Lord, there are people defending this liberal bullshit? We're screwed. Next thing ya know we're gonna have daily meetings for the troops to talk about their feelings... lol Nobody's defending it. We're explaining it, since many (yourself included) think this is some feel-good liberal move. Unprivileged means that particular prisoner does not fall under one of the privileged classes of prisoners per the Geneva Conventions. Same reason every CAC has our Geneva Conventions Category number on the back of it. Certain people are granted certain privileges based on their combatant status. If they are not one of these types of combatants that fall under a privileged category, they are unprivileged. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2014 5:44:27 AM EDT
[#45]
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
Find it in the actual publication. I double dog dare you.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2014 11:29:35 AM EDT
[#46]
It means they aren't 'privileged' by Geneva Convention protocols / protections (enemy belligerents are persons the US has decided to treat as under certain Geneva Convention protocols / protections, even though they could be legally treated differently).
It defines their legal classification after capture on the battlefield by US forces, not what they are before capture or what they'd be charged with criminally and it doesn't give them an excuse. Prior to WWI, guerrillas and partisans could be treated under the laws and customs of war as 'francs tireurs' and executed immediately if they were captured by the occupying power. The Maertens clause to the 1899 Hague Convention tried to change that, but only the little countries supported it. After WWII, the finding of US v. Wilhelm List, et al (Hostages Trial) lead to Article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention (1949). Under it, "francs-tireurs are entitled to prisoner-of-war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war". In relation to Wilhelm List, the tribunal stated: We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans...[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs#cite_note-HT-8][8][/url] Article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists (especially the "conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" part), so they have no Geneva Convention protections / privileges, but the US has decided to treat them as though they have some. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2014 11:33:59 AM EDT
[#47]
How about "baddies." Can we refer to them as the baddies?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2014 11:42:43 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Assuming the information presented is correct, it seems to have nothing what-so-ever to do with the leftist's idea of economic based "privilege," and rather, the fact that they are not granted the privileges of a uniformed combatant under the Geneva Convention. Here's a quick google reference on the same topic, with a few quotes from law journals: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Privileged+combatant There's nothing at all to be offended about, or to get hackles raised over. That's how it reads to me, as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2014 11:46:21 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists (especially the "conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" part), so they have no Geneva Convention protections / privileges, but the US has decided to treat them as though they have some. Which is one of the biggest mistakes we could have made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2014 11:53:59 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because an out-of-uniform combatant calling in mortars on an enemy military base is not terrorism, it is combat. A terrorist is a person who expressly uses violence against a civilian or an other-wise non-combatant-perceived population to force political or ideological shift in the targeted populace. Words lose their meanings when they are misused. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I must have been in this business too long. That actually made sense to me. Shoot me now. Why not just call them terrorists, one word, and be done? Because an out-of-uniform combatant calling in mortars on an enemy military base is not terrorism, it is combat. A terrorist is a person who expressly uses violence against a civilian or an other-wise non-combatant-perceived population to force political or ideological shift in the targeted populace. Words lose their meanings when they are misused. Depends which .gov agency definition you are using When I was in school each Agency (CIA, DIA, DOD, FBI, NSA, etc) had their own accepted definition of "Terrorism" |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
