# IS IT IMPEACHMAS YET?Surveillance reserved for overseas?This bug's for you... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 16, 2005, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882 "2005-12-16T07:24:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/121 "2005-12-18T18:06:36Z")
OK, Rice is saying that FISA authorizes the president to take this action. Interesting. I bet he is using the “we are at war” argument. We’ll see if that flies. > [@](#): > > [Rice defends Bush decision on eavesdropping in US](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051218/pl_nm/security_nsa_dc) > > Rice reiterated Bush’s statement that the wiretapping of telephone conversations and other communications was legal and did not violate the U.S. Constitution. > > A 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, makes it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without court approval. > > Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rice said the program was carefully controlled, with a limited scope focusing only on those believed to have links to al Qaeda terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/122 "2005-12-18T18:08:53Z")
OOps. Looks like I jumped the gun on that. Maybe she isn’t quoting FISA. I taped Meet the Press, so I’ll see what she has to say later. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/123 "2005-12-18T18:43:25Z")
Good thing she isn’t quoting FISA, she’d lose. meanwhile, here is a comment by John Yoo. I find it chilling. > **[Entertainment & Arts](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts?track=tothtml)** > > L.A. Times entertainment news from Hollywood including event coverage, celebrity gossip and deals. > [@CalendarLive](#): > > Yoo doesn’t employ the usual rationale for a strong Bush presidency. He says in his book that **it is not the 9/11 terrorist attacks that justify the extraordinary presidential powers he advocates**. In Yoo’s view, the constitution itself gives the president lots of leeway, allowing him to invade Iraq without congressional permission and to **disregard** such **treaties** as the Geneva Convention, which governs the moral code of conduct of war. > > “I’m pretty sure that’s an argument no one has ever made before,” Yoo, 38, said recently with evident pride. Most people, he said, “say the world’s too dangerous and **the Constitution’s obsolete**.” Michael Glennon, a professor of international law at Tufts University, believes that Yoo “sees the president essentially as an elected **king**.” … “What Yoo seems to be saying is that the president has this whole set of powers in matters of defense that **Congress cannot override** ,” said Sofaer, now a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. “I don’t believe there are any powers that the president has that Congress cannot override.” This is the guy who wrote the “opinion” on presidential powers. The Constitution’s obsolete, and absolute presidential power has nothing to do with 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/124 "2005-12-18T19:32:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > OK, Rice is saying that FISA authorizes the president to take this action. Interesting. I bet he is using the “we are at war” argument. We’ll see if that flies. You had it right the first time, John. Rice is indeed invoking FISA. Here is the take on Rice, from an very biased source (at least they admit their bias - how refreshing). However, they do link to an MSNBC transcript. Biased source or not, a full and literal transcript carries some weight. [http://www.crooksandliars.com/](http://www.crooksandliars.com/) MR. RUSSERT: What are the other authorities? SEC’Y RICE: Tim, again, **I’m not a lawyer** , but the president has constitutional authority and he has statutory authorities. RUSSERT: What Democrats and Republicans in Congress are asking, what is the authority that you keep citing? What law? What statute? Where in the Constitution does it say that the President can eavesdrop, wiretap American citizens without a court order? RICE: Tim, the President has authorities under **FISA** which we are using and using actively. He also has authorities that derive from his role as Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country. He has acted within his constitutional authority and within statutory authority. Now, **I am not a lawyer** and I am quite certain that the Attorney General will address a lot of these questions. So Rice is trying to school us all on the law, but I can almost guarantee she doesn’t even know what the law says. She also repeats the “he is protecting us” talking point. She covers herself by repeating “I am not a lawyer”. I want to hear a valid opinion from a disinterested third party who is neutral, and who IS a lawyer. Full transcript: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/) Video: [http://movies.crooksandliars.com/MTP-COndi-Bush-Spys.wmv](http://movies.crooksandliars.com/MTP-COndi-Bush-Spys.wmv) Meanwhile, BILL KRISTOL is trying somehow to blame even this on Bil Clinton and the NY Times. Talk about obvious and gross misdirection. And, Dana Rohrabacher tries to justify it with smoke and mirrors but was shot down by Bob Barr [http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TSR-Barr-ROHRABACHER-12-16-05.wmv](http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TSR-Barr-ROHRABACHER-12-16-05.wmv) BARR: What’s wrong with it is several-fold. One, it’s bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it’s bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it’s bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order. … ROHRABACHER: Not only proud, we can be grateful to this president. You know, I’ll have to tell you, if it was up to Mr. Schumer, Senator Schumer, they probably would have blown up the Brooklyn Bridge. The bottom line is this: in wartime we expect our leaders, yes, to exercise more authority. BARR: Well, first of all, or last of all, this so-called plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was **bogus** because it had to do with a group of **idiots** who were planning to dismantle it with blow torches. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/125 "2005-12-18T20:27:33Z")
I just watched the Meet the Press interview with Condi. Russert pressed her \*\*very \*\*hard on this question, and she dodged it. She did say that the Attorney General would address the specifics of which statute or constitutional provision gives the president this authority. I suspect Gonzales will be called before Congress very shortly. Good job on the transcripts, **Steve**. Yeah she did say FISA, but also other statutory and constitutional authority (as per your quote). I’m willing to give Condi a pass on this since she is indeed not a lawyer, but only on the condition that we get answers from Gonzales very soon. Soon, as in this week. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/126 "2005-12-18T20:47:48Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I just watched the Meet the Press interview with Condi. Russert pressed her \*\*very \*\*hard on this question, and she dodged it. She did say that the Attorney General would address the specifics of which statute or constitutional provision gives the president this authority. I suspect Gonzales will be called before Congress very shortly. > > Good job on the transcripts, **Steve**. Yeah she did say FISA, but also other statutory and constitutional authority (as per your quote). I’m willing to give Condi a pass on this since she is indeed not a lawyer, but only on the condition that we get answers from Gonzales very soon. Soon, as in this week. Same here. Condi may be as brilliant as some people say, I can’t say otherwise, but she admits she has no legal training. That’s OK. I would like to see this aired out in Congress and on C-Span for all of us to see. I want answers. Simply invoking terror or Iraq, as was tried during the Bush speech would not be good enough. Neither would be the attempt to blame the media (the Times). Straight answers, with no deflection, avoidance, or attacks. Just the facts and the law. Somehow though, I don’t think we’ll get that. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/127 "2005-12-18T21:21:05Z")
I’ve got an honest question. Is it normal for the Sec. of State to address a matter such as this one? Isn’t this a domestic issue? Where’s Bush’s security advisor? I just don’t understand why the Administration trumps out the same talking heads all the time. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/128 "2005-12-18T21:53:47Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I’ve got an honest question. Is it normal for the Sec. of State to address a matter such as this one? Isn’t this a domestic issue? Where’s Bush’s security advisor? > > I just don’t understand why the Administration trumps out the same talking heads all the time. I suspect that Condi was booked on MtP before this scandal broke. It would be natural, considering Thursday’s election in Iraq. I wouldn’t say she was trotted out by the administration, rather invited by Russert’s crew. Russert querried her about this because she just happened to be his guest that day. But, this has both domestic and international components since it involves the NSA, which traditionally focuses on foreign espionage. ---
**Author:** ![David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_God_of_Frogs)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/129 "2005-12-19T00:59:14Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Personally, I don’t really feel informed enough about the relevant law here to know whether this is really a big deal or not. I’m not even clear yet that this is really a novel or radically new usage. > > But what I don’t get is the constant re-emergence of this argument that such and such new power (torture-that-we-temporarily-agree-not-to-calll-torture, this wiretap, other sorts of new powers) won’t be used on innocents, or will only be used on illegal enemy combatants, etc. This is a transparently stupid argument. ANY legal power has the potential to be used on innocents or people that don’t actually qualify, especially when the government explicitly reserves the right to remove itself from any legal oversight. If there is no oversight, then it is irrelevant that some power (say, special leave-no-marks-torture) is reserved for a particular class of people. First of all, mistakes are and have been made, in the past and in the future. But second of all, if there is no oversight, then the limits mean nothing. You can take a legitimate soldier in uniform or a completely random unarmed citizen and do to them whatever you wish. You can use your wiretap powers on anyone. There aren’t any limits. That’s what secrecy accomplishes and permits. I pretty much agree with that assesment. The jury’s still out on the question of legality, but the bigger fish isn’t so much whether or not this is legal, but what exactly they’re trying to hide with all this secrecy. Given the issues they’ve raised, that the judges in charge aren’t fast enough in granting warrants, they could have just taken steps - in public - to make the system more efficient. It doesn’t take judges any longer to look over documents than it does national security officials - they don’t put anything in the water fountains at law school. And there’s no way revealing this to the public compromises our national security. I really am not seeing the ‘aid and comfort’ for terrorists in knowing that, if one of your co-conspirators get caught (which of course we would take pains to avoid publicising), you should stop using the phone numbers that were on their computer (assuming you happened to know what numbers they were) 24 hours instead of 72 hours after they got caught. (I personally would stop using them immediately, just to be safe…) If revealing that information is the price of an open society I’m willing to pay for it. Instead, what the administration is doing is bending over backwards to find a legal justification (they still seem to be working on getting their story straight) for things that would _already_ be legal. At the very least, it’s an out-of-character political blunder from a president who’s known for his domestic politicking, but I think this is only the tip of the iceberg. We still don’t know why it is that he’s insisting on such secrecy, and when we find out, it’s a fair bet that it’ll push the president closer to impeachment than anything that’s come out so far. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/130 "2005-12-19T01:05:13Z")
> [@David](#): > > I pretty much agree with that assesment. The jury’s still out on the question of legality, but the bigger fish isn’t so much whether or not this is legal, but what exactly they’re trying to hide with all this secrecy. Given the issues they’ve raised, that the judges in charge aren’t fast enough in granting warrants, they could have just taken steps - in public - to make the system more efficient. It doesn’t take judges any longer to look over documents than it does national security officials - they don’t put anything in the water fountains at law school. And there’s no way revealing this to the public compromises our national security. I really am not seeing the ‘aid and comfort’ for terrorists in knowing that, if one of your co-conspirators get caught (which of course we would take pains to avoid publicising), you should stop using the phone numbers that were on their computer (assuming you happened to know what numbers they were) 24 hours instead of 72 hours after they got caught. (I personally would stop using them immediately, just to be safe…) If revealing that information is the price of an open society I’m willing to pay for it. > > Instead, what the administration is doing is bending over backwards to find a legal justification (they still seem to be working on getting their story straight) for things that would _already_ be legal. At the very least, it’s an out-of-character political blunder from a president who’s known for his domestic politicking, but I think this is only the tip of the iceberg. We still don’t know why it is that he’s insisting on such secrecy, and when we find out, it’s a fair bet that it’ll push the president closer to impeachment than anything that’s come out so far. Excellent. I’ve wondered what all the secrecy is about. Why do prisoners have to be taken to Guantanamo Bay? If everything being done in interrogation is legal then couldn’t it be done in the US? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/131 "2005-12-19T01:36:10Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Excellent. I’ve wondered what all the secrecy is about. Why do prisoners have to be taken to Guantanamo Bay? If everything being done in interrogation is legal then couldn’t it be done in the US? Because torturing/interrogating the prisoners isn’t the only factor in not bringing them to the US. There are other reasons why it might be desirable to keep them in a foreign country. For one thing, bringing them here would put them firmly into our legal system. Remembering trials like OJ’s this might not be the wisest course (can you say ‘media circus’?). Also, it would be more difficult to maintain their quasi status as ‘enemy combatants’ if they were actually here I’d think. I’m sure there are other reasons as well. -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/132 "2005-12-19T02:09:21Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I’ve got an honest question. Is it normal for the Sec. of State to address a matter such as this one? Isn’t this a domestic issue? Where’s Bush’s security advisor? > > I just don’t understand why the Administration trumps out the same talking heads all the time. **Monstro** : Further to what I said above, I really would like to see Bush trot out his Attorney General and have him make the circuit of political talk shows to tell us exactly why this activity is legal. That won’t happen, though. Unfortunately, we’re going to have to wait until January for Congressional hearings. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/133 "2005-12-19T02:30:35Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Because torturing/interrogating the prisoners isn’t the only factor in not bringing them to the US. There are other reasons why it might be desirable to keep them in a foreign country. For one thing, bringing them here would put them firmly into our legal system. Remembering trials like OJ’s this might not be the wisest course (can you say ‘media circus’?). Also, it would be more difficult to maintain their quasi status as ‘enemy combatants’ if they were actually here I’d think. I’m sure there are other reasons as well. > > -XT So? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/134 "2005-12-19T05:20:07Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Because torturing/interrogating the prisoners isn’t the only factor in not bringing them to the US. There are other reasons why it might be desirable to keep them in a foreign country. For one thing, bringing them here would put them firmly into our legal system. Remembering trials like OJ’s this might not be the wisest course (can you say ‘media circus’?). Also, it would be more difficult to maintain their quasi status as ‘enemy combatants’ if they were actually here I’d think. I’m sure there are other reasons as well. > > -XT The more I think about it the screwier your reasons get. There were thousands of German and Italian POW’s in US home country during WWII and none of them had any access to our legal system. So people brought here after having been taken in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else and classified as POW’s wouldn’t have that access either. From the administrations point of view, if they were POW’s they would be covered by the Geneva Convention and that forbids the sort of “aggressive interrogation” so loved by GW, Rummy and Cheney although not necessarily by military commanders. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/135 "2005-12-19T06:20:55Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > The more I think about it the screwier your reasons get. There were thousands of German and Italian POW’s in US home country during WWII and none of them had any access to our legal system. So people brought here after having been taken in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else and classified as POW’s wouldn’t have that access either. You answered your own question…they were POW’s not ‘enemy combatants’. Terrorists are a new breed and ‘we’ have yet to figure out how they fit in…especially terrorist organizations that are nearly quasi-states or at least international bodies but without any sort of recognized government or ‘home land’. Couple that with outlaw regimes like the Taliban and the fact that the GC is pretty muddled about the whole question of non-uniformed combatants/insurgents (the GC still thinks in terms and defines conflicts in terms of states…not in terms of civilian soldiers, insurgents and terrorists) and you have a situation that isn’t even remotely comparable to WWII and the POW’s brought here at that time. If you find my reasoning ‘screwier’ (you wn’t be alone Im’ sure :)) perhaps its not me but the situation…or perhaps you should dig a bit deeper into your own analogy to see the flaws between comparing prisoners of war in WWII to insurgents or terrorists captured since 9/11 with reguards to bringing these folks directly into the US. -XT ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/136 "2005-12-19T06:49:30Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You know, this whole thing would a lot simpler if Bush would just tell us (and Congress) \*\*why \*\*he thinks he has the authority to do this. I suspect, in it’s base form, it’s all old-fashioned IOKIARDI. Which would be simply laughable if it weren’t for all the mindless Bush apologists who eagerly embrace every cock-eyed excuse for the excesses of this Presidency. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/137 "2005-12-19T07:22:24Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > You answered your own question…they were POW’s not ‘enemy combatants’. Terrorists are a new breed and ‘we’ have yet to figure out how they fit in…especially terrorist organizations that are nearly quasi-states or at least international bodies but without any sort of recognized government or ‘home land’. Couple that with outlaw regimes like the Taliban and the fact that the GC is pretty muddled about the whole question of non-uniformed combatants/insurgents (the GC still thinks in terms and defines conflicts in terms of states…not in terms of civilian soldiers, insurgents and terrorists) and you have a situation that isn’t even remotely comparable to WWII and the POW’s brought here at that time. > > If you find my reasoning ‘screwier’ (you wn’t be alone Im’ sure :)) perhaps its not me but the situation…or perhaps you should dig a bit deeper into your own analogy to see the flaws between comparing prisoners of war in WWII to insurgents or terrorists captured since 9/11 with reguards to bringing these folks directly into the US. > > -XT What I was trying to do was point out that your statement that if the prisoners were on US soil they would have access to our legal system is disproved by the example of prisoners who were on our soil but had no access to our legal system. > [@xtisme](#): > > For one thing, bringing them here would put them firmly into our legal system. As to the “enemy combatant” crap, that’s just a semantic dodge to avoid the Geneva Convention. As to “outlaw” regimes, the Japanese in WWII didn’t follow the Geneva Convention but it wasn’t official US policy to torture prisoners in order to gain intelligence, although I suspect there was some indivitual mistreatment for revenge. I don’t buy this facile statement that everything is now different. The world wasn’t invented yesterday. Other countries have undergone terrorist attacks for years without going slightly batty over them. It’s time we grew up and stop trying to conduct our national affairs like a scene from a Clint Eastwood movie. I’m tired of quibbles over terminology being used in order to justify acts that demean the US and make a mockery of our claim to be of a higher order character. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/138 "2005-12-19T13:56:15Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > As to the “enemy combatant” crap, that’s just a semantic dodge to avoid the Geneva Convention. :tired sigh: As has been pointed out on these boards endlessly, they \*\*do not \*\* fall under the Geneva Convention, hence there is no need to avoid it. Read it sometime. It defines “lawful combatants.” They ain’t it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/139 "2005-12-19T14:03:09Z")
> [@furt](#): > > :tired sigh: As has been pointed out on these boards endlessly, they \*\*do not \*\* fall under the Geneva Convention, hence there is no need to avoid it. Read it sometime. It defines “lawful combatants.” They ain’t it. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful\_combatant:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant:) > [@](#): > > Unlawful combatant (also illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant) describes a person who engages in combat without fulfilling the conditions that confer lawful combatant status according to the laws of war. > > The phrase “unlawful combatant” does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII); nor does the word “combatant.” However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. “Prisoner of war” is generally synonymous with “detained lawful combatant.” It is suggested that those who do not meet this definition should be determined to be “unlawful combatant.” If there is doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a “competent tribunal” and until such time they are to be treated as prisoners of war.[1] > > After such “competent tribunals” have determined their status, the “Detaining Power” may choose to accord detained unlawful combatants the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. Unlawful combatants may retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial”.[2] What “competent tribunal” has determined the status of the detainees in question? And were they treated as POWs prior to that determination, as the Conventions require? And have they been treated with humanity, including the right to fair trial, since that determination, as the Conventions require? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/140 "2005-12-19T14:48:01Z")
> [@furt](#): > > :tired sigh: As has been pointed out on these boards endlessly, they \*\*do not \*\* fall under the Geneva Convention, hence there is no need to avoid it. Read it sometime. It defines “lawful combatants.” They ain’t it. Even tireder sigh: They are named that precisely to deny them the protection of the Geneva Convention. As **BrainGlutton** points out a determination by a competent tribunal is supposed to make the call. In these cases the competent tribunal consisted of GW Bush in accord with the advice of John Yoo, aka Shyster K. Pettifogger. If you aren’t ashamed of such an unscrupulous process then so be it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=8)