Lindsey Graham Says NYC Terrorist Must Be Considered...

[sid]

...AN ENEMY COMBATANT UNDER THE RULES OF WAR! What the hell is going on? Really? He wasn't wearing any uniform. To what army did he belong?

Gaham is a US Senator and sides with the terrorists? He is certainly not on the side of America. Just imagine how different it would be if one of his relatives or friends had been run over by this Moslem POS!

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/01/graham-nyc-terrorist-sayfullo-saipov-must-be-declared-enemy-combatant

[Fred]

As an enemy combatant, the terrorist will not have the right to remain silent.

[S.A. Boggs]

...AN ENEMY COMBATANT UNDER THE RULES OF WAR! What the hell is going on? Really? He wasn't wearing any uniform. To what army did he belong?

Gaham is a US Senator and sides with the terrorists? He is certainly not on the side of America. Just imagine how different it would be if one of his relatives or friends had been run over by this Moslem POS!

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/0...nemy-combatant

I thought that if a soldier was not in full uniform her/she could be shot as a spy/saboteur? I didn't see any uniform that I could recognize, just "street" clothes. Our real problem is not with terrorists it is with us. If ANY person states their loyalty is to a recognized enemy I.E ISIL or other's, why not remove them from our civilian legal system and move them to Gitmo and the military? Well meaning stupid people will defend this guy and use our rights against us. Personally I have felt that a friend of my enemy is to be regarded likewise. Until we have a massive kill off, such as a city, the National Socialists won't care about a few KIA. 50-100,000 MIGHT change their minds about protecting the U.S., until then nothing will happen. Too much chance of offending or hurting someone's feelings as we need to be inclusive of all people.
Sam

[Art]

Partisans and Guerillas who do not wear a uniform, are "illegal combatants" and have very limited rights under the Geneva and Hague conventions. This is why no Nazis were ever charged with war crimes for executing out of uniform combatants taken "in arms" against them. Graham, I assume means illegal enemy combatant. As such this yo-yo can be held until the current conflict is over or, if it doesn't end, for ever without charges. An illegal combatant who is treated as such has no rights in the civil courts and could be tried by a military tribunal without the rights an privileges of an American Citizen for criminal acts...theoretically at least if we choose to treat him as such.

[Dick Hosmer]

...AN ENEMY COMBATANT UNDER THE RULES OF WAR! What the hell is going on? Really? He wasn't wearing any uniform. To what army did he belong?

Gaham is a US Senator and sides with the terrorists? He is certainly not on the side of America. Just imagine how different it would be if one of his relatives or friends had been run over by this Moslem POS!

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/0...nemy-combatant

How is treating him as an enemy combatant a bad thing? I'm not a huge fan of Lindsay Graham, by and large, but every so often, I find myself agreeing with him. ISIS has no uniform, but he invoked membership therein, so what's the difference? As an enemy "soldier" (use of which term insults REAL soldiers) he can be treated much more "realistically" and "practically" than in the civil courts. He wanted to die for Allah - ooops, too bad, he didn't. Now his sorry ass is ours to wring out from which whatever we can, and then keep him alive - hopefully on a steady diet of pork - for a looong time.

While I realize that any such perp must be stopped as soon as possible, the more we can take alive the more we can squeeze info out of, and the more we can thwart their desire for "death-by-cop" martyrdom, the less attractive their path may appear to would-be followers.

[John Sukey]

Bury the perp with a dead pig! Oh by the way, nobody ever said those 40 "virgins" had to be women!

[Tommy]

How about a water board ride ?

Tommy

[leftyo]

if he is to be treated as a combatant, it should be as an out of uniform combatant. the fact isis has no uniform is their problem, not ours.

[p246]

He wants his ISIS flag and is proud of what he did. I hope he gets the needle. I'm pretty sure Graham said he was an illegal enemy combatant. I'll pay attention better when it comes back on the news.

[m1ashooter]

Does this mean they will revoke his immigration status? He has a wife and three kids, I wonder is he has been living on our dime. A neighbor reports he was seen a few times in a Home Depot truck with other men with no building supplies so there probably are more involved.

[ray55classic]

Try the home depot truck driver in federal court where he can be executed,
and throw Lindsay Graham into Guantanimo for being a rino and a mouthy pain in the ass

[Vern Humphrey]

He isn't entitled to be considered an enemy combatant or a prisoner of war. From FM 27-10, The Rules of Land Warfare

61. Prisoners of War Defined
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, fulfil 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.

He clearly doesn't meet the standards set forth above. He is a mass murderer, and nothing else.

[Dick Hosmer]

Gee, Vern, I don't know. He's a wobbler under 61(a)1, and seems to meet 61(a)2. THEY consider themselves "warriors" (even though it soils the term) and soldiers of Allah.

And, how do you know - at this time - that (a) does not apply?

He passes (b) flunks (c) is a wobbler on (d).

Give him over to the military, and let them sort him out.

This is the new reality. Just because there are no longer bright uniforms and blaring trumpets, doesn't mean that formal "war" (even if only declared by one side) does not exist. He considers himself a soldier, and since it serves our purpose to treat him as one (more severe interrogation) why not do so?

Nothing excuses that type of behavior and is then a cause to throw it into civilian law. Is he even a proper nationalized citizen? I don't know. So he has a wife and kids - so what? He should have thought about them. The guy's a monster, who deserves the absolute worst we can give him. He does not deserve (nor does he believe in) our legal system.

BTW, this is the first time we have ever (apparently) disagreed.

[Vern Humphrey]

He's a sordid criminal and should be treated as one -- including the death penalty.