Poll

6 votes (30%)
2 votes (10%)
No votes (0%)
12 votes (60%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)

20 members have voted

timberjim
timberjim
Joined: Dec 5, 2009
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 398
March 11th, 2011 at 1:44:18 PM permalink
Quote: P90

1. Even hypothetically, what other clothes would they wear? It was US that invaded their country - are they under the obligation to provide uniforms and insignia for themselves if they are to be afforded the most basic of human rights?

2. There were repeated historical precedents, and they were more common than not, of enemy guerillas being treated as POW.



3. No. Some of them do. Some don't. And other captives still are these non-combatants.

Those who do are committing war crimes, for which they should be tried and punished. This is the correct recourse.

Your approach - "Some guerrillas are evil, so let's treat all captives as guilty" - only serves to punish the very non-combatants that get mixed up and captured in these situations.


Laws and rules of justice, both military and civilian, are not a bone we throw to criminals for being good. They are there to separate the criminals from the innocent. Saying that if a crime is bad enough, presumption of innocence and trial procedure should not apply to those suspected of it is ridiculous and detrimental to the purpose of the law.



1. You keep making statements "that we invaded their country" like the only people we are fighting are natives. Surely you know that Muslim extremists have been streaming into these areas from all over the world to fight the "Great Satan" and kill Americans. "Hypothetically", they would wear uniforms as required by international law to be treated as legitimate combatants.

2. Please provide documented examples of this. It should be easy since you say it has been common. Be sure to include the ones who practised homicide bombings of innocent civilians.

3. You find it necessary to completely alter what I have said to try and make your point. I clearly stated that the terrorists not captured in the act, or with poor evidence should be repatriated.


I find it very illuminating that you refer to terrorists as "guerrillas". I believe this says alot about your train of thinking and falls right in line with the statements you have been making.
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
March 11th, 2011 at 2:19:43 PM permalink
Quote: P90

Not really: Wearing uniforms wouldn't change anything in terms of law, because they are not combatants of a signatory of a Geneva Convention.



Fine. If they don't abide by the Geneva convention, there's no reason to treat them as if they do.

BTW, the GC addresses the issues of civil wars and guerrillas. the Taliban and their Al Qaida pals don't fit either. They fit as enemy combatants, and they're treated far better in that capacity than what the GC entitles them to.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
March 11th, 2011 at 2:32:29 PM permalink
Quote: timberjim

1. You keep making statements "that we invaded their country" like the only people we are fighting are natives.


Most of them are. It's even enough that a lot of them are.


Quote: timberjim

Be sure to include the ones who practised homicide bombings

Wait, what would constitute a non-homicide bombing - would it be, like, "embezzlement bombing" or "lewd and lascivious bombing"?


Quote: timberjim

3. You find it necessary to completely alter what I have said to try and make your point. I clearly stated that the terrorists not captured in the act, or with poor evidence should be repatriated.


Which is cool with me.
The problem is, we have no way of knowing which evidence is solid, which is poor, which is outright fake, and which simply nonexistent. The prisoners are not given trials, and when they are, they are not conducted properly, even though there is a very specific code specifically for military tribunals.

Which is, in turn, why I firmly support proper rights protection and proper trials until guilt is established, and then applying the penalty as and if required - not the other way around, indefinite imprisonment first with charges and trial later and maybe.


Quote: timberjim

I find it very illuminating that you refer to terrorists as "guerrillas".


They are guerrillas, except for those actually involved in acts of terrorism (it would be more correct to say "acts of terror", but terrorism is somewhat separate nowadays). It's not me who is changing definitions. Fighting against NATO does not constitute an act of terrorism.

There is no single definition of terrorism is, but the general consensus is that terrorism comprises acts of violence against civilians intended to provoke a state of terror in the general public, and specifically excludes conventional warfare.

Sending planes into a building is an act of terrorism.
Fighting off an assault is not an act of terrorism.
Firing a RPG at a military vehicle is not an act of terrorism.

People planting bombs in civilian buildings are terrorists, while combatants involved in shootouts with occupation forces are guerrillas. Just because some acts of terrorism were perpetrated by some Afghan and Iraqi people does not make the rest of them who don't support the occupation terrorists.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 160
  • Posts: 9185
March 11th, 2011 at 2:47:52 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

The Nuremberg Trials were held military tribunal style, not in civillian court as you want to have for muslim terrorists. Rules of evidence are different. And everyday German POWs were NOT tried but held until the war was over. Your comparrison to the Gitmo Detainees not getting civillian trials makes no sense.



I think foreigners (bomb plotters and the like) caught on U.S. soil have gone into the civilian court system to be tried. I'm not sure which if any have ever been shipped to Gitmo. That includes the Bush administration.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
March 11th, 2011 at 2:55:58 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Fine. If they don't abide by the Geneva convention, there's no reason to treat them as if they do.


The Geneva Convention does not say you should not treat prisoners from nations that are not signatories or not abide by it in a humane manner.
Germans tried that excuse in WWII, and it didn't hold up in Nuremberg.


Quote: Nareed

They fit as enemy combatants, and they're treated far better in that capacity than what the GC entitles them to.


Actually, no. The Geneva Convention applies a basic set of provisions that apply universally and include humane treatment, which torture does not qualify as.

There are other provisions that the prisoners taken in occupied territories would fall under:


Article 3. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
* violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
* taking of hostages;
* outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
* the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


Article 5. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


Now, one may argue that the insurgents (if there are objections to the term "guerillas") do not carry arms openly and do not respect the laws of war, but that is not true, because many of them do carry arms openly, and as for respecting the laws, it merely constitutes not violating them. And for all cases where there is any doubt, Article 5 applies - such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention.

A large number of prisoners falls outright under Article 3: Persons taking no active part in the hostilities. Those that have not been caught red-handed, such as people grabbed from the streets or from their homes, fall under the protections of this article. Until such time as they have been tried by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees, they are to be treated in accordance to that article, not tortured and imprisoned for years without trial.


These rules are there for a reason. Many of the Guantanamo detainees were kept for years, until even the quick-tribunals discovered that they were never involved in any terrorist activities and there was no evidence supporting that - basically, that they were imprisoned for no reason. Most prisoners still are being kept, without any examination of whether there is any reason to keep them there, since only a couple percent of them received even such a substandard tribunal.
This would not have happened if US followed the Geneva convention both in letter and in spirit, rather than wiggle out on technicalities, nondisclosure, and just plain "because we can".



It puzzles me why do I even have to argue this - even the Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter and concluded that Third Geneva Convention does apply these protections to prisoners held in Guantanamo and that it has been violated.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
March 11th, 2011 at 3:05:56 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

I think foreigners (bomb plotters and the like) caught on U.S. soil have gone into the civilian court system to be tried. I'm not sure which if any have ever been shipped to Gitmo. That includes the Bush administration.


Not yet ones arrested on US soil. But prisoners arrested outside US, Iraq or Afghanistan have been shipped to Gitmo, sometimes via Afghanistan.

There is also Bagram, which is even worse, but much less publicized due to its location keeping the media out.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 219
  • Posts: 11220
March 11th, 2011 at 3:33:37 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

I think foreigners (bomb plotters and the like) caught on U.S. soil have gone into the civilian court system to be tried. I'm not sure which if any have ever been shipped to Gitmo. That includes the Bush administration.



I think that is correct and have no problem with civillian courts for those caught in the USA.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
timberjim
timberjim
Joined: Dec 5, 2009
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 398
March 11th, 2011 at 3:51:06 PM permalink
Quote: P90


Wait, what would constitute a non-homicide bombing - would it be, like, "embezzlement bombing" or "lewd and lascivious bombing"?

The prisoners are not given trials, and when they are, they are not conducted properly, even though there is a very specific code specifically for military tribunals.

People planting bombs in civilian buildings are terrorists, while combatants involved in shootouts with occupation forces are guerrillas. Just because some acts of terrorism were perpetrated by some Afghan and Iraqi people does not make the rest of them who don't support the occupation terrorists.



I don't use the term suicide bomber because I feel it connotes some sense of honor to these animals.

Which is it? You state definitely that they are not given trials. Then you follow it up with the trials they get are not up to your standards.

So now the US Military is an occupation force that the noble guerillas are justified in fighting.

I obviously have strong feelings about this. On 9-11 I was watching the unfolding events on TV with group at work. A good friend suddenly ran from the room. We caught him at the elevator. Visibly shaken, he said that his sister, her husband, and their two daughters were flying the route that the plane that flew into the pentagon was reported. Unfortunately they were on that plane and, I believe, the only complete family murdered in that attack.
Then my daughters' unit was put on alert and suddenly left. They could not say anything about where they were going.
Sometime later my son joined the Army and ended up serving multiple tours.
Things like this will help you make up your mind in a very strong manner.

P90 - You and I will not agree on this. I am simply trying to understand your way of thinking.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 219
  • Posts: 11220
March 11th, 2011 at 3:57:26 PM permalink
Quote: timberjim

I obviously have strong feelings about this. On 9-11 I was watching the unfolding events on TV with group at work. A good friend suddenly ran from the room. We caught him at the elevator. Visibly shaken, he said that his sister, her husband, and their two daughters were flying the route that the plane that flew into the pentagon was reported. Unfortunately they were on that plane and, I believe, the only complete family murdered in that attack.
Then my daughters' unit was put on alert and suddenly left. They could not say anything about where they were going.
Sometime later my son joined the Army and ended up serving multiple tours.
Things like this will help you make up your mind in a very strong manner.



Please thank your son and daughter for their service for me.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
March 11th, 2011 at 4:10:04 PM permalink
Quote: P90

It puzzles me why do I even have to argue this - even the Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter and concluded that Third Geneva Convention does apply these protections to prisoners held in Guantanamo and that it has been violated.



Inter arma enim silent leges

And because the Court cannot enforce its decisions on foreign soil, which Guantanamo happens to be.

Gee! I wonder why Obama's kept it open?

And you're defending it because you're very quiet about much worse abuses commited elsewhere.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal

  • Jump to: