Why is U.S. flouting rules on prisoners?
midtowng
THE U.S. government says that the terrorist attack on New York City
was an act of war.
Yet it refuses to treat those it has captured in the course of this
war as prisoners of war. Instead, it refers to them as "unlawful
combatants" not entitled to the protection of the 1949 Geneva
Convention, which the U.S. signed and which sets out rules for
treating enemy soldiers.
It shackles them, houses them in unprotected chain link compounds (in
Cuba, of all places) and threatens "intense interrogation."
This may be convenient for Washington. But it sets a dangerous
precedent for all soldiers who face capture in the so-called war on
terrorism, including Canada's.
Perhaps it is perverse to have rules for warfare. But the world is a
perverse place. And so, since the late 19th century, most nations that
call themselves civilized have adhered to such rules.
The 1949 Geneva Convention specifies that any belligerents captured in
the course of war — be they regular soldiers, militia members or
volunteers "operating in or outside their territory even if this
territory is occupied" — must be accorded prisoner of war
status.
The convention exempts only those, such as spies and saboteurs, who do
not clearly identify themselves as belligerents. But clearly it was
meant to apply to the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters captured after
vicious battles in Afghanistan, fighters who made no secret of who
they were, what they were supporting and who they thought their
enemies were.
But then, if they were dealt with properly, the U.S. would have less
leeway. Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war must be treated
humanely. Their captors are forbidden from inflicting "outrages upon
personal dignity" or "inhumane and degrading treatment."
Prisoners of war are not required to give their captors information
beyond name, rank and serial number. Under the convention, they must
"be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for forces of
the detaining power who are billeted in the same area."
To be more precise, prisoners of war are not to be treated like those
jailed by the U.S. at its Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba.
Those detainees, brought shackled, shaved and blindfolded to Cuba, are
kept in chain link pens under the constant glare, night and day, of
halogen lamps. (The blindfolding, deliberate disorientation,
discomfort and constant light are staples of police states all over
the world. The idea is to break down the inmate, weaken him from lack
of sleep and thereby make him more pliable when the interrogators
begin their serious work).
Washington is brazen about its flouting of international law, secure
in the knowledge that neither its citizens not its allies will
complain. Indeed, many Americans (and some Canadians) probably think
anyone connected to the Sept. 11 terror attacks deserves whatever he
gets.
There are, however, a couple of problems with this understandable, if
knee-jerk, response.
First, it assumes that those selected for Guantanamo are connected to
the Sept. 11 attacks. Maybe some are (although the world would have a
better idea if the U.S., in line with the Geneva Convention, specified
just who it was holding). More likely though, the U.S. is using the
broadest of brooms to sweep up detainees for Cuba. American
intelligence agencies — doubly embarrassed by their failure to
foresee the Sept. 11 attack and their inability to locate Osama bin
Laden — are probably not picky about who they subject to
"intense interrogation."
The more fundamental problem, though, has to do with logic. Is the war
on terrorism a war or is it not?
Many (including me) saw the attacks on New York as a monstrous
criminal outrage, rather than an act of war. But President George W.
Bush determined otherwise. By treating Sept. 11 as war, Bush was able
to call into play the right of self-defence mandated by the United
Nations.
But if Sept. 11 was an act of war, then it becomes, in a weird way,
less monstrous. Both New York City and the Pentagon are legitimate
wartime targets — the former economic, the latter military.
Anyone waging war on the U.S. would have targeted Manhattan in the
hope of damaging the American economy — as the World Trade
Center attack did.
So if Sept. 11 was an act of war, why are those captured in the
aftermath not treated as prisoners of war? It is considered legitimate
self-defence for the U.S. and its allies to invade Afghanistan. Why is
it not considered equally legitimate for the Afghans and their allies
to resist this invasion?
These are not abstract questions. Countries sign on to the Geneva
Convention not to be altruistic but to ensure that their own soldiers
will be well treated if captured. The assumption is that what we do to
them will be done to us. Let us hope that, in this instance, the
terrible equation does not hold.
Don McGregor
> THE U.S. government says that the terrorist attack on New York City
> was an act of war.
>
> Yet it refuses to treat those it has captured in the course of this
> war as prisoners of war.
Not every combatant in a war is required to be treated as
a POW if captured. If the combatants fail to meet certain
criteria--carrying arms openly, being answerable to a
commander, wearing distinctive markings, for example--they
don't get the POW protections.
In reality the detainees are being treated almost entirely
in accordance with the geneva convention, despite the fact
that they are not described as POWs. This is largely to leave
open the possibility of their being prosecuted under various
US statutes, I believe.
And it seems completely prudent to shackle the al qaeda
detainees being transported by plane. Indeed, it seems
absurd not to.
> This may be convenient for Washington. But it sets a dangerous
> precedent for all soldiers who face capture in the so-called war on
> terrorism, including Canada's.
Snort. It's a lead-pipe certainty that any US or canadian
troops captured would be mistreated on a massive scale.
midtowng
> gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng) wrote in message news:<32a880f2.02011...@posting.google.com>...
> > THE U.S. government says that the terrorist attack on New York City
> > was an act of war.
> >
> > Yet it refuses to treat those it has captured in the course of this
> > war as prisoners of war.
>
> Not every combatant in a war is required to be treated as
> a POW if captured. If the combatants fail to meet certain
> criteria--carrying arms openly, being answerable to a
> commander, wearing distinctive markings, for example--they
> don't get the POW protections.
O.K. But that is irregardless because these prisoners do.
>
> In reality the detainees are being treated almost entirely
> in accordance with the geneva convention, despite the fact
> that they are not described as POWs.
There are many that dispute that, but even if true
why don't we grant then the rights they deserve under the
Geneva Convention?
> This is largely to leave
> open the possibility of their being prosecuted under various
> US statutes, I believe.
And violating their rights as prisoners of war.
>
> And it seems completely prudent to shackle the al qaeda
> detainees being transported by plane. Indeed, it seems
> absurd not to.
How about the open-cages part?
>
> > This may be convenient for Washington. But it sets a dangerous
> > precedent for all soldiers who face capture in the so-called war on
> > terrorism, including Canada's.
>
> Snort. It's a lead-pipe certainty that any US or canadian
> troops captured would be mistreated on a massive scale.
Besides that being total conjecture, does that make it right for
us to violate their rights? Think of it this way: what if we treated
Japanese prisoners in WWII the same they treated ours? Would you still
be proud
of our country and what we did in WWII?
Don McGregor
midtowng wrote:
> > Not every combatant in a war is required to be treated as
> > a POW if captured. If the combatants fail to meet certain
> > criteria--carrying arms openly, being answerable to a
> > commander, wearing distinctive markings, for example--they
> > don't get the POW protections.
>
> O.K. But that is irregardless because these prisoners do.
There are reportedly six algerians in custody in Cuba that
were plotting to blow up the US embassy in sarejevo. This
would presumably fail the test on the distinctive markings,
carrying arms openly, and conforming to the laws
of war.
Most of the rest had no distinctive markings. A camo
jacket doesn't count, unless you think it's cool to
cap anyone wearing a camo jacket in afghanistan.
> There are many that dispute that, but even if true
> why don't we grant then the rights they deserve under the
> Geneva Convention?
They're not POWs. Indeed, without uniforms they
can be summarily shot as spies.
> > And it seems completely prudent to shackle the al qaeda
> > detainees being transported by plane. Indeed, it seems
> > absurd not to.
>
> How about the open-cages part?
It's the tropics. When I lived in Hawaii there wasn't
even a heater in the house.
The current prison is a temporary measure until
a larger prison with walls is finished, in about
three months.
> >
> > > This may be convenient for Washington. But it sets a dangerous
> > > precedent for all soldiers who face capture in the so-called war on
> > > terrorism, including Canada's.
> >
> > Snort. It's a lead-pipe certainty that any US or canadian
> > troops captured would be mistreated on a massive scale.
>
> Besides that being total conjecture, does that make it right for
> us to violate their rights?
Before the war the Taliban bragged that they'd drag dead
US soldiers through the streets. So it's not quite
conjecture.
The argument was that the US should treat detainees according
to Geneva so that captured allied soldiers would be as well.
That's a ludicrious pipe dream.
The detainees are being treated just fine. I don't lose
any sleep over it.
--
Don McGregor | Osama delendo est.
|
Dave Lister
> They're not POWs. Indeed, without uniforms they
> can be summarily shot as spies.
Crap. You can't be a spy in a country where you are the invited guest of
the government. They ARE POWs, and should be treated as such. It reflects
rather badly on us, not on them, when we don't. Another thing, I expect
that given this treatment we should expect to get, when the time comes
again, no better than we give.
> The argument was that the US should treat detainees according
> to Geneva so that captured allied soldiers would be as well.
> That's a ludicrious pipe dream.
So if we accet that the are animals, it's ok for the US to be as well?
> The detainees are being treated just fine. I don't lose
> any sleep over it.
You probably wouldn't lose any sleep if they were all summarily shot.
Don McGregor
Dave Lister wrote:
> > They're not POWs. Indeed, without uniforms they
> > can be summarily shot as spies.
>
> Crap. You can't be a spy in a country where you are the invited guest of
> the government.
Utter codswallop. A spy caught on German territory during the
closing days of WWII is still a spy. Merely being on
their home terrirotry does not release the armed forces
or others from the requirements of Geneva. If they fight
without distinctive markings, they can lose the protections
of Geneva, wherever they may be.
> > The argument was that the US should treat detainees according
> > to Geneva so that captured allied soldiers would be as well.
> > That's a ludicrious pipe dream.
>
> So if we accet that the are animals, it's ok for the US to be as well?
I didn't make the argument; you did.
The argument being refuted was that if we recognize detainees
as POWs any allied forces captured would also be treated
as POWs under Geneva. And that's an absurd pipe dream. Anyone
captured by the taliban or al qaeda will be mistreated.
midtowng
> midtowng wrote:
> > > Not every combatant in a war is required to be treated as
> > > a POW if captured. If the combatants fail to meet certain
> > > criteria--carrying arms openly, being answerable to a
> > > commander, wearing distinctive markings, for example--they
> > > don't get the POW protections.
> >
> > O.K. But that is irregardless because these prisoners do.
>
> There are reportedly six algerians in custody in Cuba that
> were plotting to blow up the US embassy in sarejevo. This
> would presumably fail the test on the distinctive markings,
> carrying arms openly, and conforming to the laws
> of war.
>
> Most of the rest had no distinctive markings. A camo
> jacket doesn't count, unless you think it's cool to
> cap anyone wearing a camo jacket in afghanistan.
Bull. We declared war on the Taleban and al-Queda. All of these
men are members of one of the other. Most of whom got captured in
combat. Even by your own conservative measurement SOME of these
prisoners fall under the catagory of POW's. So even with the most
biased ruling we are violating some of the prisoners rights.
There is simply no reason not to give the POWs their proper
status except to avoid giving the prisoners the rights that all
civilized societies adhere to.
>
> > There are many that dispute that, but even if true
> > why don't we grant then the rights they deserve under the
> > Geneva Convention?
>
> They're not POWs.
They ARE POWs. They were captured in a war, were they not?
Most of whom were captured in combat. How can you logically say
that they are not POWs?
>
> > > And it seems completely prudent to shackle the al qaeda
> > > detainees being transported by plane. Indeed, it seems
> > > absurd not to.
> >
> > How about the open-cages part?
>
> It's the tropics. When I lived in Hawaii there wasn't
> even a heater in the house.
"House" = "open-cage"
>
> The current prison is a temporary measure until
> a larger prison with walls is finished, in about
> three months.
>
The prisoners are being subject to weeks of sensory deprevations.
That is what they used to do in the old Soviet Union.
> > >
> > > > This may be convenient for Washington. But it sets a dangerous
> > > > precedent for all soldiers who face capture in the so-called war on
> > > > terrorism, including Canada's.
> > >
> > > Snort. It's a lead-pipe certainty that any US or canadian
> > > troops captured would be mistreated on a massive scale.
> >
> > Besides that being total conjecture, does that make it right for
> > us to violate their rights?
>
> The argument was that the US should treat detainees according
> to Geneva so that captured allied soldiers would be as well.
> That's a ludicrious pipe dream.
So the way we treated prisoners in WWII was a ludicrous pipe dream, huh?
>
> The detainees are being treated just fine. I don't lose
> any sleep over it.
And that is why you have shown clear ability to rid yourself
of morals and basic human decency when the political opportunity
presents itself.
You are really entertaining your most base common denominator
right now, Don.
midtowng
> Don McGregor <bo...@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:3C4BA522...@127.0.0.1:
> > They're not POWs. Indeed, without uniforms they
> > can be summarily shot as spies.
>
> Crap. You can't be a spy in a country where you are the invited guest of
> the government.
Most of whom were captured in combat during a war.
To say otherwise defies logic.
> They ARE POWs, and should be treated as such. It reflects
> rather badly on us, not on them, when we don't. Another thing, I expect
> that given this treatment we should expect to get, when the time comes
> again, no better than we give.
But America will ALWAYS be on top. Forever and ever. Just ask any
Republican.
>
> > The argument was that the US should treat detainees according
> > to Geneva so that captured allied soldiers would be as well.
> > That's a ludicrious pipe dream.
>
> So if we accet that the are animals, it's ok for the US to be as well?
That's exactly what Don is saying.
>
> > The detainees are being treated just fine. I don't lose
> > any sleep over it.
>
> You probably wouldn't lose any sleep if they were all summarily shot.
That's a lead-pipe cinch.
Don McGregor
midtowng wrote:
> > Most of the rest had no distinctive markings. A camo
> > jacket doesn't count, unless you think it's cool to
> > cap anyone wearing a camo jacket in afghanistan.
>
> Bull. We declared war on the Taleban and al-Queda.
An open question. No official declaration of war,
but congressional approval for use of force. It would
be more accurate to say the US _conducted_ a war
without declaring it. In fact, I suspect one of the
reasons war was not declared was to prevent arguments
about the POW status of detainees.
> All of these
> men are members of one of the other. Most of whom got captured in
> combat. Even by your own conservative measurement SOME of these
> prisoners fall under the catagory of POW's. So even with the most
> biased ruling we are violating some of the prisoners rights.
Are we?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1773000/1773143.stm
----
The three British al-Qaeda suspects being held at Camp X-Ray
in Cuba have "no complaints" about their treatment, according
to British officials who have seen them.
...
The prime minister's official spokesman said the government
would now take time to study the report in detail.
"We said people should not rush into judgement and now we
know the facts," the spokesman said.
The three British nationals in the camp were "able to speak
freely and without inhibition," he added.
"There is no sign of any mistreatment.
"They have also had contact with the Red Cross.
"They asked for a number of messages to be passed
on to their families, which we are doing.
"There were no gags, no goggles, no ear muffs and no
shackles while they were in their cells.
"They only wear shackles when they are outside their cells."
'Helpful and open'
He said the three suspects "get three meals a day, including a
"pre-packed Islamic meal for lunch", as much water as they
need and daily medical checks.
"The Red Cross is arranging for them to have copies of the Koran,"
the prime minister's spokesman added.
"They have also been provided with washing materials and calls to
prayer are being broadcast over the camp public address system."
The prisoner's cells were "basic but fit" and the US military
authorities had been "helpful and open throughout the visit,"
he said.
----
> They ARE POWs. They were captured in a war, were they not?
For the Nth time, that's not sufficient.
> Most of whom were captured in combat.
That either.
> > The argument was that the US should treat detainees according
> > to Geneva so that captured allied soldiers would be as well.
> > That's a ludicrious pipe dream.
>
> So the way we treated prisoners in WWII was a ludicrous pipe dream, huh?
What on earth are you talking about? That has no logical
connection whatever to my statement.
Paul Havemann
: Don McGregor <bo...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
:>>> Snort. It's a lead-pipe certainty that any US or canadian
:>>> troops captured would be mistreated on a massive scale.
:>>
:>> Besides that being total conjecture,
Is it? You really believe that the Taliban wouldn't be
- say - dragging US soldiers through the street as mobs cheer?
"The experience of American prisoners, from Bataan to Korea, to
Vietnam, has been one of consistent maltreatment in violation of
international law, which is why it is hard to generate much
excitement in America over these issues. American prisoners are
always treated much worse than America treats foreign prisoners.
Indeed, this non-reciprocity is a major reason for the vague
hostility that Americans feel toward international law."
- http://instapundit.blogspot.com/2002_01_13_instapundit_archive.html#8778227
:>> does that make it right for us to violate their rights?
:> The detainees are being treated just fine. I don't lose
:> any sleep over it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1773000/1773143.stm
The three British al-Qaeda suspects being held at Camp X-Ray
in Cuba have "no complaints" about their treatment, according
to British officials who have seen them.
The three are in "good physical health" and are being treated
well, they reported.
The long-awaited assessment of conditions at the base comes
amid fierce criticism of the US's treatment of the
prisoners, who are held in small cells open to the elements.
Photographs of detainees chained and blindfolded, published
at the weekend, heightened concerns that the US was flouting
international law. [...]
The prime minister's official spokesman said the government
would now take time to study the report in detail.
Pictures released last week raised fears about human rights
"We said people should not rush into judgement and now we know
the facts," the spokesman said.
The three British nationals in the camp were "able to speak
freely and without inhibition," he added.
"There is no sign of any mistreatment.
"They have also had contact with the Red Cross.
"They asked for a number of messages to be passed on to their
families, which we are doing.
"There were no gags, no goggles, no ear muffs and no shackles
while they were in their cells.
"They only wear shackles when they are outside their cells."
I thoughtfully quoted the BBC, since you've stated you don't
believe US media "propoganda."
: And that is why you have shown clear ability to rid yourself
: of morals and basic human decency when the political opportunity
: presents itself.
So Don's an inhuman, immoral monster now. Anyone else you care
to tar?
--
Paul Havemann
It will be a great day when our public schools teach our children
half as well as the Pentagon trains our soldiers.
John Doh
>But America will ALWAYS be on top. Forever and ever. Just ask any
>Republican.
Has anybody else noticed that Mr. Garrett always wants to believe the worst
about America?
All it takes is for some leftwinger to claim that we are mistreating prisoners,
with NO PROOF, and Mr. Garrett laps it up like cream. Look at how horrible we
are!
Well now, Prime Minister Tony Blair says that you are full of crap Mr. Garrett.
Will you admit you were wrong? I will not hold my breath. Keep looking, I'm
sure you can find MORE stuff to criticize...
Washington Post...
Blair: No Guantanamo Complaints
By Lynne Sladky
Associated Press Writer
Monday, January 21, 2002; 11:51 AM
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba –– The British Prime Minister sought
Monday to ease tensions that blew up over the weekend about U.S. treatment of
prisoners at Guantanamo prison, saying three Britons held captive there "had no
complaints."
A British team visited the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay over the weekend, at
the same time that newspapers at home were playing up pictures of Taliban and
al-Qaida prisoners shackled and kneeling. The news coverage prompted the
government in London to ask the United States to explain itself.
The British team confirmed that the three British prisoners "had no complaints
about their treatment," Blair's official spokesman said Monday.
--
John D'oh Member, The Center for Science in the Interest of Publicity
http://thoth.stetson.edu/hyde/mpg/csip.html
Don McGregor
midtowng wrote:
> > So if we accet that the are animals, it's ok for the US to be as well?
>
> That's exactly what Don is saying.
That's exactly what I'm saying in your rich and varied
fantasy life.
Don McGregor
midtowng wrote:
> > > How about the open-cages part?
> >
> > It's the tropics. When I lived in Hawaii there wasn't
> > even a heater in the house.
>
> "House" = "open-cage"
Guantanamo weather: highs in the 80's, lows in
the 70's. In all probability the conditions
in Guantanamo are a vast improvement over
the field conditions at Kandahar, where they
were held before.
> The prisoners are being subject to weeks of sensory deprevations.
Well, no.
> > The detainees are being treated just fine. I don't lose
> > any sleep over it.
>
> And that is why you have shown clear ability to rid yourself
> of morals and basic human decency when the political opportunity
> presents itself.
I'm off to kick some puppies.
tkdowning
be ashamed of yourself.
> > midtowng wrote:
>
> Bull. We declared war on the Taleban and al-Queda. All of these
> men are members of one of the other. Most of whom got captured in
Wrong. Taliban/Al-Queda declared war on America years ago in a video
tape made by its leader, Osama Bin Laden. Taliban/Al-Queda have
threatened not only to go after millitary targets, but American
civilians. TALIBAN/AL-QUEDA, IF GIVEN A CHANCE, WOULD TORTURE AND KILL
EVERY AMERICAN MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD.
Do you know how Taliban/Al-Queda treat their prisoners? They skin them
alive and make video tape out of it to show their sick fucking
comrades.
_____NOT A FUCKING THING WE DO TO THEIR PRISONERS OR HOW MUCH WE
APPEASE THEM WILL MAKE A BIT OF FUCKING DIFFERENCE ON HOW THEY TREAT
US IF WE BECOME THEIR PRISONERS_________
I just cannot understand why you going to such great lengths to defend
these people, even lying about who declared war on who to accomplish
your ends. What are your ends? What is your motivation?
That being said, I think that we should treat them humainly (which we
are doing) and give them a fair trial (which we will do).
Dave Lister
> Utter codswallop. A spy caught on German territory during the
> closing days of WWII is still a spy. Merely being on
> their home terrirotry does not release the armed forces
> or others from the requirements of Geneva. If they fight
> without distinctive markings, they can lose the protections
> of Geneva, wherever they may be.
You're right, it is utter codswallop. I suppose if the US were invaded
your first move would be to go uniform shopping.
How is a German in Germany a "spy"? You have to get awfully loose with
definitions to get anywhere close to that, as it is the duty of citizens
to report suspicious and military activity that they observe. This hardly
makes them a"spy".
> The argument being refuted was that if we recognize detainees
> as POWs any allied forces captured would also be treated
> as POWs under Geneva. And that's an absurd pipe dream. Anyone
> captured by the taliban or al qaeda will be mistreated.
So? That has no bearing on how we treat our prisoners. None whatsover.
Dave Lister
> In fact, I suspect one of the
> reasons war was not declared was to prevent arguments
> about the POW status of detainees.
It hasn't and will not work, even to prevent arguments by Americans opposed
to said legalistic crap.
midtowng
> >gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng):
> >But America will ALWAYS be on top. Forever and ever. Just ask any
> >Republican.
>
> Has anybody else noticed that Mr. Garrett always wants to believe the worst
> about America?
When America stops acting like a bully and acknowledges the
wrongs it has committed in the past I'll change my position.
I have yet to see an apology for what we've done to south-east
asia and latin america. I'm sure that I never will.
>
> All it takes is for some leftwinger to claim that we are mistreating prisoners,
> with NO PROOF, and Mr. Garrett laps it up like cream. Look at how horrible we
> are!
I neither claim that we are mistreating prisoners nor deny it.
I have no proof either way.
What I am pissed about is that we won't give the POWs their
rightful status. They ARE prisoners of war by any measure.
The fact that we don't want to give them that status only
means one thing: we want free reign to treat them any way we want.
It's a terrible precendent.
>
> Well now, Prime Minister Tony Blair says that you are full of crap Mr. Garrett.
> Will you admit you were wrong?
Who give a sh*t what Blair thinks? He's even worse than Ashcroft when
it comes to taking away civil rights.
midtowng
> midtowng wrote:
> > > Most of the rest had no distinctive markings. A camo
> > > jacket doesn't count, unless you think it's cool to
> > > cap anyone wearing a camo jacket in afghanistan.
> >
> > Bull. We declared war on the Taleban and al-Queda.
>
> An open question. No official declaration of war,
> but congressional approval for use of force. It would
> be more accurate to say the US _conducted_ a war
> without declaring it. In fact, I suspect one of the
> reasons war was not declared was to prevent arguments
> about the POW status of detainees.
In that case it makes us all the worst. A bunch of hypocrits
that flout international law and the treaties we sign with
cheap legalize.
Bush calls it a war. He runs it like a war. He kills like it is
a war. But when we actually have to act within international law
its no longer a war.
> > They ARE POWs. They were captured in a war, were they not?
>
> For the Nth time, that's not sufficient.
For the Nth time, yes it IS sufficient.
>
> > Most of whom were captured in combat.
>
> That either.
>
Yes, that too.
You are falling back on the most weak rationalization that you
can possibly find that would never stand up in an international court.
But then America doesn't have any use for international law when it
isn't to our advantage, huh?
midtowng
> In alt.fan.dan-quayle midtowng <gjoh...@eudoramail.com> sez:
> : Don McGregor <bo...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> :>>> Snort. It's a lead-pipe certainty that any US or canadian
> :>>> troops captured would be mistreated on a massive scale.
> :>>
> :>> Besides that being total conjecture,
>
> Is it? You really believe that the Taliban wouldn't be
> - say - dragging US soldiers through the street as mobs cheer?
>
> "The experience of American prisoners, from Bataan to Korea, to
> Vietnam, has been one of consistent maltreatment in violation of
> international law, which is why it is hard to generate much
> excitement in America over these issues. American prisoners are
> always treated much worse than America treats foreign prisoners.
> Indeed, this non-reciprocity is a major reason for the vague
> hostility that Americans feel toward international law."
> - http://instapundit.blogspot.com/2002_01_13_instapundit_archive.html#8778227
And as been pointed out - when other people act like animals
that means we must too?
That whole thinking disgusts me.
>
> :>> does that make it right for us to violate their rights?
>
> :> The detainees are being treated just fine. I don't lose
> :> any sleep over it.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1773000/1773143.stm
They haven't been given their proper status, and that means
they have had their rights violated. Period.
[...]
> : And that is why you have shown clear ability to rid yourself
> : of morals and basic human decency when the political opportunity
> : presents itself.
>
> So Don's an inhuman, immoral monster now. Anyone else you care
> to tar?
That depends. Are you going to say that they aren't POWs too?
Don McGregor
> about America?
It's a sort of vulgar, knee-jerk reaction among some
on the left. They've conditioned themselves so
thouroughly that they are having a hard time
responding to the new world.
Don McGregor
> The prisoners are being subject to weeks of sensory deprevations.
> That is what they used to do in the old Soviet Union.
As many have pointed out, this is another fantasy. One would
think that people would wise up after having been so
monotonously and quickly been shown wrong so many times.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2002031100,00.html
----
PRISONERS at Camp X-Ray are NOT being mistreated in any way, an
official report found yesterday.
The study by British diplomats exposed the bleatings of hand-wringing
liberals as a pack of LIES.
The dossier on scores of al-Qa’ida prisoners being held at a US
base in Cuba confirmed none was being softened up for interrogation
with “sensory deprivation”.
It found NO gags, NO shackles and NO blindfolds were routinely used
and dismissed claims that captives were kept like animals.
Downing Street said: “We were assured the detainees would be
treated in a humane way and believe this is the case.”
...
Ear muffs were placed on their heads simply to spare them the
deafening din of aircraft engines during their 27-hour flight from
Afghanistan.
...
A storm of protest flared after pictures were issued showing the
al-Qa’ida and Taliban prisoners arriving in Cuba wearing
goggles, masks and ear defenders.
Human rights groups claimed it proved the men were being humiliated
and softened up for interrogation.
But the British report — compiled by diplomats and boosted with
intelligence gathered by MI5 officers — blew apart that myth.
It was pointed out the pictures were taken minutes after the detainees
arrived at Camp X-Ray.
----
Compare to the silly hyperventilating at
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11553940&method=full
Don McGregor
Dave Lister wrote:
> You're right, it is utter codswallop. I suppose if the US were invaded
> your first move would be to go uniform shopping.
Actually, Geneva 1949 does cover this, and there's an
exemption in the case of sudden invasion. That's totally
irrelevant to the situation at hand, though, since
fighting had been going on for years.
>
> How is a German in Germany a "spy"? You have to get awfully loose with
> definitions to get anywhere close to that, as it is the duty of citizens
> to report suspicious and military activity that they observe. This hardly
> makes them a"spy".
Those engaging in military actions are illegal combatants.
There were several "werewolf" groups in German territory
as US forces finished up WW2. These were groups that
fought without uniforms. Some US convoys were ambushed
near the Harz mountains; the perps were found and
executed, as they were illegal combatants and therefore
lacked any Geneva protections.
> > The argument being refuted was that if we recognize detainees
> > as POWs any allied forces captured would also be treated
> > as POWs under Geneva. And that's an absurd pipe dream. Anyone
> > captured by the taliban or al qaeda will be mistreated.
>
> So? That has no bearing on how we treat our prisoners. None whatsover.
So why did you make the argument? Or, rather, ascribe it
to me?
To whit:
----
> The argument was that the US should treat detainees according
> to Geneva so that captured allied soldiers would be as well.
> That's a ludicrious pipe dream.
So if we accet that the are animals, it's ok for the US to be as well?
----
Don McGregor
midtowng wrote:
> I neither claim that we are mistreating prisoners nor deny it.
> I have no proof either way.
That's not what you said earlier:
----
The prisoners are being subject to weeks of sensory deprevations.
That is what they used to do in the old Soviet Union.
Don McGregor
midtowng wrote:
> > > They ARE POWs. They were captured in a war, were they not?
> >
> > For the Nth time, that's not sufficient.
>
> For the Nth time, yes it IS sufficient.
Read the treaty. Those captured in war and not
wearing distinctive markings don't get protection.
The german paratroopers out of uniform who were
captured during the battle of the bulge were
executed. They also have to meet several other
requirements. These aren't legalisms--the distinctions
are central to the treaty, since the type of
combatants who are excluded make it possible
to distinguish between civilians and military
personnel. Without the distinctions the military
could hide as civilians, to the detriment of
the civilians when the opponent attempts to
root them out.
> > > Most of whom were captured in combat.
> >
> > That either.
> >
> Yes, that too.
See above. The have to meet more requirements
than simply being captured on the battlefield.
Don McGregor
midtowng wrote:
> And as been pointed out - when other people act like animals
> that means we must too?
> That whole thinking disgusts me.
As has been pointed out several times, you and Lister
are the only ones making that argument, via the
time-honored technique of ascribing it to other
people without their permission.
Dave Lister
>> So? That has no bearing on how we treat our prisoners. None
>> whatsover.
>
> So why did you make the argument? Or, rather, ascribe it
> to me?
Hey slick, that's what information was transferred to several people by
what you wrote. Maybe you ought to be sure you are saying what you want
rather than whining about it afterwards.
Don McGregor
Dave Lister wrote:
> >> So? That has no bearing on how we treat our prisoners. None
> >> whatsover.
> >
> > So why did you make the argument? Or, rather, ascribe it
> > to me?
>
> Hey slick, that's what information was transferred to several people by
> what you wrote. Maybe you ought to be sure you are saying what you want
> rather than whining about it afterwards.
Here's the exchange. Perhaps you could diagram the
sentences and explicate the reasoning that led to
your conclusion:
----
> The argument was that the US should treat detainees according
> to Geneva so that captured allied soldiers would be as well.
> That's a ludicrious pipe dream.
So if we accet that the are animals, it's ok for the US to be as well?
----
Canadian: If we treat prisoners according to Geneva, al Qaeda
will do the same for our prisnoers.
Me: No they won't.
You: So you want to mistreat them, then?
As faulty leaps of logic go, this was pretty much
Evel Knievel jumping the Snake River on your part.
Paul Havemann
: shih...@aol.com (John Doh) wrote:
:> Has anybody else noticed that Mr. Garrett always wants to believe the worst
:> about America?
: When America stops acting like a bully and acknowledges the
: wrongs it has committed in the past I'll change my position.
Well, that explains why you rarely if ever acknowledge anything
good about America: our 'sins' utterly wipe out everything else.
:> Well now, Prime Minister Tony Blair says that you are full of
:> crap Mr. Garrett.
:> Will you admit you were wrong?
: Who give a sh*t what Blair thinks? He's even worse than Ashcroft when
: it comes to taking away civil rights.
The Red Cross, which conducted the inspection, says you're wrong.
Feel free to concede the point.
Harold
wrote:
>http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1011006398862&call_page=TS_Opinion&call_pageid=968256290124&call_pagepath=News/Opinion&col=968350116695
>
>THE U.S. government says that the terrorist attack on New York City
>was an act of war.
>
>Yet it refuses to treat those it has captured in the course of this
>war as prisoners of war. Instead, it refers to them as "unlawful
>combatants" not entitled to the protection of the 1949 Geneva
>Convention, which the U.S. signed and which sets out rules for
>treating enemy soldiers.
There is no need, under the Geneva conventions, to label any captive
as a POW.
Personally, I am inclined to hang them all.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
-----
"...each individual has certain basic rights that are neither
conferred by nor derived from the state. To discover where they
came from it is necessary to move back behind the dim mist of
eternity, for they are God-given."
--- M.L. King, Lincoln University, 1961
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
chris.holt
> gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng) wrote:
>>http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1011006398862&call_page=TS_Opinion&call_pageid=968256290124&call_pagepath=News/Opinion&col=968350116695
>>THE U.S. government says that the terrorist attack on New York City
>>was an act of war.
>>Yet it refuses to treat those it has captured in the course of this
>>war as prisoners of war. Instead, it refers to them as "unlawful
>>combatants" not entitled to the protection of the 1949 Geneva
>>Convention, which the U.S. signed and which sets out rules for
>>treating enemy soldiers.
> There is no need, under the Geneva conventions, to label any captive
> as a POW.
> Personally, I am inclined to hang them all.
Whether they're guilty or not? After all, why bother with such
things as trials and evidence, when your inclinations tell you
what the right thing is to do.
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt/
midtowng
> On 16 Jan 2002 13:31:24 -0800, gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng)
> wrote:
> >http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1011006398862&call_page=TS_Opinion&call_pageid=968256290124&call_pagepath=News/Opinion&col=968350116695
> >
> >THE U.S. government says that the terrorist attack on New York City
> >was an act of war.
> >
> >Yet it refuses to treat those it has captured in the course of this
> >war as prisoners of war. Instead, it refers to them as "unlawful
> >combatants" not entitled to the protection of the 1949 Geneva
> >Convention, which the U.S. signed and which sets out rules for
> >treating enemy soldiers.
>
> There is no need, under the Geneva conventions, to label any captive
> as a POW.
There is no need, under the Geneva conventions, to even take
prisoners. We could just shoot them all on sight. Hell, we
could nuke Afghanistan.
>
> Personally, I am inclined to hang them all.
I'm sure you are.
midtowng
> midtowng wrote:
> > And as been pointed out - when other people act like animals
> > that means we must too?
> > That whole thinking disgusts me.
>
> As has been pointed out several times, you and Lister
> are the only ones making that argument, via the
> time-honored technique of ascribing it to other
> people without their permission.
Then what do you call refusing to grant basic rights when
they are deserved?
midtowng
> midtowng wrote:
> > > > They ARE POWs. They were captured in a war, were they not?
> > >
> > > For the Nth time, that's not sufficient.
> >
> > For the Nth time, yes it IS sufficient.
>
> Read the treaty. Those captured in war and not
> wearing distinctive markings don't get protection.
That is _beyond_ rediculous. If the Taleban can't afford
uniforms for their troops then no matter where they serve in
the trenches and tunnels they can't be afforded rights as POWs?
That is not just absurd, it is a criminal technicality
and a cheap rationalization. I really don't think that you
even believe this. It obviously doesn't adhere to the spirit
of the convention. Hell, if you really wanted to you could just
strip the uniforms off the captured troops and then announce
that they are no longer POWs.
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020122/3791933s.htm
Beyond the debate over whether the 144 Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees
being held in open-air cages in Cuba are being treated humanely, that
is the fundamental question that will determine what could happen to
the detainees and what their rights are. It is a question that might
not be answered by the time the detainees are moved to permanent cells
being built at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, which U.S. officials hope
will curtail much of the criticism over how the captives are being
treated.
For now, officials are classifying the captives as detainees rather
than POWs. Under the Geneva Convention, POWs are entitled to be
treated humanely and are allowed certain accommodations, such as
regular exercise. The convention rules are less clear on the rights of
detainees. U.S. officials say that those being held at Guantanamo are
being treated as though the Geneva standards apply.
So why not call them POWs? Legal analysts say U.S. officials are
reluctant to do so because it would give the detainees certain legal
rights. Under the Geneva Convention, POWs are entitled to hear the
charges against them and be tried in the same courts as the detaining
power's soldiers would be. To some legal analysts, that means military
courts-martial or possibly the military tribunal system U.S. officials
are creating as a way to try foreign-born terrorists.
[...]
Don McGregor
midtowng wrote:
> > Read the treaty. Those captured in war and not
> > wearing distinctive markings don't get protection.
>
> That is _beyond_ rediculous. If the Taleban can't afford
> uniforms for their troops then no matter where they serve in
> the trenches and tunnels they can't be afforded rights as POWs?
They can afford pickup trucks, guns, and food. I think
they can spring for a 50 cent armband.
The Geneva requirements are central to conducting
a "civilized" war. Imagine the situation if there
were no requirement for distinctive markings: everybody
would be running around in Levis, sneakers, and
t-shirts. Who does the opponent shoot at? (Maybe only
those wearing Nikes?) Under
the pressures of war, the default answer will devolve
to "everybody", civilian or military. It is precisely
to avoid this situation that the requirements are
in Geneva. It's for the protection of the civilians.
And to encourage this, there are stiff penalties
for failing to adhere to the requirements. If you don't,
you can lose the protections afforded to combatants.
There is of course a long history of harsh measures
directed at combatants out of uniform. During WW2
they were often shot, as for example the Germans in
US uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge or
during the closing days of the war in Germany.
Of course, presumably many of the detainees in
Cuba have other problems. Plotting to blow
up embassies would put them outside the laws
of war. As would those who participated in
terrorist acts.
You seem to be under the impression that al Qaeda
and Taliban forces are simple children who can't be
expected to live up to rudimentary standards of
conduct. Odd for someone who claims to be a devotee
of international law.
> Hell, if you really wanted to you could just
> strip the uniforms off the captured troops and then announce
> that they are no longer POWs.
Well, no.
> For now, officials are classifying the captives as detainees rather
> than POWs. Under the Geneva Convention, POWs are entitled to be
> treated humanely and are allowed certain accommodations, such as
> regular exercise. The convention rules are less clear on the rights of
> detainees. U.S. officials say that those being held at Guantanamo are
> being treated as though the Geneva standards apply.
Fine by me. Their physical conditions are the same
as POWs, and only their status is murky.
> So why not call them POWs? Legal analysts say U.S. officials are
> reluctant to do so because it would give the detainees certain legal
> rights. Under the Geneva Convention, POWs are entitled to hear the
> charges against them and be tried in the same courts as the detaining
> power's soldiers would be. To some legal analysts, that means military
> courts-martial or possibly the military tribunal system U.S. officials
> are creating as a way to try foreign-born terrorists.
Again, fine by me. The complaints about the prisoners seem
to have collapsed completely to only this point: whether
they'll be tried in the military tribunals. The critics would be
better off arguing about tribunals rather than dragging in
the red herring of POW conditions.
Don McGregor
midtowng wrote:
> > > And as been pointed out - when other people act like animals
> > > that means we must too?
> > > That whole thinking disgusts me.
> >
> > As has been pointed out several times, you and Lister
> > are the only ones making that argument, via the
> > time-honored technique of ascribing it to other
> > people without their permission.
>
> Then what do you call refusing to grant basic rights when
> they are deserved?
What basic human rights? Their physical conditions are
consistent with Geneva. The only point of contention
is the venue under which they will be tried, and
that looks servicable so far.
Dave Lister
> Here's the exchange. Perhaps you could diagram the
> sentences and explicate the reasoning that led to
> your conclusion:
>
> ----
>> The argument was that the US should treat detainees according
>> to Geneva so that captured allied soldiers would be as well.
>> That's a ludicrious pipe dream.
>
> So if we accept that they are animals, it's ok for the US to be as well?
I asked you a question slick. And your cut is out of context.
Now answer the question. You are the one who thinks playing technicality
games with POWs is hunky-dory. Where do you draw the line?
Paul Havemann
:>>>> They ARE POWs. They were captured in a war, were they not?
:>>>
:>>> For the Nth time, that's not sufficient.
:>>
:>> For the Nth time, yes it IS sufficient.
:>
:> Read the treaty. Those captured in war and not
:> wearing distinctive markings don't get protection.
: That is _beyond_ rediculous.
Did you read the treaty? Your beef is with its writers.
Harold
<chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>Harold wrote:
>
>> gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng) wrote:
>
>>>http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1011006398862&call_page=TS_Opinion&call_pageid=968256290124&call_pagepath=News/Opinion&col=968350116695
>
>>>THE U.S. government says that the terrorist attack on New York City
>>>was an act of war.
>
>>>Yet it refuses to treat those it has captured in the course of this
>>>war as prisoners of war. Instead, it refers to them as "unlawful
>>>combatants" not entitled to the protection of the 1949 Geneva
>>>Convention, which the U.S. signed and which sets out rules for
>>>treating enemy soldiers.
>
>> There is no need, under the Geneva conventions, to label any captive
>> as a POW.
>
>> Personally, I am inclined to hang them all.
>
>Whether they're guilty or not?
You are just so thoughtful and restrained. We know they are guilty.
This is not, in case you missed it, a bust by the Chicago police in
your local bar.
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Running Dog)
----
The majority of those who were in the bottom 20 percent of income
in 1975 were in the top 20 percent at some point over the next
17 years.
----- Census' Current Population Report number 60-209
Harold
wrote:
While we could nuke Afghanistan, don't you think that would be a over
reaction, or do you think hanging some murders is no worse than
bombing a bunch of innocents?
Talk about "moral equivalence"!!!
>> Personally, I am inclined to hang them all.
>
> I'm sure you are.
Regards, Harold
----
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the
Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on
objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
- James Madison, 1792
Don McGregor
Dave Lister wrote:
> > ----
> >> The argument was that the US should treat detainees according
> >> to Geneva so that captured allied soldiers would be as well.
> >> That's a ludicrious pipe dream.
> >
> > So if we accept that they are animals, it's ok for the US to be as well?
>
> I asked you a question slick. And your cut is out of context.
well, no, it's not out of context.
> Now answer the question. You are the one who thinks playing technicality
> games with POWs is hunky-dory. Where do you draw the line?
They're being treated in accordance with Geneva, except
for their legal status, so they can be tried under
the military tribunals. This seems fine to me.
Dave Lister
news:1mkt4u42bpjthof1a...@4ax.com:
> You are just so thoughtful and restrained. We know they are guilty.
> This is not, in case you missed it, a bust by the Chicago police in
> your local bar.
Guilty of what? A difference of opinion? I'd rather hang you for that
Harold.
Dave Lister
> They're being treated in accordance with Geneva, except
> for their legal status, so they can be tried under
> the military tribunals. This seems fine to me.
Goody for you. Fortunately it isn't fine by the rest of the world. They
clearly are POWs.
midtowng
> midtowng wrote:
> > I neither claim that we are mistreating prisoners nor deny it.
> > I have no proof either way.
>
> That's not what you said earlier:
>
> ----
> The prisoners are being subject to weeks of sensory deprevations.
> That is what they used to do in the old Soviet Union.
> ----
Granted. I got ahead of myself.
midtowng
> midtowng <gjoh...@eudoramail.com> sez:
> : shih...@aol.com (John Doh) wrote:
> :> Has anybody else noticed that Mr. Garrett always wants to believe the worst
> :> about America?
>
> : When America stops acting like a bully and acknowledges the
> : wrongs it has committed in the past I'll change my position.
>
> Well, that explains why you rarely if ever acknowledge anything
> good about America: our 'sins' utterly wipe out everything else.
>
else because they have nearly unlimited power.
When their answer to every challenge is to bomb into submission
then they acting like every other bully out there.
>
> :> Well now, Prime Minister Tony Blair says that you are full of
> :> crap Mr. Garrett.
> :> Will you admit you were wrong?
>
> : Who give a sh*t what Blair thinks? He's even worse than Ashcroft when
> : it comes to taking away civil rights.
>
> The Red Cross, which conducted the inspection, says you're wrong.
> Feel free to concede the point.
Are they not considered POWs? Then I have nothing to conceed.
midtowng
> midtowng wrote:
> > > Read the treaty. Those captured in war and not
> > > wearing distinctive markings don't get protection.
> >
> > That is _beyond_ rediculous. If the Taleban can't afford
> > uniforms for their troops then no matter where they serve in
> > the trenches and tunnels they can't be afforded rights as POWs?
>
> They can afford pickup trucks, guns, and food. I think
> they can spring for a 50 cent armband.
You know, I'm glad that you demanded I read the part of
the Geneva Convention that covers prisoners of war because now
I know that you are simply flat out wrong. I suggest that YOU
read it.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Article 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.
[...]
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
[All you have to be is a _member_ of the party in conflict. Notice
that is said "ONE of the following catagories" (my emphasis)
You do NOT have to be wearing a uniform. Will you admit this
undeniable
fact now?
But that isn't all. A more important fact is that it isn't up to
America
to determine who is or isn't a POW. They are all "de facto" POWs until
determined otherwise by a neutral tribunal.]
Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in
Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and
until their final release and repatriation.
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.
>
> The Geneva requirements are central to conducting
> a "civilized" war. Imagine the situation if there
> were no requirement for distinctive markings: everybody
> would be running around in Levis, sneakers, and
> t-shirts. Who does the opponent shoot at?
You are talking about the situation in most recent wars,
Afghanistan wars included. You talk about them like this
is an impossible situation. Yet it is a reality in almost
all third world cases. Remember that Afghanistan is famous
for troops switching sides in middle of a battle.
> Under
> the pressures of war, the default answer will devolve
> to "everybody", civilian or military. It is precisely
> to avoid this situation that the requirements are
> in Geneva. It's for the protection of the civilians.
That is a total misinterpretation of the Geneva Convention.
>
> There is of course a long history of harsh measures
> directed at combatants out of uniform. During WW2
> they were often shot, as for example the Germans in
> US uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge or
> during the closing days of the war in Germany.
Which was before the Geneva Convention in 1949.
>
> Of course, presumably many of the detainees in
> Cuba have other problems. Plotting to blow
> up embassies would put them outside the laws
> of war. As would those who participated in
> terrorist acts.
Some of the al-Queda members _would_ fall outside
of the catagory of POWs. But pretty much all the Taleban
members wouldn't. That is undeniable.
>
> You seem to be under the impression that al Qaeda
> and Taliban forces are simple children who can't be
> expected to live up to rudimentary standards of
> conduct. Odd for someone who claims to be a devotee
> of international law.
Stop putting words into my mouth.
>
> Fine by me. Their physical conditions are the same
> as POWs, and only their status is murky.
Which brings up a disturbing question of "Why?"
>
> > So why not call them POWs? Legal analysts say U.S. officials are
> > reluctant to do so because it would give the detainees certain legal
> > rights. Under the Geneva Convention, POWs are entitled to hear the
> > charges against them and be tried in the same courts as the detaining
> > power's soldiers would be. To some legal analysts, that means military
> > courts-martial or possibly the military tribunal system U.S. officials
> > are creating as a way to try foreign-born terrorists.
>
> Again, fine by me. The complaints about the prisoners seem
> to have collapsed completely to only this point: whether
> they'll be tried in the military tribunals. The critics would be
> better off arguing about tribunals rather than dragging in
> the red herring of POW conditions.
That's because you've never asked the question of "Why?"
I suggest you do more often. You'd be fooled less. Like listening
to the Bush Administration interpretation of the Geneva Convention
rather than reading it yourself.
midtowng
> midtowng wrote:
> > > > And as been pointed out - when other people act like animals
> > > > that means we must too?
> > > > That whole thinking disgusts me.
> > >
> > > As has been pointed out several times, you and Lister
> > > are the only ones making that argument, via the
> > > time-honored technique of ascribing it to other
> > > people without their permission.
> >
> > Then what do you call refusing to grant basic rights when
> > they are deserved?
>
> What basic human rights? Their physical conditions are
> consistent with Geneva.
I said _basic rights_, not "physical conditions".
You understand the difference, right?
Remember "name, rank, serial number", etc. etc.?
> The only point of contention
> is the venue under which they will be tried, and
> that looks servicable so far.
That is FAR from being correct.
chris.holt
> <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Harold wrote:
>>>There is no need, under the Geneva conventions, to label any captive
>>>as a POW.
>>>Personally, I am inclined to hang them all.
>>Whether they're guilty or not?
> You are just so thoughtful and restrained. We know they are guilty.
> This is not, in case you missed it, a bust by the Chicago police in
> your local bar.
So among the captives, who, exactly, is guity of what, exactly?
Or do you just want to say that since they were captured, they
must all be guilty of everything, so 'off with their heads'?
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt/
Jeffrey Davis
"chris.holt" wrote:
>
> Harold wrote:
>
> > <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>Harold wrote:
>
> >>>There is no need, under the Geneva conventions, to label any captive
> >>>as a POW.
>
> >>>Personally, I am inclined to hang them all.
>
> >>Whether they're guilty or not?
>
> > You are just so thoughtful and restrained. We know they are guilty.
> > This is not, in case you missed it, a bust by the Chicago police in
> > your local bar.
>
> So among the captives, who, exactly, is guity of what, exactly?
> Or do you just want to say that since they were captured, they
> must all be guilty of everything, so 'off with their heads'?
Situational ethics is ok some of the time.
--
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net>
Harold
<retsil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Harold <haroldb...@delete.yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:1mkt4u42bpjthof1a...@4ax.com:
>
>> You are just so thoughtful and restrained. We know they are guilty.
>> This is not, in case you missed it, a bust by the Chicago police in
>> your local bar.
>
>Guilty of what? A difference of opinion?
Guilty of trying to kill people because they are of a different
religion.
>I'd rather hang you for that Harold.
You are not nearly strong enough.
Regards, Harold
----
"Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters
in New York and Los Angeles...the oceans will die of DDT poisoning
by 1979...the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980
due to cancer epidemics."
---- Paul Ehrlich, 1969, Ramparts.
Paul Havemann
: Paul Havemann <pa...@hsh.com.com> wrote:
:>:> Has anybody else noticed that Mr. Garrett always wants to
:>:> believe the worst about America?
:>
:>: When America stops acting like a bully and acknowledges the
:>: wrongs it has committed in the past I'll change my position.
:>
:> Well, that explains why you rarely if ever acknowledge anything
:> good about America: our 'sins' utterly wipe out everything else.
:>
: The superpower should be held to a higher standard than everyone
: else because they have nearly unlimited power.
True; but I note you haven't addressed what I said.
: When their answer to every challenge is to bomb into submission
: then they acting like every other bully out there.
So you believe that the US deserves no credit whatsoever for any
of its efforts in the world? Just getting it on the record.
("Every" challenge, eh? Your opinions are getting a little
extreme.)
John Doh
>shih...@aol.com (John Doh) wrote in message
>news:<20020121141702...@mb-ba.aol.com>...
>> >gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng):
>> Has anybody else noticed that Mr. Garrett always wants to believe the worst
>> about America?
>
> When America stops acting like a bully and acknowledges the
>wrongs it has committed in the past I'll change my position.
So you will always believe the worst about America, huh?
Man you don't know how good you got it here. And you can't even show any
appreciation, only bitch and whine. I guess us bailing out other countries and
savings lives by spending BILLIONS in foreign aid doesn't mean SHIT to you.
America is just a "bully" and that's all it will ever be to you.
I fought for people like you, maybe I even killed someone defending the
"bully." Would you like to spit on me too while you're at it?
--
John D'oh Member, The Center for Science in the Interest of Publicity
http://thoth.stetson.edu/hyde/mpg/csip.html
John Doh
You LIED. You ate up the lies and spit them back out. Typical, since you only
believe the worst about America.
John Doh
>Are they not considered POWs? Then I have nothing to conceed.
Yeah well the dirty secret is that if they are POWs then they can't be tried by
military tribunals. Instead each and every one gets to have his own Johnny
Cochran and a trial (on our nickel) that goes on forever and exposes our
military operations. Just like the WTC in 93 bombing trial.
I'm sure you'd like that.
Paul Havemann
detainees' status:
http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20020121/1190691.html&qs=Clifford%20Orwin
[...]
Nothing the Americans have done so far presents a clear
violation of international law. But we have to put first
things first. A government's first duty is to defend its
people. You be the U.S. President who informs his people that
he would really have liked to do everything in his power to
protect them from further acts of mass murder, but it would
have offended Amnesty International.
Should the West ever be so delusional as to respond to a
lawless enemy by lapsing into feckless legalism, on that day
-- although I hate a cliche as much as the next man, still,
there's no denying it: The Terrorists Will Have Won.
midtowng
> In alt.fan.dan-quayle midtowng <gjoh...@eudoramail.com> sez:
> : Don McGregor <bo...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> :> midtowng wrote:
>
> :>>>> They ARE POWs. They were captured in a war, were they not?
> :>>>
> :>>> For the Nth time, that's not sufficient.
> :>>
> :>> For the Nth time, yes it IS sufficient.
> :>
> :> Read the treaty. Those captured in war and not
> :> wearing distinctive markings don't get protection.
>
> : That is _beyond_ rediculous.
>
> Did you read the treaty? Your beef is with its writers.
It seems like I was the ONLY one of this group to have
read the treaty. Please refer to my response to Don on this.
You guys not only didn't read the treaty, but seem to have swallowed
the incorrect Bush Administration interpretation hook-line-and-sinker.
Don McGregor
> > They can afford pickup trucks, guns, and food. I think
> > they can spring for a 50 cent armband.
>
> You know, I'm glad that you demanded I read the part of
> the Geneva Convention that covers prisoners of war because now
> I know that you are simply flat out wrong. I suggest that YOU
> read it.
> http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
>
> Article 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.
> [...]
> 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
> government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
>
>
> [All you have to be is a _member_ of the party in conflict. Notice
> that is said "ONE of the following catagories" (my emphasis)
> You do NOT have to be wearing a uniform. Will you admit this
> undeniable
> fact now?
They _could_ qualify as POWs--if they meet other criteria.
Consider a member of the German armed forces who parachutes
into Bastogne in a US uniform during the battle of the bulge.
Is he a member of the german armed forces? Yes. Does
he qualify for Geneva? No. He's out of uniform and can be
treated as a spy.
The militas could qualify, but they're not exempt from the
other criteria, such as conforming to the laws of war,
carrying arms openly, and wearing insignia. In fact one
of the sections has an exemption for militias who rush
to arms in the immediate wake of an invasion, apparently
intended as protection for people such as the Swiss militia
who might have to grab their rifle from the closet and
run off to shoot Germans or Frenchmen pouring over
the border. But al Qaeda don't qualify on that basis
either, as combat had been going on for weeks before
they were captured.
> 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.
The "competent tribunal" is of course unspecified. Is the
US department of defense a competent tribunal? Maybe.
> > The Geneva requirements are central to conducting
> > a "civilized" war. Imagine the situation if there
> > were no requirement for distinctive markings: everybody
> > would be running around in Levis, sneakers, and
> > t-shirts. Who does the opponent shoot at?
>
> You are talking about the situation in most recent wars,
> Afghanistan wars included.
This is nothing more than a statement that Geneva is widely
ignored by our opponents, which I do not dispute. Indeed,
I've made that argument myself.
>You talk about them like this
> is an impossible situation.
You'll notice some problems with US forces attempting
to fight VC and killing some civilians in the
process.
> Yet it is a reality in almost
> all third world cases. Remember that Afghanistan is famous
> for troops switching sides in middle of a battle.
So? They take off the armband and put on a new one.
> > There is of course a long history of harsh measures
> > directed at combatants out of uniform. During WW2
> > they were often shot, as for example the Germans in
> > US uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge or
> > during the closing days of the war in Germany.
>
> Which was before the Geneva Convention in 1949.
The requirements still carry over.
> Some of the al-Queda members _would_ fall outside
> of the catagory of POWs. But pretty much all the Taleban
> members wouldn't. That is undeniable.
Not if out of uniform, failing to conform to
the other criteria, etc.
Don McGregor
> the Geneva Convention that covers prisoners of war because now
> I know that you are simply flat out wrong. I suggest that YOU
> read it.
> http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Here's the section you keep tap-dancing around:
----
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.
----
If they don't meet the conditions, there is no requirement
to treat them as POWs.
Perhaps rather than going on about other things you could
directly address this section.
qwerty
qwerty
Here is the exact portion of the Geneva Convention that deals with what a
POW is:
http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/texts/BH240.txt
ARTICLE 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring
in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to
the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) 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:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all
kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating
and degrading treatment;
(d) 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.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of
the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force,
by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of
the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal
status of the Parties to the conflict.
ARTICLE 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, 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.
(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.
Sonof Ravenson
qwerty wrote:
> Here is the exact portion of the Geneva Convention that deals with what a
> POW is:
[snip]
Assuming the "detainees" are actually POWs as defined by the Geneva
Convention, which of the following prohibited acts have they been
subjected to...?
Don McGregor
Dave Lister wrote:
>They clearly are POWs.
Are not.
Dave Lister
>
>
> Dave Lister wrote:
>>They clearly are POWs.
>
> Are not.
Want to make a little bet as to how the Talibans' status ends up?
midtowng
> gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng) wrote in message news:<32a880f2.0201...@posting.google.com>...
> > You know, I'm glad that you demanded I read the part of
> > the Geneva Convention that covers prisoners of war because now
> > I know that you are simply flat out wrong. I suggest that YOU
> > read it.
> > http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
>
> Here's the section you keep tap-dancing around:
And speaking of tap-dancing, you deleted the part that directly,
and unquestionably, proves your point wrong. Here it is again.
Article 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.
[my comments: if I post nothing else, this part alone proves that
the Taleban prisoners in Cuba right now are POWs by the definition of
the
Geneva Convention. Nothing else needs to be said because they only
have to qualify by _any one_ of the following catagories, and they
qualify
under the very first one.
However, there are other parts that of the treaty that make my
case even more convincing. I shall reapply them too.]
>
> ----
> 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.
> ----
>
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
[...]
Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in
Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and
until their final release and repatriation.
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.
[which obviously means that America alone is not the final
arbitrator on this issue. They are POWs until proven otherwise.
Nuff' said. We are breaking the Geneva Convention.]
> If they don't meet the conditions, there is no requirement
> to treat them as POWs.
>
> Perhaps rather than going on about other things you could
> directly address this section.
Wow! This is impressive, even for your surprisingly lower standards
over the past month. You delete the part that directly proves you
wrong and then try to bluff your way around it.
You aren't a dummy, Don, so I don't believe that you just don't
understand
what is being said here. Therefore I am forced to conclude that you
are
doing an "Odell".
I say with all my heart Don:
Please, come back to the light! Don't go to the Darkside Don!
Turn away before it is too late!
midtowng
You keep going on like it is as simple as them not wearing a
uniform makes them not qualify. Don, can't you read? It's in black
and white. They qualify if they were captured in Afghanistan and
were members of the Taleban.
>
> The militas could qualify, but they're not exempt from the
> other criteria, such as conforming to the laws of war,
> carrying arms openly, and wearing insignia.
[blah, blah, blah]
This is getting rediculous now.
I gave you undeniable proof and now you are pretending you
don't understand what it means. You aren't dumb so therefore
you must be simply pretending it doesn't exist.
If that is what you intend to do then that is your choice.
But I'm not going to go along with the charade.
>
> > 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.
>
> The "competent tribunal" is of course unspecified. Is the
> US department of defense a competent tribunal? Maybe.
_Think_ about that for a second Don. Do you honestly think
that the Geneva Convention would be designed so that any protagonist
would be the final arbitrator on who qualifies and who doesn't?
You might as well not have the law at all then!
>
> > > The Geneva requirements are central to conducting
> > > a "civilized" war. Imagine the situation if there
> > > were no requirement for distinctive markings: everybody
> > > would be running around in Levis, sneakers, and
> > > t-shirts. Who does the opponent shoot at?
> >
> > You are talking about the situation in most recent wars,
> > Afghanistan wars included.
>
> This is nothing more than a statement that Geneva is widely
> ignored by our opponents, which I do not dispute.
Obviously that ISN'T what I was saying. You said "imagine the
situation..." Well, I don't need to imagine that since it is a
common situation.
As for "Geneva is widely ignored", that may or may not be.
But it has nothing to do with what is said above since the
rights of prisoners are not mentioned in your paragraph.
> >You talk about them like this
> > is an impossible situation.
>
> You'll notice some problems with US forces attempting
> to fight VC and killing some civilians in the
> process.
Yes...? What has this got to do with the rights of prisoners
except that we violated them repeatedly in Vietnam?
>
> > Yet it is a reality in almost
> > all third world cases. Remember that Afghanistan is famous
> > for troops switching sides in middle of a battle.
>
> So? They take off the armband and put on a new one.
Maybe you don't understand what I am saying.
>
> > Some of the al-Queda members _would_ fall outside
> > of the catagory of POWs. But pretty much all the Taleban
> > members wouldn't. That is undeniable.
>
> Not if out of uniform,
As you can see above Don, in or out of uniform it doesn't
matter. They only have to qualify under one catagory, not all
of them.
> failing to conform to
> the other criteria, etc.
Good thing that most of them do qualify.
midtowng
I haven't had been subject to "cruel and unusual punishment" at
the hands of the government yet, to give an example. That doesn't
mean I'm OK with the government taking that right away because
I haven't needed it yet.
midtowng
> On 22 Jan 2002 14:51:06 -0800, gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng)
> wrote:
> >Harold <haroldb...@delete.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kjer4u09eatq5alue...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 16 Jan 2002 13:31:24 -0800, gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng)
> >> wrote:
> >> >http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1011006398862&call_page=TS_Opinion&call_pageid=968256290124&call_pagepath=News/Opinion&col=968350116695
> >> >
> >> >THE U.S. government says that the terrorist attack on New York City
> >> >was an act of war.
> >> >
> >> >Yet it refuses to treat those it has captured in the course of this
> >> >war as prisoners of war. Instead, it refers to them as "unlawful
> >> >combatants" not entitled to the protection of the 1949 Geneva
> >> >Convention, which the U.S. signed and which sets out rules for
> >> >treating enemy soldiers.
> >>
> >> There is no need, under the Geneva conventions, to label any captive
> >> as a POW.
> >
> >prisoners. We could just shoot them all on sight. Hell, we
> >could nuke Afghanistan.
>
> While we could nuke Afghanistan, don't you think that would be a over
> reaction, or do you think hanging some murders is no worse than
> bombing a bunch of innocents?
>
> Talk about "moral equivalence"!!!
In case you missed it, the murderers died on 9/11. The guys in Cuba
were taken in combat while serving for or with the Taleban army.
Do you normally consider people serving in an army to be murderers?
Paul Havemann
:> Did you read the treaty? Your beef is with its writers.
: It seems like I was the ONLY one of this group to have
: read the treaty. Please refer to my response to Don on this.
: You guys not only didn't read the treaty, but seem to have swallowed
: the incorrect Bush Administration interpretation hook-line-and-sinker.
I don't see any posts where I've joined in this Geneva Convention
contretemps. Would you mind awfully pointing out any? There's a
good chap.
Don McGregor
midtowng wrote:
> 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.
Do you really want to argue that al qaeda is part of the
Taliban armed forces?
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
----
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
(Protocol 1)
Adopted on 8 June 1977 by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation
and Development of
International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armned Conflicts
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from
the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish
themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an
attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing,
however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to
the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish
himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in
such situations, he carries his arms openly:
(a) During each military engagement, and
(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is
engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in
which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be
considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1
(c).
[An attack is defined elsewhere as:
Article 49.-Definition of attacks and scope of application
1. "Attacks" means acts of violence against the adversary, whether in
offence or in defence. ]
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while
failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of
paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he
shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to
those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this
Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those
accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where
such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not
engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack
shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by
virtue of his prior activities.
6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a
prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Convention.
7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted
practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by
combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to
the conflict.
Article 47.-Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner
of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an
armed conflict;
(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the
desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a
Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of
that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in
the armed forces of that Party;
(d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of
territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on
official duty as a member of its armed forces.
Don McGregor
Dave Lister wrote:
> >>They clearly are POWs.
> >
> > Are not.
>
> Want to make a little bet as to how the Talibans' status ends up?
What, that some of the taliban will be acquited and
released? Probably so.
Dave Lister
>
>
> midtowng wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Do you really want to argue that al qaeda is part of the
> Taliban armed forces?
Individual Al-qaeda fighters are if they took orders from Taliban
commanders and fought with the Taliban, especially against the Northern
Alliance.
Dave Lister
>
>
> Dave Lister wrote:
>> >>They clearly are POWs.
>> >
>> > Are not.
>>
>> Want to make a little bet as to how the Talibans' status ends up?
>
> What, that some of the taliban will be acquited and
> released? Probably so.
No fool, on their POW status. Want to bet?
midtowng
> midtowng wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> Taliban armed forces?
That's a tougher call and have amended my call on this several
times already. If they were taken prisoner in the battlefield then
they are unquestionably by virtue of the 3rd qualification.
If they were caught in Algeria, or any non-battlefield area,
then probably not.
With that said, a vast majority of the prisoners in Cuba were
captured and flown in from Afghanistan. What's more is that many
of them are Taleban members and deserve the rights of POWs by any
measure.
>
> http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
[...]
>
> Article 47.-Mercenaries
> 1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner
> of war.
> 2. A mercenary is any person who:
>
> (a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an
> armed conflict;
>
> (b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
>
> (c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the
> desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a
> Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of
> that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in
> the armed forces of that Party;
>
> (d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of
> territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
>
> (e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
>
> (f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on
> official duty as a member of its armed forces.
Are you trying to say that al-Queda forces in Afghanistan fall
under the catagory of mercenaries? If so this fails by an important point:
they were serving in the trenches along with the Taleban under orders
from the Taleban.
Now if they were caught somewhere else then you point stands. But
not the guys serving in the trenches. They are still POWs.
midtowng
> gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng):
> >Don McGregor <bo...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >news:<3C4D1271...@127.0.0.1>...
> >> midtowng wrote:
> >> > I neither claim that we are mistreating prisoners nor deny it.
> >> > I have no proof either way.
> >>
> >> That's not what you said earlier:
> >>
> >> ----
> >> The prisoners are being subject to weeks of sensory deprevations.
> >> That is what they used to do in the old Soviet Union.
> >> ----
> >
> > Granted. I got ahead of myself.
>
> You LIED. You ate up the lies and spit them back out. Typical, since you only
> believe the worst about America.
It responses like this that make it so easy to dismiss you.
Don McGregor
> >> Want to make a little bet as to how the Talibans' status ends up?
> >
> > What, that some of the taliban will be acquited and
> > released? Probably so.
>
> No fool, on their POW status. Want to bet?
If the detainees fail to be convicted on war crimes
charges, they will presumably revert to POW status and
be repatriated. So it is probable that one or
more will be classified as "POWs".
The detainees will probably eventually be sorted out
to two or three classes:
1. War criminals, guilty of conspiring against the
US or of other war crimes. This may include Taliban
or al Qaeda.
2. Not guilty of war crimes. The Taliban would probably
revert to POW status and be (eventually) repatriated.
3. al Qaeda. Not POWs. their mere status as al qaeda may
be enough to detain them.
If the bet is that one or more of the Taliban will not
be classified as a POW, I'll take it. I think Rummy is
inclined to tell Amnesty International to go piss up
a rope on that score.
Dave Lister
> If the bet is that one or more of the Taliban will not
> be classified as a POW, I'll take it. I think Rummy is
> inclined to tell Amnesty International to go piss up
> a rope on that score.
Where you been moron? It isn't Amnesty International raising the biggest
stink, it's our allies.
Don McGregor
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
> >
> > Do you really want to argue that al qaeda is part of the
> > Taliban armed forces?
>
> That's a tougher call and have amended my call on this several
> times already. If they were taken prisoner in the battlefield then
> they are unquestionably by virtue of the 3rd qualification.
Still fail on the distinctive markings issue (you delted the portion
from the 1977 protocol which mentioned this.)
The 3rd article refers to members of regular armed forces.
If we fight the republic of Blogistan, whose government we
do not recognize (as we did not recognize the Taliban),
the members of the Blogistan armed forces are recognized
as POWs when captured. If, IF they also meet other criteria,
such as wearing distinctive markings in combat or when
preparing for combat.
Al qaeda does not belong to the Afghan armed forces,
or if they do you need to convince Chris Holt of
that fact. It also would mean that the attacks on
NY and DC were conducted by members of the Afghan armed
forces.
> > http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
> [...]
> >
> > Article 47.-Mercenaries
> > 1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner
> > of war.
> > 2. A mercenary is any person who:
> >
> > (a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an
> > armed conflict;
> >
> > (b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
> >
> > (c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the
> > desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a
> > Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of
> > that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in
> > the armed forces of that Party;
> >
> > (d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of
> > territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
> >
> > (e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
> >
> > (f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on
> > official duty as a member of its armed forces.
>
> Are you trying to say that al-Queda forces in Afghanistan fall
> under the catagory of mercenaries? If so this fails by an important point:
> they were serving in the trenches along with the Taleban under orders
> from the Taleban.
As would mercenaries anywhere.
They were paid more than others in afghanistan. the sticking
point would be whether they were motivated primarily by money,
and intent is difficult to prove.
> Now if they were caught somewhere else then you point stands. But
> not the guys serving in the trenches. They are still POWs.
You didn't address the relevant sections. Here they are again:
2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of
international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these
rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or,
if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a
prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.
Dave Lister
> Al qaeda does not belong to the Afghan armed forces,
> or if they do you need to convince Chris Holt of
> that fact. It also would mean that the attacks on
> NY and DC were conducted by members of the Afghan armed
> forces.
Al Qaeda does not belong to anything. Individuals may belong or have been
taking orders from one or both parties, and as such could have been
considered by the Afghans to be part of their armed forces.
Whether you like it or not. Care to wager?
Don McGregor
I think he'll tell them to piss up a rope, too.
You still up for the bet or what? Say, a $50 contribution
to a suitable charity, such as the Navy-Marine Corps
Relief society, http://www.nmcrs.org ?
Don McGregor
Dave Lister wrote:
> > Al qaeda does not belong to the Afghan armed forces,
> > or if they do you need to convince Chris Holt of
> > that fact. It also would mean that the attacks on
> > NY and DC were conducted by members of the Afghan armed
> > forces.
>
> Al Qaeda does not belong to anything. Individuals may belong or have been
> taking orders from one or both parties, and as such could have been
> considered by the Afghans to be part of their armed forces.
>
> Whether you like it or not. Care to wager?
I've already suggested elsewhere $50 to the Navy-Marine
Corps relief fund. That the al Qaeda members will not
be considered to be POWs? Sure, I'll take that.
Dave Lister
> I've already suggested elsewhere $50 to the Navy-Marine
> Corps relief fund. That the al Qaeda members will not
> be considered to be POWs? Sure, I'll take that.
I agree with the amount, the charity and verification need to be worked
out.
Don McGregor
Why, you against helping needy Marines during
wartime or sumthin? Commie bastard.
I have no need for verification. I presume everyone
involved will pay their gaming debts.
My email address is bogus. (It doesn't pay to publish
a real address in any public forum these days; the
cost/benefit isn't worth it.) I've got a throwaway
account at (mcgredo at hotmail dot com) that I scan every
few months.
Silverback
<haroldb...@delete.yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:54:38 +0000, "chris.holt"
><chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>Harold wrote:
>>
>>> gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng) wrote:
>>
>>>>http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1011006398862&call_page=TS_Opinion&call_pageid=968256290124&call_pagepath=News/Opinion&col=968350116695
>>
>>>>THE U.S. government says that the terrorist attack on New York City
>>>>was an act of war.
>>
>>>>Yet it refuses to treat those it has captured in the course of this
>>>>war as prisoners of war. Instead, it refers to them as "unlawful
>>>>combatants" not entitled to the protection of the 1949 Geneva
>>>>Convention, which the U.S. signed and which sets out rules for
>>>>treating enemy soldiers.
>>
>>> There is no need, under the Geneva conventions, to label any captive
>>> as a POW.
>>
>>> Personally, I am inclined to hang them all.
>>
>>Whether they're guilty or not?
>
>You are just so thoughtful and restrained. We know they are guilty.
>This is not, in case you missed it, a bust by the Chicago police in
>your local bar.
guilty of what harry? Defending their native or adopted country from
outside aggression?
>
>Regards, Harold (Capitalist Running Dog)
>----
>The majority of those who were in the bottom 20 percent of income
>in 1975 were in the top 20 percent at some point over the next
>17 years.
> ----- Census' Current Population Report number 60-209
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
=====================================================
GDY Weasel
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
The Nazi Hydra in America an online book of the
fascist influence in America.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html
===================================================
Don McGregor
>That the al Qaeda members will not
> > > be considered to be POWs? Sure, I'll take that.
Washington Times:
----
The White House insisted yesterday — despite the disclosure of a
contradictory internal memo — that President Bush's foreign policy team
still agrees that captured Taliban and al Qaeda fighters are not
prisoners of war. "All the president's advisers, including Secretary of
State Colin Powell, agree they are not POWs," Sean McCormick, chief
spokesman for the National Security Council, said yesterday.
...
The official said the issue probably will be settled at a White House
meeting this week.
----
Don McGregor
> Where you been moron? It isn't Amnesty International raising the biggest
> stink, it's our allies.
UK Telegraph:
----
Polls conducted by British newspapers and television stations have
come out with heavy majorities in favour of what the Americans are
doing. The editor of the Daily Mirror, for instance, who had invited
his readers to agree with him that it constituted "torture",
discovered that more than 80 per cent of his readers thought there was
nothing wrong with what was happening at Guantanamo Bay.
If there is a conflict, it is one between British politicians and the
people who vote for them. The conflict between the governed and their
governors is present on almost all law and order issues.
----
It's all a clever American plot to expose European elite opinion
as being out of touch with their citizens, and thereby marginalize
the elites, just as the reflexively anti-American left was
marginalized in the US.
Don McGregor
Don McGregor wrote:
>
> >That the al Qaeda members will not
> > be considered to be POWs? Sure, I'll take that.
Interesting article in the WP:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42731-2002Jan26.html
...
While the administration considers how to deal with the prisoners, a
number of experts in international law say that most of the al Qaeda
detainees probably do not deserve to be labeled prisoners of war under
the conventions.
But a loose consensus has emerged among many legal specialists, as well
as a number of critics and defenders of the U.S. military's treatment of
the 158 detainees, that many of the captured Taliban fighters likely
could be declared POWs after hearings on their cases.
...
A number of experts say the United States appears to be on safe ground
-- legally and strategically -- if it argues that the al Qaeda fighters
it is holding are not POWs.
Michael Glennon, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, said members of al Qaeda will likely fail to meet a key
requirement of the Geneva Conventions for POWs: that they "conduct their
operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
"Al Qaeda's sworn purpose of killing American civilians places them at
odds with the customs of war," and therefore appears to disqualify most
of them from POW designation, he said.
The status of irregular or guerrilla military forces, such as al Qaeda,
is murkier under international law than the rights of soldiers fighting
for a legitimate government. Essentially, four criteria must be met for
captured irregulars to qualify as POWs.
In addition to requiring fighters to do battle "in accordance with the
laws and customs of war," combatants must "be commanded by a person
responsible for his subordinates," wear a uniform with "a fixed
distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance" and "carry arms openly."
Neither al Qaeda combatants nor Taliban fighters apparently ever wore
uniforms, but this may not prove to be decisive, lawyers said. Although
the Pentagon declared during the early months of the Vietnam War that
the Viet Cong did not deserve POW status, in part because they usually
wore indistinctive black garb, military officials later reversed
themselves and granted captured Viet Cong soldiers POW standing.
Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters at times apparently carried concealed
arms, such as during the prison uprising in Mazar-e Sharif, when
captured combatants with grenades hidden in their clothes killed
Northern Alliance soldiers and a CIA officer.
The Pentagon "seems to have a valid argument" in making its anticipated
contention that al Qaeda members must not be deemed POWs, said Sean
Murphy, an international law professor at George Washington University.
In 1949, when the Geneva Conventions governing POWs were drawn up, the
world community agreed that groups such as the anti-Nazi French
partisans in World War II and Greek communist guerrillas -- movements
that in legal terms could be described as resembling al Qaeda -- did not
qualify for POW classification.
...
One sign of the general consensus is that even the advocacy group Human
Rights Watch is expressing agreement.
Because al Qaeda members don't wear insignia or abide by the rules of
war, "we think . . . a tribunal probably would decide al Qaeda members
don't meet the POW requirements," said Tom Malinowski, a Human Rights
Watch representative in Washington. "But the Taliban probably would be
entitled to POW status. If you're fighting for the regular armed forces
of a nation, you're entitled to POW status."
...
Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers reporting to military commanders
connected to a government are ordinarily considered POWs. U.S. officials
are considering denying the Taliban fighters POW status because it could
be argued that the Taliban regime, recognized diplomatically by only
three other nations, did not constitute a valid government.
Rumsfeld acknowledged the issue last week when he told reporters that
"lawyers must sort through legal issues with respect to . . . whether or
not the Taliban should be considered what the documents apparently refer
to as a, quote, 'high contracting party,' or in plain English, I think,
'a government.' "
But some legal experts said it is irrelevant whether other nations
diplomatically recognize an opposing regime. During the Korean War, for
instance, neither the United Nations nor the United States recognized
the Beijing regime diplomatically, but they treated captured Chinese
soldiers as POWs.
mark_we's_all_just_bozos_on__the_bus
wrote:
>
>
>Don McGregor wrote:
>>
>> >That the al Qaeda members will not
>> > be considered to be POWs? Sure, I'll take that.
>
>Interesting article in the WP:
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42731-2002Jan26.html
>
>...
>
>While the administration considers how to deal with the prisoners, a
>number of experts in international law say that most of the al Qaeda
>detainees probably do not deserve to be labeled prisoners of war under
>the conventions.
>
>But a loose consensus has emerged among many legal specialists, as well
>as a number of critics and defenders of the U.S. military's treatment of
>the 158 detainees, that many of the captured Taliban fighters likely
>could be declared POWs after hearings on their cases.
>
That is what most of us have been saying all along, that captured
taliban militia soldiers clearly qualify for pow status while al qaeda
fighters do not. (The one exception I think is the Al Qaeda unit that
was integrated into the Taliban Militia.)
The tough part about saving civilization from the barbarians is that
we have to do so in a civilized way.
==
Mark Roddy
Don McGregor
NYT. Januaary 28, 2002, front page. I hereby claim vindication
in the wager, and ask you to conceed and confirm that you
will contribute $50.
If you're some kind of commie ratfink who's against
helping Marines, Sailors, and their families in distress,
I'll allow you to contribute $50 to the Afghan Fund for
Children.
America's Fund for Afghan Children
c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20509-1600
Navy-Marine Corps Relief Fund:
http://www.nmcrs.org/
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/28/international/28DETA.html
----
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 — Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that the war captives in
Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, would not be designated as
prisoners of war, regardless of what decision the administration made
on Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's request for a review of how
the Geneva Convention on captives' rights might apply.
Secretary Powell agrees that the captives should not be given prisoner
of war status, but he has asked the administration to reconsider
whether to adhere to the Geneva Convention governing treatment of
prisoners in wartime, adopted in 1949.
Mr. Cheney said the convention did not apply to those captives because
they were not conventional soldiers, but terrorists operating outside
internationally accepted norms.
...
Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him today to Guantánamo,
"There is no ambiguity in this case."
"They are not P.O.W.'s," he said before touring the United States
naval base at Guantánamo, where 158 prisoners from Afghanistan are
being held. "They will not be determined to be P.O.W.'s."
Dave Lister
> Dave Lister <retsil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<4r448.34793$dG.16...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com>...
>> Don McGregor <bo...@127.0.0.1> wrote in
>> news:3C50C748...@127.0.0.1:
>>
>> > I've already suggested elsewhere $50 to the Navy-Marine
>> > Corps relief fund. That the al Qaeda members will not
>> > be considered to be POWs? Sure, I'll take that.
>>
>> I agree with the amount, the charity and verification need to be
>> worked out.
>
> NYT. Januaary 28, 2002, front page. I hereby claim vindication
> in the wager, and ask you to conceed and confirm that you
> will contribute $50.
It's a little early in the game, slick.
midtowng
> gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng):
>
> >Are they not considered POWs? Then I have nothing to conceed.
>
> Yeah well the dirty secret is that if they are POWs then they can't be tried by
> military tribunals. Instead each and every one gets to have his own Johnny
> Cochran and a trial (on our nickel) that goes on forever and exposes our
> military operations. Just like the WTC in 93 bombing trial.
>
> I'm sure you'd like that.
I'd prefer that Washington stop trying to take short-cuts
with civil rights, both in Cuba and here at home.
The knee-jerk reaction seems to be removing rights first, and
actual hard-work at doing things right, second. Just as the state
Department said, we should determine whether they should be POWs
on a case by case basis. I'm sure that if we actually tried we could
find a few that don't qualify and declassify them with a clear
conscience. Then we could send back all those Taleban foot soldiers
where they should be.
midtowng
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:48:22 GMT, Don McGregor <bo...@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
> >Don McGregor wrote:
> >> >That the al Qaeda members will not
> >> > be considered to be POWs? Sure, I'll take that.
> >
> >Interesting article in the WP:
> >
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42731-2002Jan26.html
> >
> >...
> >
> >While the administration considers how to deal with the prisoners, a
> >number of experts in international law say that most of the al Qaeda
> >detainees probably do not deserve to be labeled prisoners of war under
> >the conventions.
> >
> >But a loose consensus has emerged among many legal specialists, as well
> >as a number of critics and defenders of the U.S. military's treatment of
> >the 158 detainees, that many of the captured Taliban fighters likely
> >could be declared POWs after hearings on their cases.
> >
> That is what most of us have been saying all along, that captured
> taliban militia soldiers clearly qualify for pow status while al qaeda
> fighters do not. (The one exception I think is the Al Qaeda unit that
> was integrated into the Taliban Militia.)
That's what I've been saying too. Some of the al Qaeda probably
don't qualify as POW status, some do. Pretty much all the Taleban
should.
Just like the State Department said the other day.
>
> The tough part about saving civilization from the barbarians is that
> we have to do so in a civilized way.
>
Well put.
Don McGregor
> > taliban militia soldiers clearly qualify for pow status while al qaeda
> > fighters do not. (The one exception I think is the Al Qaeda unit that
> > was integrated into the Taliban Militia.)
>
> That's what I've been saying too. Some of the al Qaeda probably
> don't qualify as POW status, some do. Pretty much all the Taleban
> should.
> Just like the State Department said the other day.
You said earlier:
----
In case you missed it, the murderers died on 9/11. The guys in Cuba
were taken in combat while serving for or with the Taleban army.
----
The people in cuba include al qaeda members who were not affiliated
with the taliban army. So I suspect you're engaging in some ex post
facto revisionism.
And the state department didn't say that:
----
Secretary Powell agrees that the captives should not be given prisoner
of war status, but he has asked the administration to reconsider
whether to adhere to the Geneva Convention governing treatment of
prisoners in wartime, adopted in 1949
----
Dave Lister
> And the state department didn't say that:
>
> ----
> Secretary Powell agrees that the captives should not be given prisoner
> of war status, but he has asked the administration to reconsider
> whether to adhere to the Geneva Convention governing treatment of
> prisoners in wartime, adopted in 1949
> ----
Which means what exactly, for those of not used to mumbo-jumbo legalisms
over other peoples' lives?
Don McGregor
Dave Lister wrote:
> > ----
> > Secretary Powell agrees that the captives should not be given prisoner
> > of war status, but he has asked the administration to reconsider
> > whether to adhere to the Geneva Convention governing treatment of
> > prisoners in wartime, adopted in 1949
> > ----
>
> Which means what exactly, for those of not used to mumbo-jumbo legalisms
> over other peoples' lives?
That you'll have to write a check for $50 soon.
midtowng
> gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng) wrote in message news:<32a880f2.02012...@posting.google.com>...
> > > That is what most of us have been saying all along, that captured
> > > taliban militia soldiers clearly qualify for pow status while al qaeda
> > > fighters do not. (The one exception I think is the Al Qaeda unit that
> > > was integrated into the Taliban Militia.)
> >
> > That's what I've been saying too. Some of the al Qaeda probably
> > don't qualify as POW status, some do. Pretty much all the Taleban
> > should.
> > Just like the State Department said the other day.
>
> You said earlier:
>
> ----
> In case you missed it, the murderers died on 9/11. The guys in Cuba
> were taken in combat while serving for or with the Taleban army.
> ----
in Cuba were taken in combat while serving for or with the Taleban
army.
>
> with the taliban army.
A few. Very few. But then we will never know exactly how many
because, in violation of the Geneva Convention, our government
won't release any information about them.
> So I suspect you're engaging in some ex post
> facto revisionism.
This is a pathetic attempt at trying to twist a single statement
of mine out of context while ignoring a ton of other statements of
mine
that totally agree on this point. This is very "Odellish" of you Don
and it is starting to be a bad habit.
Are you REALLY interested in what I've said on this point? After
this post I doubt it, but I'll go over it anyway. In this thread
alone I've said:
On January 23rd:
Some of the al-Queda members _would_ fall outside
of the catagory of POWs. But pretty much all the Taleban
members wouldn't. That is undeniable.
On January 24th:
That's a tougher call and have amended my call on this several
times already. If they were taken prisoner in the battlefield then
they are unquestionably by virtue of the 3rd qualification.
If they were caught in Algeria, or any non-battlefield area,
then probably not.
With that said, a vast majority of the prisoners in Cuba were
captured and flown in from Afghanistan. What's more is that many
of them are Taleban members and deserve the rights of POWs by any
measure.
>
> And the state department didn't say that:
> ----
> Secretary Powell agrees that the captives should not be given prisoner
> of war status, but he has asked the administration to reconsider
> whether to adhere to the Geneva Convention governing treatment of
> prisoners in wartime, adopted in 1949
> ----
Oh, yes the State Department DID say that:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-000006945jan27.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dfrontpage
The State Department urged the president to give the 158 detainees at
the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and 302 others under guard
in Afghanistan the protections and treatment guaranteed under the
Geneva Conventions, though not necessarily grant them the legal status
of prisoners of war, officials said.
[...]
This post of yours was a waste of time, Don.
If was nothing more than a fishing expidition. Don't you have
something better to do?
Dave Lister
chris.holt
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42731-2002Jan26.html
...
> But a loose consensus has emerged among many legal specialists, as well
> as a number of critics and defenders of the U.S. military's treatment of
> the 158 detainees, that many of the captured Taliban fighters likely
> could be declared POWs after hearings on their cases.
Isn't the US supposed to treat them as though they were POWs until
hearings determine their actual status?
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt/
Chris Morton
>
>Don McGregor wrote:
>
>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42731-2002Jan26.html
>
>...
>
>> But a loose consensus has emerged among many legal specialists, as well
>> as a number of critics and defenders of the U.S. military's treatment of
>> the 158 detainees, that many of the captured Taliban fighters likely
>> could be declared POWs after hearings on their cases.
>
>
>Isn't the US supposed to treat them as though they were POWs until
>hearings determine their actual status?
Here's an analagous situation:
How did the Allies treat prisoners from the Italian Social Republic after the
real Italy dropped out of the war? The Taliban are the fascists, and the Karzai
government is the Italian Co-Belligerant government. I say give them back to
Karzai and let him do what he wants. At least you can kind of squint your eyes
and turn your head funny, an the Taliban KIND of look like a government.
As far as Al Qaeda goes, shoot them. They're just bandits.
If they're "soldiers", then so is Sammy "The Bull" Gravano.
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
midtowng
> Don McGregor wrote:
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42731-2002Jan26.html
> ...
> > But a loose consensus has emerged among many legal specialists, as well
> > as a number of critics and defenders of the U.S. military's treatment of
> > the 158 detainees, that many of the captured Taliban fighters likely
> > could be declared POWs after hearings on their cases.
>
> Isn't the US supposed to treat them as though they were POWs until
> hearings determine their actual status?
That's what the Geneva Convention says.
It's just not what we're going to do.
chris.holt
> In article <3C56771C...@ncl.ac.uk>, "chris.holt" says...
>>Don McGregor wrote:
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42731-2002Jan26.html
>>>But a loose consensus has emerged among many legal specialists, as well
>>>as a number of critics and defenders of the U.S. military's treatment of
>>>the 158 detainees, that many of the captured Taliban fighters likely
>>>could be declared POWs after hearings on their cases.
>>Isn't the US supposed to treat them as though they were POWs until
>>hearings determine their actual status?
> Here's an analagous situation:
> How did the Allies treat prisoners from the Italian Social Republic after the
> real Italy dropped out of the war? The Taliban are the fascists, and the Karzai
> government is the Italian Co-Belligerant government.
I'm not sure how good the analogy is; but if it is good,
then surely that's what the hearings would determine. If
they don't, then maybe there are problems.
> I say give them back to Karzai and let him do what he wants.
That would require formal extradition proceedings, wouldn't it?
Again, if there's legal merit in what you suggest, I don't see
why ordinary legal measures can't be applied.
> At least you can kind of squint your eyes
> and turn your head funny, an the Taliban KIND of look like a government.
So did the Shah, and Marcos. And (as someone mentioned)
Red China during the Korean War.
> As far as Al Qaeda goes, shoot them. They're just bandits.
If they're just bandits, then why can't they be tried as such?
> If they're "soldiers", then so is Sammy "The Bull" Gravano.
So they can be tried the same way, no? Once the hearings determine
this to be the case?
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt/
Christopher Morton
<chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> How did the Allies treat prisoners from the Italian Social Republic after the
>> real Italy dropped out of the war? The Taliban are the fascists, and the Karzai
>> government is the Italian Co-Belligerant government.
>
>
>I'm not sure how good the analogy is; but if it is good,
>then surely that's what the hearings would determine. If
>they don't, then maybe there are problems.
It's as good as any.
What did we do with captured fascists after the armistice?
> > I say give them back to Karzai and let him do what he wants.
>
>That would require formal extradition proceedings, wouldn't it?
Not at all. Extradition is for CRIMINALS. If the Taliban are POWs,
we'd simply be repatriating them to their country of origin. Isn't
that generally REQUIRED?
By the way, what "formal extradition proceedings" were held to return
Vlasov's men to the Soviet Union.
Come to think of it, what "formal extradition proceedings" were held
to return Soviet POWs who DIDN'T collaborate, to the Soviet Union?
> > At least you can kind of squint your eyes
>
>> and turn your head funny, an the Taliban KIND of look like a government.
>
>
>So did the Shah, and Marcos. And (as someone mentioned)
>Red China during the Korean War.
And we treated Chinese POWs as POWs. We weren't at war with Iran or
the Philippines.
>> As far as Al Qaeda goes, shoot them. They're just bandits.
>
>
>If they're just bandits, then why can't they be tried as such?
By military tribunals? OK. Actually, in WWII, they probably would
have been shot out of hand by BOTH sides.
>> If they're "soldiers", then so is Sammy "The Bull" Gravano.
>
>
>So they can be tried the same way, no? Once the hearings determine
>this to be the case?
Just being a member of Al Qaeda should be enough to get your MOS
changed to "bullet trap".
--
"sure an a nigger is going to use denigrate." - Glen Yeadon