TORTURE AND POWs
Bob Hubert
or captured, after our violations of the Geneva Convention?
Douglas Berry
orac...@altavista.com (Bob Hubert) warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>Can you imagine what will happen to any Americans who are kidnapped
>or captured, after our violations of the Geneva Convention?
Sincewhen has the al-Qaeda followed the Geneva and Hague Conventions?
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Tim Perdue
"Bob Hubert" <orac...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:7f64d521.02040...@posting.google.com...
> Can you imagine what will happen to any Americans who are kidnapped
> or captured, after our violations of the Geneva Convention?
Has any captured american EVER been treated under the geneva convention? If
so, where and when??
Brainless rhetoric. The captured americans have always been tortured, even
killed.
Tim
Da Squid
> On 7 Apr 2002 07:31:18 -0700, a wanderer, known to us only as
> orac...@altavista.com (Bob Hubert) warmed at our fire and told this
> tale:
>
> >Can you imagine what will happen to any Americans who are kidnapped
> >or captured, after our violations of the Geneva Convention?
>
> Sincewhen has the al-Qaeda followed the Geneva and Hague Conventions?
Not to mention the laws of land warfare.
Poser
the Afghan prisoners in Cuba POW's? If not then we should let them go. I
don't know how we can expect other countries to follow any convention if we
don't adhere to them
.
"Tim Perdue" <t...@gotocity.com> wrote in message
news:IlZr8.189008$af7.94313@rwcrnsc53...
oldlib
> Can you imagine what will happen to any Americans who are kidnapped
> or captured, after our violations of the Geneva Convention?
How do we get our enemy to abide by the Geneva Convention?
Nap
kidnapped
> or captured, after our violations of the Geneva Convention?
First of all, we didn't violate the Geneva convention. If you
think we did, then point out chapter and verse.
Secondly, your Telaban and Al Qaeda buddies have done
serious violations of the Geneva convention, including, it looks
like now, mass murder of 15,000 civilians in Afghanistan,
fighting out of uniform, giving no quarter to those that
surrendered,
and intentionally targeting civilians.
They have proven themselves to be, time and time again,
incredibly inhumane. Something that you neglected to mention.
Why is that?
Nap
"Poser" <bo...@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:a8q1jo$b4h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> We like to say that we follow the Geneva conventions even if we
don't. Are
> the Afghan prisoners in Cuba POW's?
They meet the criteria of war criminals, not POW.
> If not then we should let them go.
I don't think you've read the Geneva and Hague conventions
on war, have you? It is clear that you don't understand them.
SteveL
>
>"Bob Hubert" <orac...@altavista.com> wrote in message
>news:7f64d521.02040...@posting.google.com...
>> Can you imagine what will happen to any Americans who are
>kidnapped
>> or captured, after our violations of the Geneva Convention?
>
>First of all, we didn't violate the Geneva convention. If you
>think we did, then point out chapter and verse.
"Regular" forces are *always* entitled to official POW status. Such
forces are described in Article 4/A/1 as "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."
The articles quoted as justification by those wishing to deny POW
status are intended for "Members of other militias and members of
other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance
movements" (4/A/2), not the people described in the first clause - who
are guaranteed proper POW status.
I presume the GC assumes regular will always wear recognisable
uniforms because it doesn't explicitly mention uniforms *anywhere* in
relation to the regular forces described in 4/A/1. This raises the
question of whether or not people fighting for the Taliban (or the
Northern Alliance for that matter) are covered by 4/A/1 (and why not?)
or are minor "irregulars" covered by 4/A/2. At the very least, this
is open to interpretation. It's anything but cut and dried.
And the GC says where there's doubt, the assumption is a prisoner
*qualifies for POW status*: In article 5: "Should any doubt arise as
to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having
fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories
enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of
the present Convention until such time as their status has been
determined by a competent tribunal. " (Article 4 outlines the
categories of people qualifying as official POWs)
(And what about: "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."? These people qualify as POWs.)
Another charge leveled at these prisoners is that they don't carry
Geneva Convention ID cards, that they failed to give their name, rank,
serial number and date of birth. This again is used to deny them POW
rights. Again, this is not justified. The Geneva Convention clearly
states that such a prisoner may render himself "liable to a
restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status". Nowhere
does it say that the non-complying prisoners forfeit their right to be
treated as official POWs.
In several different ways, the Convention clearly states that the
prisoner is to be given the benefit of the doubt. In clear,
straightforward language the Convention says they're entitled to
recognition as official POWs under the GC until such a competent
tribunal has ruled. No amount of wishful thinking and interpretive
gymnastics can get around these clearly stated articles.
The US is pre-empting this and is defying the Geneva Convention on a
number of articles. Even if everything you say about these prisoners
turns out to be true, they're still entitled to POW rights - for now.
But hell, we should *want* to uphold the Geneva Convention if we're as
civilized as we claim to be, not look for excuses to ignore it based
on nit-picking intepretations of the fine print. I was brought up to
believe the Geneva Convention was a good thing, and that countries who
follow it have the moral highground over those that didn't (e.g. Japan
in WW2). It's worrying to see so many people willing to chuck it away
for so little reason (and yes Sept 11th *is* little reason in the
grand scheme of things - compared to what other warring nations who've
stuck with the GC have endured).
See:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
for the full text.
>
>Secondly, your Telaban and Al Qaeda buddies have done
>serious violations of the Geneva convention, including, it looks
>like now, mass murder of 15,000 civilians in Afghanistan,
>fighting out of uniform, giving no quarter to those that
>surrendered,
>and intentionally targeting civilians.
I've satified your request for chapter and verse. You do the same for
the above assertion.
>
>They have proven themselves to be, time and time again,
>incredibly inhumane. Something that you neglected to mention.
>
>Why is that?
Because the Northern Alliance is no better. Heroin production cut back
by the Taliban is being re-introduced for a start (and ironically,
Afghani heroin will probably kill more people in just the next *year*
than were killed on Sept 11th). BTW the NA don't wear uniforms or
carry Geneva Convention cards either, and that doesn't hamper the US
seeing *them* as "legitimate".
Before Sept 11th, the Bush administration was wooing the Taliban and
trying to enlist them as *allies*. The US didn't care one jot about
their murdering nature back then, as long as they could help the US
gain access to Central Asia oil resources.
Yet another example of the US's "May be a sonofabitch but he's our
sonofabitch" foreign policy that so often makes a mockery of the US's
claims to moral superiority in the world.
>Why is that?
In my case because I want my country *be* morally superior, to look
for and dispense *justice* for Sept 11th, not small minded revenge.
Douglas Berry
bob...@juno.com (Da Squid) warmed at our fire and told this tale:
Ot even The Holy Koran's teachings on what is acceptable in Jihad.
SteveL
wrote:
>
>"Bob Hubert" <orac...@altavista.com> wrote in message
>news:7f64d521.02040...@posting.google.com...
>> Can you imagine what will happen to any Americans who are kidnapped
>> or captured, after our violations of the Geneva Convention?
>
>Has any captured american EVER been treated under the geneva convention? If
>so, where and when??
Yes. Ironically, given their brutal nature, the Nazis by and large
followed the Geneva Convention with Allied POWs (at least those who
were of "Aryan" extraction).
>
>Brainless rhetoric. The captured americans have always been tortured, even
>killed.
What, *all* of them? Even *most*? Some, yes, but you're overstating
it.
The Geneva Convention is a *GOOD* thing. We should follow it
regardless - even if our enemies don't. Why? Because we're supposed to
be better than them.
Nap
"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:SQ5s8.268268$2q2.24...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 22:57:47 GMT, "Nap" <an...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob Hubert" <orac...@altavista.com> wrote in message
> >news:7f64d521.02040...@posting.google.com...
> >> Can you imagine what will happen to any Americans who are
> >kidnapped
> >> or captured, after our violations of the Geneva Convention?
> >
> >First of all, we didn't violate the Geneva convention. If you
> >think we did, then point out chapter and verse.
>
> "Regular" forces are *always* entitled to official POW status.
Completely and utterly wrong, as you are assuming that
all regular forces are wearing uniforms. You clearly don't
understand what you're reading, and you were never in
the military, where they stress VERY STRONGLY when
you are suppose to be in uniform.
> Such
> forces are described in Article 4/A/1 as "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."
Read the whole thing, buddy. Regulars are in uniforms.
[snip]
> >Why is that?
>
> In my case because I want my country *be* morally superior, to
look
> for and dispense *justice* for Sept 11th, not small minded
revenge.
Nah. You're just another Telaban loving American hater. Another
one of those that is not happy until there are more dead
Americans.
The only faults you people find are with Americans. 15,000 dead
civilians at the hands of the Telaban is just fine with you, make
no
mention of it.
Dave Lister
> Nah. You're just another Telaban loving American hater. Another
> one of those that is not happy until there are more dead
> Americans.
> The only faults you people find are with Americans. 15,000 dead
> civilians at the hands of the Telaban is just fine with you, make
> no
> mention of it.
You are just a Taliban lover, wanting to make a similar monster of the
American government, holding secret trials in off-shore bases not really
subject to the laws of ANY country.
Frankly, people like you are sickening. I expect the bad guys to behave
badly, I expect the US to follow the letter AND spririt of the convention.
One is in doubt, but we are certainly NOT following the spirit.
Dave Lister
@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net:
>
> "Poser" <bo...@yahooo.com> wrote in message
> news:a8q1jo$b4h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> We like to say that we follow the Geneva conventions even if we
> don't. Are
>> the Afghan prisoners in Cuba POW's?
>
> They meet the criteria of war criminals, not POW.
You can't tell the difference between your shitty ass from a hole in the
dirt you eat off.
>> If not then we should let them go.
>
> I don't think you've read the Geneva and Hague conventions
> on war, have you? It is clear that you don't understand them.
Yeah, right knucklehead. All those countries that also wrote and signed
it are wrong and Nap the Great is right.
Bonehead.
SteveL
>
>"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:SQ5s8.268268$2q2.24...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 22:57:47 GMT, "Nap" <an...@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bob Hubert" <orac...@altavista.com> wrote in message
>> >news:7f64d521.02040...@posting.google.com...
>> >> Can you imagine what will happen to any Americans who are
>> >kidnapped
>> >> or captured, after our violations of the Geneva Convention?
>> >
>> >First of all, we didn't violate the Geneva convention. If you
>> >think we did, then point out chapter and verse.
>>
>> "Regular" forces are *always* entitled to official POW status.
>
>Completely and utterly wrong, as you are assuming that
>all regular forces are wearing uniforms
No I'm not! *You* are!.
> You clearly don't
>understand what you're reading, and you were never in
>the military, where they stress VERY STRONGLY when
>you are suppose to be in uniform.
I *grew up* in the US military. My father, my brother, and uncle were
career military men, and we can look each other in the eye in any
military discussion. They all agree the prisoners should be given POW
status. So do their career military friends and colleagues. Yours is
the minority view of "military" types, most of whom have the
intelligence to realise "what goes around comes around".
The US armed forces might stress the importance of uniforms but the
*Geneva Convention* does not. The only mention of anything related is
having a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance". And that
only relates to "organized resistance".
That's a *fact*. Show me some *facts* or stop pretending you know what
you're talking about. Refute the "chapter and verse" you asked for or
shut up.
>
>
>> Such
>> forces are described in Article 4/A/1 as "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."
>
>Read the whole thing, buddy. Regulars are in uniforms.
You clearly have not read any of it. You asked for chapter and verse.
It was given. Then you ignore it and descend into hurling stupid
accusations of treason around for daring to provide you with what you
asked for.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >Why is that?
>>
>> In my case because I want my country *be* morally superior, to
>look
>> for and dispense *justice* for Sept 11th, not small minded
>revenge.
>
>Nah. You're just another Telaban loving American hater.
No. You are the America hater. You're a might-is-right,
my-country-right-or-wrong flag waver who'd let a Hitler rule you as
long as he waved the stars and stripes. You are the antithesis of what
the flag represents.
> Another
>one of those that is not happy until there are more dead
>Americans.
You are a deluded fool. At least others take the articles of the GC
seriously and look to twist and nit-pick their way around them. You
refuse to even do that. You just unilaterally claim these prisoners
are not entitled to proper status but the GC itself does not back you
up. If you think it does then do some work, read it and show us where.
>The only faults you people find are with Americans.
If demanding that my country treats its prisoners of war fairly (as it
has always done previously - even with the Nazis) then I'm happy to
plead guilty.
>15,000 dead
>civilians at the hands of the Telaban is just fine with you, make
>no
>mention of it.
I asked you for a reference to that "fact" and you refused to provide
it, yet you demand "chapter and verse" from your opponents. How you
can be comfortable with that flawed thinking is beyond me. Don't put
yourself forward as a patriotic American. You're the opposite.
Tim Perdue
> What, *all* of them? Even *most*? Some, yes, but you're overstating
> it.
I asked for an example of a conflict where our soldiers were treated under
the GC. I haven't been able to think of a single occasion.
> The Geneva Convention is a *GOOD* thing. We should follow it
> regardless - even if our enemies don't. Why? Because we're supposed to
> be better than them.
Yes, this is my argument as well. However, it is a non-argument to say our
soldiers will be tortured if we don't, since they will be tortured anyway,
and always have been tortured.
Tim
Tim Perdue
> No. You are the America hater. You're a might-is-right,
> my-country-right-or-wrong flag waver who'd let a Hitler rule you as
> long as he waved the stars and stripes. You are the antithesis of what
> the flag represents.
Yes, I fear this problem is facing the 80% of americans who favor Bush right
now.
Tim