|
Hey Stuart, I hate to bust up your little hate America-thon but it goes like this. In WWII we either tried or released all the German prisoners we captured. Q. When did we do this? A. After the freakin war was over!!!!!! See that's how it works. A prisoner sits untill the war is over. And that's what these guys should do. The only thing we're doing wrong is coddling them. If I had anything to do with it they would be clean shaven (even if we had to anesthetize them to do it), and they would get sausage for breakfast, ham sanwiches for lunch and pork & beans for dinner.
|
Honestly Thom, I don't remember where I saw this. A quick search of some "mainstream" media websites gave me nothing. Since they didn't report on it, it must not have happened.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
send them to paradise.............as it says in the Quran, so they can enjoy their virgins
|
So, I guess the NeoCon idea is to disappear anyone they don't like to one of the gulags (ie Abu Graib, Guantanamo) and because the possibility exists that they'd go back to fighting the very forces that would imprison them in the first place, they can never be released.
And yet you wonder why your guy gets compared to Hitler and Stalin? |
So you'd prefer that we release them all so that they can kill a few more Americans before they get recaptured or killed?
|
Thom, nothing personal, but I hope a large, close relative of one of our volunteer soldiers has the chance to explain to you in person that his son, brother or whatever is not some SS war criminal or commie murderer. And once again, no they don't get released, UNTILL THE WAR IS OVER. That is how it has always been. But I know that you can discount the facts regardless how obvious because in the mind of a neolib, all that matters is 1. how you feel about an issue an 2. believing that above all, Bush sucks.
|
Quote:
|
So when should they be released??
And what are they - common criminals? Soldiers? |
Quote:
From your link: Unlawful combatant (also illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant) describes a person who engages in combat without fulfilling the conditions that confer lawful combatant status according to the laws of war. The "Detaining Power" may choose to accord detained unlawful combatants the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), but is not required to do so. Unlawful combatants may retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention in that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial". The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in GCIII; nor does the word "combatant." However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. "Prisoner of war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant." If there is doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a competent tribunal. Randy |
Not virgins...
OBL dies and goes to heaven. He is greeted by a gentleman in a powdered wig who proceeds to kick him in the nut$. Another similar gentleman comes along and hits him with a hammer. A line of other men begins to queue up. "What is this?" OBL demands. "Where are my seventy-two virgins to greet me?" Saint Peter responds.."Virgins? No. Virginians." |
If it's all so fine and right why did the administration build the detention centre off shore? If they were members of an army you were at war with you might detain them after the war but then you'd have to do so under the usual conventions right? So you're saying you're at war (with terrorism I assume) and these guys are the enemy so can't be released until the war is over (hard to determine right). Yet these people are not recognised enemy. Can't have it both ways.
Either you're at war & these are the guys you are fighting with or you're not at war but rather trying to make terrorists lives more difficult (I've no problem with this aim) by gaining information. In the former case they should be held as pow's. In the later case they should be tried by jury and then locked away, executed or whatever your law determines. Take your pick. Detainment without trial is just bs whichever way you look at it (unless of course they're pow's - which they're clearly not). |
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
It says "ALL MEN". Not some men, not American men. Why is it good enough to deny these men in Gunatanomo- regardless of what they may have done- the same rights we reserve for ourselves? Remembering ofcourse, John Lind was tried and jailed under US law. Guantanoma Bay is an abomination of noble and sacrosanct American ideals, and to the rest of the world (yes, f them, i know) a monumental dispaly of hypocrisy. |
Enemy combatants, taken prisoner from a battle field. These people are not "suspects" removed from their homes based on their neighbors testimony. These are people actively carrying weapons and using them on a battle field against Uniformed American troops.
The enemy we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are neither uniformed, nor do they show anything close to the care we show for the prisoners at Guantanamo. How many beheadings, mutilations, suicide bombings of innocent civilians do you need to make you understand the enemy we are against. How are we supposed to react to being fired upon from "Mosques"?? How are we supposed to react when we find weapons stockpiled inside these "mosques"?? How are we supposed to react when so many innocent Iraqi's and others are brutally murdered?? It seems to me you have lost sight of the fact that this enemy does not respond to any rules of war. And yet you focus upon your perception of how imprisoned enemy combatants are treated by the US. If we were to sink to the level of this enemy, there would not be any enemy combatants in Cuba, they would all be dead before they ever left the middle east. Now lets see your real humanity and talk about how our enemy uses children and innocent people to deliver suicide bombs to kill more innocent people. If you can't do that, then own up to the fact that you don't like the US, that you have declared yourself on the side of our enemy and we'll treat you as such. |
Doug, you're wasting your keystrokes. For some reason, these guys fail to realize that the UNIFORMED military force, you know, the guys representing their country, gave up defending Saddam. They are now, (the majority of them, I believe) fighting ALONGSIDE American and Coalition troops to rid their country of the NON-UNIFORMED, ILLEGAL COMBATANTS.
Stu, what would you have us do, release every prisoner held behind bars in every prison? It would seem that your argument suggests that no government has the right or authority to imprison people. I really doubt you support total anarchy, but what do I know. SHEESH! I did a little search and found some interesting articles about where YOU may be coming from. I'm sorry, man, but I really got a chuckle out of some of this. A strike of the Australin Prisoners Union??? :eek: For instance: An offering to the public would be a safer life. To deal with us means a fundamental move away from aggression and intolerance. Prisoners and their communities could decide on a crime strike, and tell the public what would make that possible. To make a conscious decision to not break the law for a day. The police could be asked to show goodwill and tolerance at the same time. If we can show that we can make a difference that would lead to greater possibilities in the future. Worldwide the effect would be enormous. Stop, please...yer killin' me over here!!!! :D:D:D Randy |
I think you miss the point, rececale. I am not advocating they be turned loose without process. They are either POWs or they are criminals. Try them openly according to their basic entitlemnt to fair process. To try to deny them any status is unconscionable, and if you will allow, un-American. As a person of good conscience, I am surprised you are not outraged by this.
What is it we are fighting this War on Terror for, after all? |
Quote:
[i]A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, or PW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict. The laws apply from the moment a prisoner is captured until he is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners, and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable). Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. In principle, to be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured servicemember must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practise these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly, yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, the importance of uniforms -or as in the guerrilla case, a badge- to keep this important rule of warfare. The status of POW does not include unarmed non-combatants who are captured in time of war; they are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention rather than the Third Geneva Convention. The treatment of prisoners of war can depend on the resources, social attitudes and policies of the governments and militaries in question. For instance, in World War II, Soviet prisoners of Nazi Germany and German prisoners of the Soviet Union were often treated with neglect and brutality. The Nazi Regime regarded Soviet POWs as being of a lower racial order, and many Soviet POWs were consequently subject to enforced labour or were murdered in keeping with The Third Reich's policy of racial purification. Prisoners from Britain and the US were generally treated much better by the Germans. On the Soviet side, German POWs were regarded as having forfeited their right to fair treatment, because of the widespread crimes committed against Soviet civilians during their invasion campaign. This combined with the fact that much of the Soviet workforce was now in the hands of Nazi Germany, also led to employment of many German POW's as forced labour (this forced labour was in keeping with that imposed on Soviet civilians for a range of criminal and political crimes). Prisoners held by Japanese armed forces were subject to brutal treatment, including forced labour, starvation rations, beatings for escape attempts, and were denied medical treatment. By contrast, POW facilities held by Allied nations like the USA, United Kingdom and Canada usually complied with the Geneva Conventions, which sometimes created conditions POWs found were more comfortable than their own side's barracks. This approach was decided based on the idea that having POWs well treated meant a ready supply of healthy and cooperative laborers for farmwork and the like, as allowed by the Geneva Conventions, which eased personnel shortages. There were also the benefits of a lower chance of having to deal with escapes or prisoners causing camp disruptions. The comparatively favourable conditions also made interrogations of enemy personnel easier and more productive. In addition, as word spread among the enemy about the conditions of North American POW camps and it became clear that the war was lost, it encouraged surrenders which helped further Allied military goals efficiently without the expense of combat. Furthermore, while there were initially complaints of coddling the enemy, the Allied population largely grew to support this approach which may have raised morale among the Allied personnel by reinforcing the idea that this humane treatment of prisoners showed that their side was morally superior to the enemy. The fact that the above nations never suffered invasion by their enemies helped avoid the kind of enmity towards their prisoners that the Soviet Union had. Randy |
Unlawful Combatant
Unlawful combatant (also illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant) describes a person who engages in combat without meeting the requirements for a lawful combatant according to the laws of war as specified in the Third Geneva Convention. Belligerents that identify such unlawful enemy combatants may not necessarily accord them the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants may retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention in that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial". The United States administration uses the term illegal enemy combatant to describe people detained by the United States under some Presidential military orders. However as the United States' courts have not yet ruled that any of the detainees have faced a "competent [military] tribunal", this phrase is not a legal description of the detainees status. International law and practice The term has been around for at least 100 years and has been used in legal literature, military manuals and case law. However unlike the terms "combatant" "prisoner of war" and "civilian" the term "unlawful combatant", or similar, is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not. Prisoners of war The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August (1949) (GCIII) of 1949 defines the requirements for a captive to be eligible for treatment as a prisoner of war (POW). A lawful combatant is a person who commits belligerent acts but if captured, would be a considered POW. An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts, but does not qualify under GCIII Articles 4 and 5. 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 [of civil ships and aircraft], 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... ... 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. These terms thus divide people in a war zone into two classes. Those in armies and militias and the like (lawful combatants), and then those who are not. Those in armies and militias and the like have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture and those not in armies and militias do not have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture. The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" (defined above) cannot be held personally responsible for acts prosecuting that combat, unless they commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. And if captured, they have to be treated as prisoners of war - basically they can be detained (more humane than killing them), but must be provided for, treated with respect, and so on. If there is any doubt about whether an alleged combatant is a "lawful combatant" then they must be held as a Prisoner of War until their status has been determined by "a competent tribunal". If that tribunal rules that the combatant is an "unlawful combatant" then their status changes to that of a civilian which may give them some rights under Fourth Geneva Convention. Persons who are not prisoners of war in an international conflict A non-combatant civilian "in the hands" of an enemy or an Occupying Power often gains rights through Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August (1949) (GCIV) if they qualify as a "protected person". Article 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are. If they fulfil the criteria they are a 'protected person' and are entitled to all the protections mentioned in GCIV. It should be emphasised that a national of neutral state, with normal diplomatic representation, in a war zone is not a protected person under GCIV. But what of a combatant who does not qualify for POW status? If they qualify as a 'protected person' they get all the rights which a non-combatant civilian gets under GCIV but the Party to the conflict may invoke Articles of GCIV to curtail those rights. The relevant Articles are Article 5 and Article 42. Part I. General Provisions ... Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State. Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be. ... [cont.) |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website