Forums | MacLife

Steyr AUG wrote:

Except be definition they cant be classified as prisoners of war.

Rewrite the dictionary.

Can someone show me where Congrefs declared war on terrorism, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq [really misses smaller text sizes]...?

I hope no one is in any doubt that Steyr is full of smurf as usual.

If they're not prisoners of war, they are, by convention, to be treated as criminal suspects and processed by the criminal justice system.

I know that our li'l Air Force desk jockey has long since stopped responding to my posts, but I sincerely hope he tries to call me on this one.

(yeah right)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I hope no one is in any doubt that Steyr is full of smurf as usual.

If they're not prisoners of war, they are, by convention, to be treated as criminal suspects and processed by the criminal justice system.

No.

Un-uniformed enemy combatants are not required to be treated as criminal suspects.
What they lose by not following the geneva convention in the method of their warfare is the geneva convention regarding POW's.

The Geneva Conventions are international law. They are rules for the conduct of war, agreed to by civilized nations, that assumed wars would be fought between armies whose soldiers would respect these rules.

Under the Geneva Conventions, however, soldiers who fight out of uniform or commit atrocities – i.e., murder prisoners or target and kill noncombatants – may be sent before firing squads.

Wehrmacht soldiers who penetrated American lines in the Battle of the Bulge by wearing U.S. Army uniforms hastily shed them to fight in German uniforms – or else they could have been shot when captured. OSS agents, dropped behind enemy lines to kill German pilots and Nazi collaborators, knew they were not entitled to the same protections as 82nd Airborne troops dropped behind German lines on D-Day.

...

In World War II, FDR did not hesitate to execute, after secret trials, six German saboteurs caught on U.S. soil, though they had not killed a single American or exploded a single bomb. They were saboteurs, out of uniform behind American lines, and under the rules of warfare, we had every right to execute them. And we did.

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/geneva- … rules.html

Last edited by resedit (2009-05-22 6:49 pm)

Why do I need to mention it?
The facts quoted are true regardless of who said them, and I did provide a link to the full article.

The point is that geneva conventions for POW treatment did not apply because the captured soldiers were not conforming to the Geneva conventions for warfare.

Last edited by resedit (2009-05-22 8:01 pm)

resedit wrote:

Why do I need to mention it?
The facts quoted are true regardless of who said them, and I did provide a link to the full article.

While Buchanan is no Glenn Beck, he is known to fly off into libertarian/ultra-conservative Never-never Land at a moment's notice. And agree or disagree with Buchanan, an opinion piece by him is rarely a dry recitation of mere facts.

The point is that geneva conventions for POW treatment did not apply because the captured soldiers were not conforming to the Geneva conventions for warfare.

So what do you say about the fact that even the saboteurs were given (albeit secret) trials?

Steyr AUG wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

The point is that geneva conventions for POW treatment did not apply because the captured soldiers were not conforming to the Geneva conventions for warfare.

So what do you say about the fact that even the saboteurs were given (albeit secret) trials?

Military Tribunal

Happens all the time.  Why dwell in the past though.  Seeing how I was in the Military; I'll have to agree with Res and Steyr, under the Geneva Convention guidelines, they are not "POWs".  As soon as they want to go toe to toe with our boys instead of cowardly blowing up markets and unarmed civilians; I think the "enemy combatant" moniker is as good as any.

That being said, locking them up in a military prison is good enough; although I would stop short of any medical treatment and I would only give them the type of food they need to survive; ie bread and water.  They sure as hell do not deserve to live "comfortable" in my eyes once we have them.  Just toss in the cell and be done.  No need to torture them -- interrogate, yes.

-mark

avkills wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

So what do you say about the fact that even the saboteurs were given (albeit secret) trials?

Military Tribunal

Happens all the time.  Why dwell in the past though.  Seeing how I was in the Military; I'll have to agree with Res and Steyr, under the Geneva Convention guidelines, they are not "POWs".  As soon as they want to go toe to toe with our boys instead of cowardly blowing up markets and unarmed civilians; I think the "enemy combatant" moniker is as good as any.

That being said, locking them up in a military prison is good enough; although I would stop short of any medical treatment and I would only give them the type of food they need to survive; ie bread and water.  They sure as hell do not deserve to live "comfortable" in my eyes once we have them.  Just toss in the cell and be done.  No need to torture them -- interrogate, yes.

-mark

But are you for even this level of imprisonment when there is NO evidence that they were even "enemy combatants" (BTW: a politically correct term if I've ever heard one)? We (the US) held British nationals for 3-5 years in Gitmo based on no evidence--one was even taken from a Afghan prison because the Taliban thought he was a Western spy!

sturner wrote:

FUD.

Lots and lots of FUD.

If they aren't uniformed soldiers, they are irregulars. If they aren't irregulars, they are civilians. Label them, and be done with it.

Of course the real problem is that Al Queda isn't a national entity. So it's hard to go to war against them.

It's not hard for them to go to war with us.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

Why do I need to mention it?
The facts quoted are true regardless of who said them, and I did provide a link to the full article.

While Buchanan is no Glenn Beck, he is known to fly off into libertarian/ultra-conservative Never-never Land at a moment's notice. And agree or disagree with Buchanan, an opinion piece by him is rarely a dry recitation of mere facts.

The parts I quoted was dry, mere facts.

resedit wrote:

If they were uniformed, then the rules apply.
The convention is specific about that.

...and "the rules" only apply to uniformed soldiers, and no one else?

Sure about that?

I thought we just gave them unpleasant experiences- stiff wedgies.

Please, hold forth on the fine points of Nuremburg next, and the difference between the Geneva Conventions & and the Hague Accords.

How much unform is enough?