On Oct 24, 12:11*am, aemeijers wrote:
On 10/23/2010 10:13 PM, HeyBub wrote:





Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
*wrote:

They are being detained under the president's Article II powers and,
as unlawful enemy combatants, fall into the same category as spies,
saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. The usual
rules of war permit them to be executed forthwith.

* * This is one of the reasons why I get rather strange and vacant
looks from most people saying they should be treated under the terms
of the Geneva Convention when I agree wholeheartedly with them.
* * *It has been awhile so I may be wrong, but IIRC there is a part in
the GC that says it only applies to signatories and since most of the
insurgents, Taliban, AQ-ites, etc., are not signatories...
* * I also like to point out beheadings and other interesting ideas
about "interrogation" in that region and suggest the guys in Gitmo are
getting off much easier than they would if their governments got hold
of them.

No problem there. The Geneva and Hague conventions do not apply to "unlawful
enemy combatants."

The Fourth Geneva Convention defines a "lawful" enemy combatant as one who:

1. Wears a distinctive uniform or insignia,
2. Carries arms openly,
3. Submits to a lawful chain-of-command, and
4. Follows the generally accept rules of war.

Absent all four of these conditions, a belligerent is NOT a lawful enemy
combatant.

The protocols go on to define exceptions, such as a hastily organized
militia deployed to engage an invasion, medical personnel, civilian workers
such as those constructing fortifications, truck drivers of military
supplies, and others. None of these excepts apply to "insurgents."

So, then, even IF the Taliban were signatories to the protocols and
conventions, the folks we've captured would STILL be outside the protections
of international agreements.

True but irrelevant. This country used to hold itself to a higher
standard than merely following the letter of the law, and strove to
treat prisoners of whatever status well. And the world knew it.

You mean like when President Roosevelt put hundreds of thousands of
American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps, without
any trials, warrants, indictments, or due process?





At the
close of WWII, why do you think all those Nazis were trying like hell to
flee west? They knew how the Russians treated prisoners. A lot of the
German POWs held in midwest STAYED after the war.

And I'll bet if there is a future war, those same legitimate combat
troops will also flee to the USA instead of some commie countries like
North Korea or Cuba.



It saddens me that our government now thinks the ends justify the means.

We're not fighting a conventional battle against a foreign army that
fights on the battlefield. We're in a whole new world, where
terrorists deliberately kill as many innocent civilians as possible.
Cheney has stated that the info obtained from enhanced interrogation
was of high value and has prevented attacks. He has called for the
information to be declassified so the public can see. Funny thing
though, the Obama administration refuses to do so. If depriving some
foreign terrorist of sleep, playing loud music, turning off their AC,
and pouring water over their head prevents just one bomb from going
off in Times Square, I say it's well worth it







--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -