Guantanamo Inmates / Geneva Rights

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
I agree that you COULD have just carpet-bombed all the mosques but if you firmly believe you didn’t purely because you were really special peace-loving guys, and not because of the political sensitivities and global outcry it would have caused, then I’m afraid you are very naive…

There is nothing peaceful about shooting somebody.

One could argue that there was plenty of global outcry and political mess anyway. The commanders ordered house-to-house to minimize civilian losses, plain and simple. Some of our guys got killed for that.

But I can understand why you can’t appreciate this. You’re a warm beer-drinking limey. :stuck_out_tongue:

Question: in the tapes you saw, were any of the guys shooting at our troops wearing uniforms or distinctive signs which identified them as soldiers? I’ll bet you a cold beer they weren’t. This fact = no geneva convention protection, FYI. That would be article 4 if you want to look it up. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Would you please read the damn thing?

22

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

There is nothing peaceful about shooting somebody.

One could argue that there was plenty of global outcry and political mess anyway. The commanders ordered house-to-house to minimize civilian losses, plain and simple. Some of our guys got killed for that.

But I can understand why you can’t appreciate this. You’re a warm beer-drinking limey. :stuck_out_tongue:

Question: in the tapes you saw, were any of the guys shooting at our troops wearing uniforms or distinctive signs which identified them as soldiers? I’ll bet you a cold beer they weren’t. This fact = no geneva convention protection, FYI. That would be article 4 if you want to look it up. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

I’m fully aware of the Geneva Convention, thanks. As I mentioned before, in order to maintain international credibility and the high moral ground which appears to be their platform for these actions, the US (and the UK!) must apply the spirit as well as the letter. If you want to ‘help’ another country out, you certainly don’t do it by acting this way.

I did however see unarmed women and children being shot and killed by US troops on purpose. What article does that come under with regards rules of engagement?

Of course some of your guys got killed. They went to war. What do you expect? That doesn’t change the facts of what was happening there.

Beer drinking Limey? Fella, if there’s one thing we have to thank the US for, it’s in WW2 when, in between screwing all our women for the price of a pair of nylons (I wish it was that easy now!), the digusted GIs stationed here got that one sorted. For giving us cold beer, I salute you and your wonderful country. :slight_smile:

23

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Oh Zap,

I can understand why that might have angered you because obviously you’ve not seen what I’ve seen on it and don’t believe me. But let’s move on from that for a sec. As I mentioned I’ll see what I can do to post something.

What are your thoughts on the rest of my statement? I’m not out for an argument here - just genuinely interested in the moral as well as political aspects. [/quote]

There is nothing moral about war yet the US tries to act as moral as possible and it sometimes interferes with our effort.

American Marines died because we tried to minimize civilian casualties.

Your trying to characterize it as massacring families is repellent.

24

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
A film you might well be able to download for more info is:

Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre which went out in Italy. The following is cut and paste but are some of the highlights of this fascinating documentary.

The film documents the use of weapons based on white phosphorus and other substances similar to napalm, such as Mark-77, by American forces.

The consensus opinion is that white phosphorus is not banned by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The protocol specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effect is secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed Protocol III. (obeying the letter, if not the spirit again)

Graphic visual footage of the weapons being fired from helicopters into urban areas is displayed, as well as detailed footage of the remains of those supposedly killed by these weapons, including children and women. The filmmakers interview ex US military solider Jeff Englehart of Colorado who discusses the American use of white phosphorus, codenamed “Whiskey Pete”, in built-up areas, and describes the Fallujah offensive as “just a massive killing of Arabs.”

The film alleges that the US military deliberately targeted Iraqi civilians and children during the Fallujah offensive as part of its campaign to exterminate opposition to its occupation.

The filmmakers interview ex US military sniper Garret Reppenhagen, also from Colorado, who admits to murdering civilians on order from his commanders.

In fact, if you go to Wikipedia there is a link to download it. That should serve as a decent intro to what actually happened there.

Please believe me when I say this is not me saying America bad, Saddam good or whatever, or even saying that Brits haven’t behaved badly too.

But watch that and tell me you don’t understand the depth of emotion around the world about the hypocracy of what the US Administration says and what the US military does.

THAT is where I have an issue. [/quote]

You are a sucker for anti-war propaganda.

“Massive killing of Arabs”. No shit? The terrorists are Arabs! They hide behind women and children!

Firing into an urban area? Of course they were! It is a battle in a city!

I have an issue with you when US Marines sacrifice their lives to minimize civilian casualties and you claim they are massacring women and children.

25

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
…
I’m fully aware of the Geneva Convention, thanks. As I mentioned before, in order to maintain international credibility and the high moral ground which appears to be their platform for these actions, the US (and the UK!) must apply the spirit as well as the letter. If you want to ‘help’ another country out, you certainly don’t do it by acting this way.
…[/quote]

You do not understand the spirit of the treaty.

It is not to be nice guys. It is to protect our soldiers.

As to the rest of your ill thought out misguided crap, you do not win the hearts and minds while the enemy is shooting at you.

The terrorists are using women and children as human shields. They are responsible for their deaths.

We will never see eye to eye on this issue because you seem to think we have to play fair in war.

The US plays more fairly than our enemies. It gets our boys killed. It does not eliminate all civilian casualties or everything else that may possibly offend your sensiblities.

26

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
There is nothing moral about war yet the US tries to act as moral as possible and it sometimes interferes with our effort.

American Marines died because we tried to minimize civilian casualties.

Your trying to characterize it as massacring families is repellent.[/quote]

Not me characterising it. The world. Do a web search for Fallujah Massacre. That is how it is known.

American Marines died because they went to war not with a country but a high-concept.

27

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
…
I’m fully aware of the Geneva Convention, thanks. As I mentioned before, in order to maintain international credibility and the high moral ground which appears to be their platform for these actions, the US (and the UK!) must apply the spirit as well as the letter. If you want to ‘help’ another country out, you certainly don’t do it by acting this way.
…

You do not understand the spirit of the treaty.

It is not to be nice guys. It is to protect our soldiers.

As to the rest of your ill thought out misguided crap, you do not win the hearts and minds while the enemy is shooting at you.

The terrorists are using women and children as human shields. They are responsible for their deaths.

We will never see eye to eye on this issue because you seem to think we have to play fair in war.

The US plays more fairly than our enemies. It gets our boys killed. It does not eliminate all civilian casualties or everything else that may possibly offend your sensiblities.[/quote]

Well I don’t know who made you boss of the spirit of the treaty but we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

So the terrorists were hiding behind women and children? That doesn’t mean you should shoot through them to get at them.

No need to be so agressive fella. We disagree. You can say your reasons and I can say mine. I’m interested in debate, not anonymous internet name-calling. Hope we can do that as I’m genuinely interested in the ins and outs of your point of view.

Seriously though, check out that doc I listed above and google fallujah massacre. - just by way of showing you I have not suddenly invented this stuff because I am anti-war.

In fact I was anti-going in, but since we went I was certainly not for packing up and going home until the job is done and the Iraqi people TRULY have a better way of life.

Over to you :slight_smile:

28

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
…
I’m fully aware of the Geneva Convention, thanks. As I mentioned before, in order to maintain international credibility and the high moral ground which appears to be their platform for these actions, the US (and the UK!) must apply the spirit as well as the letter. If you want to ‘help’ another country out, you certainly don’t do it by acting this way.
…

You do not understand the spirit of the treaty.

It is not to be nice guys. It is to protect our soldiers.

As to the rest of your ill thought out misguided crap, you do not win the hearts and minds while the enemy is shooting at you.

The terrorists are using women and children as human shields. They are responsible for their deaths.

We will never see eye to eye on this issue because you seem to think we have to play fair in war.

The US plays more fairly than our enemies. It gets our boys killed. It does not eliminate all civilian casualties or everything else that may possibly offend your sensiblities.

Well I don’t know who made you boss of the spirit of the treaty but we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

So the terrorists were hiding behind women and children? That doesn’t mean you should shoot through them to get at them.

No need to be so agressive fella. We disagree. You can say your reasons and I can say mine. I’m interested in debate, not anonymous internet name-calling. Hope we can do that as I’m genuinely interested in the ins and outs of your point of view.

Seriously though, check out that doc I listed above and google fallujah massacre. - just by way of showing you I have not suddenly invented this stuff because I am anti-war.

In fact I was anti-going in, but since we went I was certainly not for packing up and going home until the job is done and the Iraqi people TRULY have a better way of life.

Over to you :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Al-Queda did not sign the treaty. The insurgents are fighting as irregulars not military combatants.

Study the concept of sanctuary on the battlefield and why it is not given to the insurgents.

The Geneva Protocols are made to be a guideline for nations on how to conduct wars against each other. It shouldn’t be construed and binding on one side and not the other.

29

1-packlondoner,

I’m not so much arguing that Bush should have a free hand in the handling of terrorists, I’m more concerned about the Geneva Convention and arbitrary application of US and international law. That said, I have a few questions about your interpretation of the GC:

As I said, the Geneva Convention specifically names “unlawful combatants”, they must exist as they are stipulated in the convention, who are they and/or how are they identified?

Is anyone capable of evading murder charges simply by declaring war and how do we know? i.e. The GC stipulates that uniformed soldiers acting on behalf of a sovereign government on a battlefield can’t be tried for criminal acts as they are partaking in a war, some/most of these terrorists in no way fit that description and are/were committing criminal acts. I understand trying citizens declaring war on their own government for treason, etc. but what about people taking part in a global war?

Obviously a state is capable of violation, but is any state ever justified in violating the GC? If the violation is of the convention allowed, the convention doesn’t adequately stipulate it’s constituency, and those who follow the convention are granted equal or equivalent protection as those who don’t, do you not agree that the convention is ineffectual and needs some work?

30

[quote]hedo wrote:

The Geneva Protocols are made to be a guideline for nations on how to conduct wars against each other. It shouldn’t be construed and binding on one side and not the other.
[/quote]

And yet it is if one party that has signed the treaty has occupied a territory…

This is a treaty that is very hard to weasel out of and pacta sunt servanda…

31

[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:

The Geneva Protocols are made to be a guideline for nations on how to conduct wars against each other. It shouldn’t be construed and binding on one side and not the other.

And yet it is if one party that has signed the treaty has occupied a territory…

This is a treaty that is very hard to weasel out of and pacta sunt servanda…[/quote]

Nice try. Short of the mark however.

Few if any countries follow the the Geneva Convention to the letter. The US leads the way by a wide margin.

32

[quote]lucasa wrote:
1-packlondoner,

Obviously a state is capable of violation, but is any state ever justified in violating the GC? If the violation is of the convention allowed, the convention doesn’t adequately stipulate it’s constituency, and those who follow the convention are granted equal or equivalent protection as those who don’t, do you not agree that the convention is ineffectual and needs some work?[/quote]

Yes I totally agree that it needs work and updating to take into account warfare in the 21st century. But so far it’s all we have.

33

[quote]hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:

The Geneva Protocols are made to be a guideline for nations on how to conduct wars against each other. It shouldn’t be construed and binding on one side and not the other.

And yet it is if one party that has signed the treaty has occupied a territory…

This is a treaty that is very hard to weasel out of and pacta sunt servanda…

Nice try. Short of the mark however.

Few if any countries follow the the Geneva Convention to the letter. The US leads the way by a wide margin.

[/quote]
Yeah, I believe there is something in the treaty about militias and resistance to occupying forces. Wouldn’t they come under that hbracket?

34

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:

The Geneva Protocols are made to be a guideline for nations on how to conduct wars against each other. It shouldn’t be construed and binding on one side and not the other.

And yet it is if one party that has signed the treaty has occupied a territory…

This is a treaty that is very hard to weasel out of and pacta sunt servanda…

Nice try. Short of the mark however.

Few if any countries follow the the Geneva Convention to the letter. The US leads the way by a wide margin.

Yeah, I believe there is something in the treaty about militias and resistance to occupying forces. Wouldn’t they come under that hbracket?

[/quote]

Because they do not have insignia that identify them as combatants and they do not wear their weapons openly, no, they would not.

If they shoot an American soldier they are technically civilians trying to murder him.

35

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
However, it doesn’t matter whether those who committed those acts signed up to the Geneva Convention or not. It matters that the self-appointed champions of democracy and the free-world lead by example.

And part one of that is respecting and obeying both the letter AND the spirit of the aforementioned convention. Which they have not done.

[/quote]

If you’re going to write insanity like this, then don’t complain when I flame you for it.

“Self-appointed”? You came and got us, twice, Winston.

Hello? The people at Club Gitmo were not uniformed members of an army. They were roving bands of thugs and killers. After getting all the info we can out of them, a military tribunal should judge each one and shoot 'em if found guilty. The USA is giving them GC rights as a gift, because the insane lib media here bitches if our guys touch a Koran without putting on gloves first and other such stupid shit. “Oh, excuse me, sir, is the AC not working in your suite? How terrible!!”

HH

36

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:

If Iraq was where Canada is, and had the resources Iraq currently does, I think maybe the US would be more than happy to engulf it.
[/quote]

Yep, all Americans just want to invade their neighbors, occupy their land, maybe bring in colonists…wait, The British did that to Ireland for 600 years! Did you regard the Irish as heathens, vermin unworthy of life?
You’re a pot calling the kettle black there, Winston.

Yes, I know you’re a Scot. But look where you chose to live.

HH

37

[quote]orion wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:

The Geneva Protocols are made to be a guideline for nations on how to conduct wars against each other. It shouldn’t be construed and binding on one side and not the other.

And yet it is if one party that has signed the treaty has occupied a territory…

This is a treaty that is very hard to weasel out of and pacta sunt servanda…

Nice try. Short of the mark however.

Few if any countries follow the the Geneva Convention to the letter. The US leads the way by a wide margin.

Yeah, I believe there is something in the treaty about militias and resistance to occupying forces. Wouldn’t they come under that hbracket?

Because they do not have insignia that identify them as combatants and they do not wear their weapons openly, no, they would not.

If they shoot an American soldier they are technically civilians trying to murder him.[/quote]

I was of the understanding that militias or resistance to occupying forces were covered.

Civilians resisting an invading force… Doesn’t that make them resistance?

38

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
However, it doesn’t matter whether those who committed those acts signed up to the Geneva Convention or not. It matters that the self-appointed champions of democracy and the free-world lead by example.

And part one of that is respecting and obeying both the letter AND the spirit of the aforementioned convention. Which they have not done.

If you’re going to write insanity like this, then don’t complain when I flame you for it.

“Self-appointed”? You came and got us, twice, Winston.

Hello? The people at Club Gitmo were not uniformed members of an army. They were roving bands of thugs and killers. After getting all the info we can out of them, a military tribunal should judge each one and shoot 'em if found guilty. The USA is giving them GC rights as a gift, because the insane lib media here bitches if our guys touch a Koran without putting on gloves first and other such stupid shit. “Oh, excuse me, sir, is the AC not working in your suite? How terrible!!”

HH
[/quote]

Nothing to say to you HH that I haven’t already said before.

39

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Hello? The people at Club Gitmo were not uniformed members of an army. They were roving bands of thugs and killers.
[/quote]

Or tourists whose Arab name translated the same way in English like a slightly different Arab name…

Or someone who was sold to the US forces because 5000$ is a lot of money in Afghanistan…

40

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:

I was of the understanding that militias or resistance to occupying forces were covered.

Civilians resisting an invading force… Doesn’t that make them resistance?
[/quote]

They are covered if you can identify them as a militia. The very least they must do is to carry their weapons openly to be able to tell them apart from non-combatants i.e. civilians.

If they do not play by the rules of the convention, they do not have the rights of POWs under the convention, which does not mean that they have absolutely no rights under the convention.

The treatment is not that different but a POW could, f.e not be accused and executed because of murder, an illegal combatant could, because he is not a soldier.