|
|
| Author |
Message |
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
 Posted: 03/28/03 - 07:28 Post subject: American breaches of Geneva Convention coming back to haunt?
|
|
|
There is a reason why most armies uphold the Geneva Convention. In general terms, taking prisoners is preferrable than having to squelch an opposition force to the last man. You will lose more of your troops when the enemy refuse to surrender than when they do. But beyond that, treating the enemy with respect is the "right thing to do". It is the correct moral approach
So it seems that the treatment of those who defended Afghanistan in Guantanemo Bay is having an effect. If America refuses to uphold hte Geneva Convention, the Iraqi Army appear to see no reason why they should. After all, these American Fighters are unlawful combatants.
So the next time you see a picture of an executed American Fighter (if your media allows such things) just think about Guantanemo and the illegal treatment of prisoners by the US.
Regards,
Eduin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Fluxus the Rogue
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 385
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 08:04 Post subject: Re: American breaches of Geneva Convention coming back to ha
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: | There is a reason why most armies uphold the Geneva Convention. In general terms, taking prisoners is preferrable than having to squelch an opposition force to the last man. You will lose more of your troops when the enemy refuse to surrender than when they do. But beyond that, treating the enemy with respect is the "right thing to do". It is the correct moral approach
So it seems that the treatment of those who defended Afghanistan in Guantanemo Bay is having an effect. If America refuses to uphold hte Geneva Convention, the Iraqi Army appear to see no reason why they should. After all, these American Fighters are unlawful combatants.
So the next time you see a picture of an executed American Fighter (if your media allows such things) just think about Guantanemo and the illegal treatment of prisoners by the US.
Regards,
Eduin |
The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists and criminals. The Al Qaeda operatives detained in Guantanamo do not meet the criteria of Prisoner of War as described in the Geneva Convention. They are not a part of a sovereign State.
Besides, the Red Cross has access to the detained, they get 3 meals per day (customized for their religious diet), have free medical care and are given the freedom to worship as their religion requires.
Learn to read please. Thanks.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
dovetail
Total Newbie
Joined: 16 Nov 2002
Posts: 20
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 08:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
I would suggest a word study using a dictionary comparing the terms Criminal and Combatant. Terrorism is generally a crime. What is happening in Iran is hardly terrorist activity - it is war.
I dare say that most of those 4k Iraqi POW's are getting better food and medical care than they ever did at Hussein's hands. They have more freedom in captivity with us than they ever had before. In fact, they NOW have the freedom to have thier own opinion - to continue to hate the US for being, well, the US. Or to see that what we are doing is taking down a madman who would endanger the whole world for his megalomania.
It's not surprising that the Iraqi government is being so barbarous towards Allied prisoners. Look at the savage and inhuman treatment they give thier own people. Hussein and his Republican army are an ugly boil upon humanity. It is only right and just that the boil should be lanced, drained and bandaged.
Dove
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Manuva
Banned
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2536
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 08:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Eduin gimped, yet again.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 08:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
Eduin's basically right. Not treating our prisoners according to the GC is wrong. I don't think the "criminals" argument holds water. They were captured by an army, while that army was invading a foreign country. There were no warrants for their arrests, no evidence of crimes, no criminal jurisdiction, no trials, no access to lawyers, and secret detention.
On the other hand, from all reports they are for the most part not being treated badly. Or at least most of them aren't. Although saying the ones that turned out to be essentially innocent bystanders aren't treated too badly isn't exactly high praise.
I doubt that's got much if anything to do with the Iraqis though. If they did kill Americans, I seriously doubt the ones who did it were sophisticated enough to take all those things into account and make a concious decision. They'd probably have done it anyway. But I've heard US soldiers say that because of various reported Iraqi atrociites, they're going to be a lot freer about shooting first if there's even the slightest doubt about Iraqi intentions. Doubtless the Iraqis have heard as bad or worse about the US. People being people, they probably think the same way. So maybe they're not evil savages, but undisciplined, uneductated soldiers.
I do find it personally shameful that we don't apply the GC to our captured prisoners. I doubt that that has much practical relevance though, at lower than diplomatic levels.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Jinu
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2396
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 09:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
exactly wtf is so bad for the al queda prisoners? anyway, most of them weren't afghans. OMG CRAMPED PRISONS!?!??! WTF, WE DON'T WANT BAGELS! THOSE ARE FOR JEWS!
in the history of war, no prisoners of any country were treated nearly as good as the americans treat their POWs.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 10:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
Sadly, I partially agree with Eduin. Most of those prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were brought in from Afganistan. They were members of that state and were defending it, so they should be considered enemy combatants and be treated according to the Geneva Convention.
However, Eduin continues to prove that he is nothing more than a fuckwit, because the US (which was only accused of violations by communists, such as yourself) has provided the POW's with Hilton-like facilities and kept out the media. I'm also pretty sure they have not brutally beaten and murdered them, pulled down their pants and exposed their dead bodies to the world while forcing them to denounce Islam and their country.
Try again.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Crackr
Luke Warm
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 175
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 10:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Afghanistan was harboring terrorists. By association, Afghanistan's soldiers attempting to block America from protecting itself became terrorists. Whether wittingly or not.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
mixelplux
Luke Warm
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 344
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 10:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
The ONLY mistreatment, if it can be so called, is that they aren't classified as PoW's and hence can't go home until the US decides that at such a time they aren't a threat or they have all they need from them.
There is NO mistreatment of the captives in GB, as proven by Red Cross and elements of the Media that have access.
Some of you really need to learn to read and comprehend. Latching on to some moral idea that leftist s***s lick Eduin spouts and regurgitating it is moronic.
Being held indefinately is not the same as being shot and tortured. To compare those two shows only 1 thing, your lack of reality.
Having an opinion is fine, we all do. But c'mon, put at least some common sense into them before you spout this inane drivel.
Mixelplux
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
the flower princess
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 986
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 10:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I'm glad Eduin is back.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 11:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
You can make all the complicated arguments you want about why prisoners taken by the US have some special attribute that disqualifies them from traditional prisoner of war status. It's not like anyone can stop us. But, you then have to accept that anyone we're fighting can make equivalently complicated arguments about why our soldiers are really criminals and not recognize their POW status.
And if the enemy soldiers on the ground don't think we respect POWs, then they won't either.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 11:07 Post subject:
|
|
|
| mixelplux wrote: | | The ONLY mistreatment, if it can be so called, is that they aren't classified as PoW's and hence can't go home until the US decides that at such a time they aren't a threat or they have all they need from them. |
Who gives a f**k, try and stick to the point.
The "common knowledge" about Guantanemo is that the United States has around 400 people, links to terrorism unknown, held at for indefinate duration without direct access to their families. Basically, they have the worst treatment possible for human beings - the removal of *HOPE*.
What sort of encouragement do you think that is for Iraqi soldiers faced by American fighters? Do you think they haven't had it drilled into their skulls that if captured they might face a similar fate? Even the poorest countries have communal access to television news. They know whats happened and the linkage can trivially be created in their minds.
That's why the Geneva Convention is respected - as I said, enemy troops surrendering is far preferrable to them fighting to the last man, that will only cost you more casualties of your own.
Your perceived "truth" is utterly irrelevant to this.
Regards,
Eduin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Crackr
Luke Warm
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 175
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 11:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
Sinraken, Iraq doesn't even give any excuses as to how the American POW's should not be classified as POW's.
Eduin, the removal of hope? Idiot. "Links to terrorism unknown" unknown by the common person perhaps. But do you really think the United States would keep 400 people if we didn't know their link to terrorism? Not so much, we would have to keep paying for them. There is a reason they are kept, and excuse the government for not making that clearly known to a great one such as yourself.
Soldiers fighting against the US are blinded by their leaders. It's pretty easy to abuse a religion's history and get its followers to do something (jihad, crusades).
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
the flower princess
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 986
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 11:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I want to release all the people on deathrow in Iraq. The only thing they should be armed with are forks that are aids tainted.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Crackr
Luke Warm
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 175
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 11:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Oh my god that's horrible! LOL
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 11:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Crackr wrote: | | But do you really think the United States would keep 400 people if we didn't know their link to terrorism? |
Not only do I believe this but I have read believable accounts that even the US themselves realise that most have no links *whatsoever* to Al Qaeda.
Regards,
Eduin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Manuva
Banned
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2536
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 12:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I have read believable accounts that Sean Connery has a vagina.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
hitachi
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1507
Location: Maryland
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 12:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: |
Basically, they have the worst treatment possible for human beings - the removal of *HOPE*.
|
I was under the impression that the worst treatment possible for a human being was being murdered? You know, like the Iraqi's are accused of doing.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
hitachi
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1507
Location: Maryland
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 12:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | You can make all the complicated arguments you want about why prisoners taken by the US have some special attribute that disqualifies them from traditional prisoner of war status. It's not like anyone can stop us. But, you then have to accept that anyone we're fighting can make equivalently complicated arguments about why our soldiers are really criminals and not recognize their POW status.
And if the enemy soldiers on the ground don't think we respect POWs, then they won't either. |
and sinrakin, when we start executing these afghans that we havnt classifed as POW's yet, then you can jusitfy them executing our POW's.
Us not classifying certain people as POW's and holding them indefinately and them murdering our soldiers because they dont believe we mistreat POW's are totally f*****g different and should never be classified as "the same thing".
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Vio
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 977
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 12:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
this thread has got to be one of the biggest jokes - arguing over whether or not POW's are treated right - who gives a rat's ass.
Half these f*****g a******s in Iraq are coming out with white flags and then shooting at the American's anyhow, you can't trust a POW as he will kill you the first chance he gets.
The American's are treating POW's with WAY more dignity and respect then they get from their own country living day to day and the American's are not shooting them between the eyes when they feel like it either
End of argument
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Oogie
Luke Warm
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 216
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 12:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
Iraq f****d up by showing video of the remaining prisoners alive and in good health.
When the war ends, if these prisoners are not accounted for, Iraq is in deep shit.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
the flower princess
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 986
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 13:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I hate Iraq. Long live Israel.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Jinu
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2396
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 13:07 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Eduin will tell you he s***s purple and call you names for doubting him
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 13:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: | | Crackr wrote: | | But do you really think the United States would keep 400 people if we didn't know their link to terrorism? |
Not only do I believe this but I have read believable accounts that even the US themselves realise that most have no links *whatsoever* to Al Qaeda.
Regards,
Eduin |
What's your source, or are you making shit up again? It has already been established that American citizens with terrorist links are being tried. Foreigners (whether in the United States or not), including those captured in Afghanistan are not entitled to the rights given us by the US Constitution. They are thus considered POW's. That said, the worst report I've read on their inhuman treatment noted that they are kept in "cages". Hmmm..."cages". Sounds kind of like prison. POW does stand for PRISONER of war.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Arinwulf
Luke Warm
Joined: 17 Oct 2002
Posts: 186
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 15:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
There is no point in trying to argue with Eduin. He hates the US more than he is interested in the truth. He is little different than the Iraqi 'media' that cannot state the truth to save their lives. The best thing about this terrible situation that we are currently facing is that Eduin's country is our biggest ally and that Eduin's tax dollars (assuming the sheep f*****g moron actually works) is supporting the war in Iraq.
Seriously Eduin, did your momma have an affair with an American GI? Who's your daddy, Eduin?  I think you are American and can't stand the fact you can't be a US citizen because your momma didn't tell your daddy that the best f**k she had in her life was from a throbbing blue veined American c**k.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kbarr
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 15:18 Post subject: Re: American breaches of Geneva Convention coming back to ha
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: |
So the next time you see a picture of an executed American Fighter (if your media allows such things) just think about Guantanemo and the illegal treatment of prisoners by the US.
Regards,
Eduin |
Naa...
I know what I'll think about haggis boy...dead iraqis
Lots of them.
Thousands and thousands and thousands of them that have already died and many thousands more that are sure to fall.
Thats what I'll think about!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 15:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
Last weekend, 18 Afghans were released from detention in Cuba after 16 months of questioning in U.S. custody. They flew home and were held briefly in a Kabul jail. The Boston Globe reports that "nearly all of the former detainees enthusiastically praised the conditions at Guantanamo and expressed little bitterness about losing a year of their lives in captivity, saying they were treated better there than in three days in squalid cells in Kabul. None complained of torture during questioning or coerced confessions."
Sirajuddin, 24, a Kandahar taxi driver, said: ''The conditions were even better than our homes. We were given three meals a day – eggs in the morning and meat twice a day; facilities to wash, and if we didn't wash, they'd wash us; and there was even entertainment with video games.''
"There is no need to lie," Sayed Abasin, 21, told the Chicago Tribune. "I'm telling you the facts. They treated us very well." His record from Cuba shows he was seen 37 times by the Gitmo medical staff, for everything from knee pain to sinusitis.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Trei
Total Newbie
Joined: 18 Oct 2002
Posts: 38
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 16:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
Since noone else is commenting on the other part of your message, I guess I will be the first to do it.
| Eduin wrote: | | There is a reason why most armies uphold the Geneva Convention. In general terms, taking prisoners is preferrable than having to squelch an opposition force to the last man. You will lose more of your troops when the enemy refuse to surrender than when they do. But beyond that, treating the enemy with respect is the "right thing to do". It is the correct moral approach. |
This isn't correct. In general terms, maiming the opposing army is the best way to go. It takes resources and manpower to treat those that are injured. Since he is not dead, they would not be able to use the resources allotcated to him. Where if they were to kill them, then those allocated resources can be used on a new person to replace the dead one. Even one loss is too many in the eyes of some, but to own 1/2 to 3/4 (depending on who you are talking with) of the contry in a week and lost as few as we have is a feat in its self. As for the rest of the statement about it being the "right thing to do" i agree with your assestment.
Secondly, it should be known that there are actually 4 "Geneva Conventions"
The one you are referring to is the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. (the 3rd one) It refers to the treatment and handling of POWs and was agreed apon in 1950. In how it relates the Guantanemo Bay detainees:
| wrote: | | captured fighters are considered prisoners of war (POWs) if they are members of an adversary state´s armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group that abides by the laws of war.If there is doubt about a captured fighter's status as a POW, the Geneva Conventions require that he be treated as such until a competent tribunal determines otherwise. |
This is just part of it, the full definitiion is listed in Article 4 of that link.
Al-Qaeda members, who neither wear identifying insignia nor abide by the laws of war, do not meet the definition of POW under this convention. There is no question about the their status as POWs. The Taliban fighters MIGHT be able to under Article 5. BUT, only like 2-3 governing bodies recognized the Taliban as a ruling body of a soverign nation. I THINK that is the arguement for placing the Taliban soldiers in the same status as the Al-Qaeda ones.
I guess the bottom line is how one interpret's the laws people agree to. For example, we think that there has been a breach of Resolution 1491. Some don't. Based on our intrepretation, we decided to act on it as was our right. ONLY if there is a formal vote in the UN that is found against us, then would we be breaking the resolution or UN policy. Since there has been no vote on the legality of our issues in the UN, then we are not breaking any rules of the UN.
The same goes for the intrepretation of the Geneva Conventions. So as the US sees them, we are adhering to them, and Iraq is not. I am sure Iraq sees it the same way. Both are in the right until a governing body of some sort that both sides recognize makes an official declaration on the matter. According to the convention, these disagreements have to be handled by the Swiss Federal Council or someone (or enity) that both sides agree to.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Oogie
Luke Warm
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 216
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 17:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Eduin's still grumpy of his great great great great grandmother getting raped and vaginally intruded by an English soldier and infusing English blood into his peasant Scottish bloodline. His rebelling against America is just a David vs. Goliath fabrication of his own internal conflict between his inferior Scottish genes gradually fading in defeat by his superior English genes.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Xthos
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 09 Nov 2002
Posts: 550
|
|
Posted: 03/28/03 - 17:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
This is a weak argument, even for Eduin. Thousands of Iraqis were let go when they surrendered at the beginning of the war to go home or whatever. I believe they stopped doing this due to the fact that the Iraq goverment is executing people that don't fight, so they will most likely be recycled into the fight, by force, if let go.
They even had article in the paper about a british soldier talking about how the Iraqi prisoners were eating better then he was, and was joking he wanted to surrender to the coalition forces.
I don't think Eduin hates the U.S. , he justs likes to argue and try to p**s people off, and for the most part hes successful with a lot of people. This thread really wasn't even worth responding to, due to it's outragousness.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
