It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by shots
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You made the claim, you back it up.
Show me where I have made any claims that contained any numbers? You can't do it oh wise one! The only claim I have made is that they were detained as enemy combatents nothing more.
And while you're at it, tell me how many Germans, Italians or Japanese "collaborators" were imprisoned in the UK, the US or Australia after being picked up in their home country during WW2.
As for how many were held during WWII it numbers in the thousands. Don't believe me look it up.
I am also sure that some were picked up after being turned in as collaborators by others and then detained as were many during wwI and wwII.
Source
I see your level of debate has still to rise even once, like the proverbial souffle...
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I know all about the Italians and Japanese held at Cowra, NSW. But, you see, they were prisoners of war, who surrendered on the battlefield, during a declared war.
So again, I ask you, how many "collaborators" were imprisoned in Australia in the years 1939-1945, or even 1914-1918, after being "picked up after being turned in" in their home country?
Source
What does this do?
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the policy, outlined in a new Defense Department memo, reflects the recent 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by
President Bush.
The policy, described in a memo by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, appears to reverse the administration's earlier insistence that the detainees are not prisoners of war and thus subject to the Geneva protections.
Originally posted by shots
I realize it was not a declared war, but it is a war that congress and the senate of the us authorized which makes it legal.
Republican Congressman Ron Paul
Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution.
Originally posted by subz
Care to admit you were wrong?
But the administration has insisted that it has always treated the detainees humanely.
News Yahoo
Originally posted by shots
You might want to go back and re-read the thread from page three where you jumped in and point out where I have said anything other then they were entitled to be treated in accordance with the GC?
Originally posted by shots
No I do not think they fall under the Geneva convention, yet I do believe they should be treated according to the convention.
Originally posted by shots
I do not see how any of them can fall under the Geneva conventions, because they do not follow the rules or meet the requirements.
Originally posted by shots
As for their treatment they are being afforded treatment under the Geneva convention In fact I would dare say they are getting better treatment then most other countries would afford them yes they even have air conditioning imagine that
Originally posted by shots
What rights other then the right to be treated to humanely are guaranteed by the Geneva Convention?
Originally posted by subz
Twice you falsely said they are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. That has been proven false by the very fact that they are now being given that long over due right.
You also bizzarely claim that "they are being afforded treatment under the Geneva convention". Where the hell did you pull that from? They were given no such treatment.
Originally posted by shots
No I do not think they fall under the Geneva convention, yet I do believe they should be treated according to the convention.
Originally posted by shots
I do not see how,any of them can fall under the Geneva conventions, because they do not follow the rules or meet the requirements.
Originally posted by subz
In true, typical shots fashion you once again try to obfuscate and wiggle out of something you said.
Shots I said YOU were wrong when you said they are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva conventions.
Shots I showed two examples of where YOU specifically said you didnt think they are entitled to the protection of the Geneva conventions.
You would swear the sky is green if it suited your insane view of the World. Im through with debating you. You are incapable of admitting you were wrong.
Originally posted by shots
But I did not say they are not entitled to the protection of the GC was I said I DO NOT THINK there is a big differance
Originally posted by shots
No I will admit when I am wrong; it is not my fault you have problems reading what I wrote.
Originally posted by shots
Perhaps there is a difference down under and you take things out of context not on purpose but by mistake because of the queens English versus Americanized English.
Originally posted by subz
Originally posted by shots
But I did not say they are not entitled to the protection of the GC was I said I DO NOT THINK there is a big differance
OK then, my mistake. You thought wrong then, OK? Still doesnt change the fact you were wrong.
Originally posted by shots
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I know all about the Italians and Japanese held at Cowra, NSW. But, you see, they were prisoners of war, who surrendered on the battlefield, during a declared war.
So are those that have been detained at GITMO. and I realize it was not a declared war, but it is a war that congress and the senate of the us authorized which makes it legal.
So again, I ask you, how many "collaborators" were imprisoned in Australia in the years 1939-1945, or even 1914-1918, after being "picked up after being turned in" in their home country?
Source
What does this do?
If you do not know it is not my fault you asked for numbers look them up yourself I am not your librarian.
Source
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Oh no. No, no, no. You made the claim about "collaborators". I put it in context for you, you have to provide the numbers to back your claim.
Originally posted by shots
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Oh no. No, no, no. You made the claim about "collaborators". I put it in context for you, you have to provide the numbers to back your claim.
Yes I did and I answered that it numbers in the thousands if you want exact numbers look them up yourself.
I'm getting a little tired of your snide remarks, Howlrunner.
Is there an Echo in here? Yes there is Jsbecky (sp)? told you the very same thing
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
And again, proof of the "thousands" of "collaborators" who were detained in Europe during World Wars One and Two and shipped to the UK, US and Australia and subsequently imprisoned, please.
Who were these "collaborators"? Which nations did they come from? Which side were they "collaborating" with?
Originally posted by shots
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
And again, proof of the "thousands" of "collaborators" who were detained in Europe during World Wars One and Two and shipped to the UK, US and Australia and subsequently imprisoned, please.
Who were these "collaborators"? Which nations did they come from? Which side were they "collaborating" with?
Let me guess you are one of those Brits from down under right?
you are as bad as others.
Go back to page 8 and re-read my posts again.
I never stated thousands of collaborators
what I said were some of them were collaorators that probably were picked up with the rest of the detaines. I also never gave any actual numbers what I said was those detained during WWII numbered in the thousands. Now you have me saying I said there were thousands of "collaborators" and I never stated that.
: Originally posted by shots
: Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
As for your other assertion. I want you to tell me how many of the detainees at Camp X-ray were "captured on a battle field with guns in their hands while shooting at people."
I would assume most of them, to be honest I am not sure, but I am also sure that some were picked up after being turned in as collaborators by others and then detained as were many during wwI and wwII.
: Originally posted by shots
: Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
And while you're at it, tell me how many Germans, Italians or Japanese "collaborators" were imprisoned in the UK, the US or Australia after being picked up in their home country during WW2.
As for how many were held during WWII it numbers in the thousands. Don't believe me look it up.
Now you want exact numbers and names of concentration and internment camps here they are
Happy reading should take you two weeks to read and total them all up
Argentina
During the Dirty War which accompanied the 1976-1983 military dictatorship, there were about 100 places throughout the country that served as concentration camps in the Nazi sense,
: Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
And while you're at it, tell me how many Germans, Italians or Japanese "collaborators" were imprisoned in the UK, the US or Australia after being picked up in their home country during WW2.
I know all about the Italians and Japanese held at Cowra, NSW. But, you see, they were prisoners of war, who surrendered on the battlefield, during a declared war.
So again, I ask you, how many "collaborators" were imprisoned in Australia in the years 1939-1945, or even 1914-1918, after being "picked up after being turned in" in their home country?