Iraqi women to hang for acts of resistance!, page 3

rockpuck
This is most likely not even the real story, you see this person Syrian Sister does anything possible, even down to pathetic typical rhetoric you expect right off aljazeer to fit the needs of her own desperate cause.

The subject of this thread is not syrian sister, nor any other of your fellow posters.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Talk about misstreating prisoners of war!!!!!!! Talk about throwing out the geneva conventions!!!!!!

The iraqi government is not bound by the geneva conventions, and these women can't be considered prisoners of war by the iraqi government because they are iraqis. The US government could consider them POWs, any foreign government could, if it was them dealing with these women, consider them POWs, but its a domestic government, dealing with domestic people. They are not, thus, POWs.

These 3 women are going to be executed by the collaborationists and the occupiers, for the act of being patriots and fighting for their national independce!!!!!

The iraqi government has the right to try and execute its own citizens.

Killing resistance fighters just like the nazi's did.

So you agree that they are guilty of the crimes they have been charged with, they are fighting against hte iraqi government, because they consider it to be an illegitimate government.
Since when is 'the government and law doesn't apply to me' a workable defense within the governmental legal system?

Even if you don't agree with what these women where fighting for, you don't just kill enemy prisoners!

They're not being 'just killed'. They were caught, there was a trial, they were found guilty, and no one denies that they infact did what they did.

Bombing collaborators and occupation troops was completely within the rights of these women.

Its clearly illegal, according to Iraqi Government Law, to attack and kill members of the government. There is no ability to mount any legal defense within the system here.
And as far as the geneva conventions and intenrational law, those institutions provide for the execution of insurgents, even by a foreign occupying power, let alone the actual government of the nation.

Throw out the genevanconventions though right?

The geneva conventions permit for insurgents to be captured, held, tried, and executed.

I suppose you think it would be ok to execute a captured US soldier so long as he's given a trial?

There is no way to legally argue against it. THere is nothing that says a soldier can't be captured, tried, and executed.

You think it was ok for the french resistance to be summarily executed by the nazi's?

This is not a summary execution, there was a trial. A summary execution would've been if they caught them, and shot them. A summary execution is where there specifically has not been a trial.

Its absurd to suggest that they have a right to kill government members, but that the government doesn't have a right to kill them.

Never mind about the fact they where not given a lawyer or a proper court case.

A government does not have to give a defendant like this a lawyer, and a trial did occur.
Why are western judicial standards being applied here? Western judicial standards recognize that the Iraqi government is legit, and that you don't have a right to take up arms against it, kidnapping and killing people. If western judicial standards apply, then sure, these women should've been given a defense team, and equally sure, they should be executed, because they are guilty of multiple murders.

because under the geneva conventions, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE!

It is the right of the occuied to resist, under the geneva conventions, it is ALSO the right of a foreign occupier to hunt down, arrest, try, and execute resistance fighters. LET ALONE the right of the actual domestic government.
The US military has the internationally recognized right to round up every resistance fighter, have legal proceedings to show that they were resistance fighters, and then execute them. Certainly the Iraqi Government also has that right.

The same thing that's supposed to happen to all POW's, they are held prisoner untill the end of the war, or exchanged , not shot.

I don't know where you've been getting your infomration, but a captured soldier is not, carte blanche, protected from being tried and executed.

What about the resistance fighters that the collaborator puppet police helped kill

Since you are admiting that they are resistance fighters, then the legal police, 'puppet' or not, have every right to try to capture them, even if it means they get killed in the process.

This is a war crime pure and simple

It pretty clearly is not. A soldier is not immune from prosecution after being captured by a foreign army, and these women weren't even soldiers and weren't even fighting against a foreign army, they didnt' kill american troops, they kill civilian police officers.

souljah So your theory is, that you can Fight Fire with Fire?

Like for like is, of course, silly. If they hit you with a fist, you get a rock, if they hit you with a rock, you get a knife, if they come at you with a knife, you get a gun.

Agit8dChop
This lady fought for her home, her family and her country, fighting the occupiers who invaded her land based on LIES...

They kidnapped and murdered their own citizens. They apparently don't even deny that they were part of the resistance.
Its absurd to say that person has a legal protection to carry out attacks on their own government and fellow citizens, either the law and the courts nad hte people behind it is 'false' and thus no appeal within it can be made, or the government is legite, and these women are murdering criminals.
[quiote]What would you feel, if you saw your wife being hung, bceause she fought the people who invaded and occupied America?
I certainly wouldnt' hire a lawyer to argue that I have a legal right under the occupiers law to attack them.

Your turning into savages

The only savages are the ones specifcally targeting their fellow iraqi civilians and engaging in mass murder and sectarian violence.

Britguy
If these women were denied proper legal representation then that's a big issue.

Proper according to who? Us? Or the Iraqi Government? If iraq is a soverign legit government, then its up to it to decide how to deal with people working to overthrow it.
They were given a trial and even their defenders agree that they were killing members of the government and trying to overthrow it.

Orwells Ghost
Depending on which narrow perspective you approach this from these women are either heroes or criminals

Our own parochial interpretations are irrelevant, the iraqi government is the only authority that is relevant here, and its pretty clear that these women, from that perspective, are murdering criminals.

At the very least ask yourselves how many new insurgents will be born out of the death of these women.

Far less than if the government made it legal to take up arms against itself.

blueraja
So you're gonna try to equate the aberrant behavior of a few soldiers with the standard operating procedures of the insurgents?

You'd have to demonstrate that the soldiers were a mere abberation, and that the majority of insurgents are commiting atrocities.
The iraqis clearly have a human right to resist. They can take up arms against the government and occupier, and kill its members, without being 'criminals' in a moral sense. Of course, these women tried to kidnap and murder civilian police officers, and most insurgent attacks leave masses of civilians dead, with the only targeting factor seeming to be 'are the targets member of a rival sect/tribe', and those people could be considered immoral, unethical, criminals.