It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Proxy soldiers ( terrorists ) do not have Geneva Convention protections.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:53 PM

Originally posted by bobafett
The general American populace don't take too kindly to this, some of them don't join the armed forces, but decide that if/when the invading troops get to their town/state, they will defend themselves. Some of this will come from improvised devices, or other guerilla tactics.

Some of these people get captured by Country X's military forces. Can Country X torture them, or otherwise deprive their protections?

4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

That would seem to fit your description of those American Fighters, they would be awarded POW status. You said they decided to fight as they came to their town, they were not organized beforehand. Provided of course they follow the usual customs of war, ie no killing captured Country x soldiers for example. If those Americans did not openly carry arms and blended into the population, then they would lose their POW status. It is a very fine line. However in the version you describe, a Captured American non military fighter would be considered as a POW per the Third Geneva Convention. Captured Country X soldiers would be afforded POW protection as well.

The Taliban and AQ did not fit the parameters of the POW status as they did not meet ALL 4 of these areas listed below, especially 2,3,4. They were organized before the US invasion so would be different from your American invasion scenario, who formed ad hoc as the fighting happened.

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
1. that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
3. that of carrying arms openly;
4. that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 01:12 AM

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by bobafett

I could be wrong on this, but once captured they would identify themselves as members of the military, with rank and serial number. Doing such, I believe would afford them protection by the opposing Army as a Prisoner of War, even though they were not in miliary uniform. Enemy combants would probably not afford them this protection but full blown militaries would have to, under the Convention. Again, I would have to read the Convention again to be sure.

It's only when you don't identify yourself or you aren't a member of the military that you would be at risk.


If SAS, Spec Ops from wherever, or your Aunt Minnie did any of the above, they would fall almost immediately under the heading of "SPY".

and that, is a whole different thread.

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 05:15 AM
Thank you pavil and sigung for your responses to my scenario, I feel as if rockets red glare basically dodged that one, and went straight to accusing me of twisting something.

For the record rockets red glare, I was not trying to make any kind of comparison to Iraq in that scenario, what I was trying to do was find out where your line is, at what point you would allow non-military, un-uniformed people to have rights. I felt a scenario involving some brave patriotic resistance fighters in the USA might be one to push you over the edge. I wondered also how consistent your particular interpretation of the rules are, if suddenly the rules would change once it was American resistance.

So that was the reason for making that scenario. I'm not really sure how you managed to take that and twist it to what you said, rockets red glare.

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 06:48 AM
reply to post by sigung86

they would be a "spy" if caputed by a they gov. of a country. If the persons capturing the "spy" does not legally represent a state, then there really is no international law to govern that. if they were to death it could be considered murder.

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:19 AM
American soldiers are beholden to a higher power then the Geneva conventions and that is the US Constitution. No where in the original drafting does it imply that the Bill of Rights are only to bestowed upon US citizens. In fact if you were to take into account original intent and the written beliefs of our Founding Fathers (That fascists Hamilton Excluded
)you would find that they believed our Constitutional Protections were Universal and applied to all men. I urge you, Rockets Red Glare, to learn about America and American History and the wonderful Philosophy of Life, Liberty, and Non-Coercive use of force that our country was founded on. The idea that Men Are Free fantastic. What makes it more fantastic is that Free men will maintain the moral High Ground and not stoop to the same tactics of their enemies.

Would you, Rockets Red Glare, murder the innocent child of another man just because that man has murdered your own?

Truly we must fight those who wish to harm us. But you must also bear in mind that in many cases those we fight against have no other way to defend themselves AND that there is strong evdience that implicates the majority of terrorist attacks in Iran, Iraq, Israel, and Europe have been commited by WESTERN INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATIONS such as the CIA and MI5 and Mossad. Even in Basra (I think) they arrested 2 Brit spies planting car bombs dressed like "terrorists" and there have been multiple instances of CIA and Mossad connections to bombing INSIDE ISRAEL AGAINST ISRAELI CIVILIANS!!

[edit on 1-12-2007 by Tinhatman]

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:26 AM
reply to post by Tinhatman

i don't deny that the founding fathers reconized the 'Natural law" But, the constitution was written for our country and it's citzens and withinn our borders natural law would be respected and obsevered forever! You are the one who needs to rethink it not me!

[edit on 12/1/2007 by rockets red glare]

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:11 AM
reply to post by rockets red glare

The Constitution was written for our Country. It was written because free men require a restricted Government to protect the Freedoms inherent to being Free.

As far as it being written for US citizens only? I can find no reference at all to US citizens in the original draft of the Constitution. In fact while re-reading the Constitution I have in my pocket, all I can gather is that the Constituiton applies only TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and therefore cannot be restricted to a citizen of any nation and in fact restricts only how the United States government can treat any man anywhere at anytime.

Article 1 Section 9. for example. "The Priveledge of the Writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety requires it" Which clearly states that even in the case of invasion or Rebellion it still MAY NOT be required to suspend Habeus Corpus. Also, CLEARLY, it makes no mention of this only being applied to "Citizens" of the United States.

In fact the only time that "Citizen" (in the original draft mind you) is mentioned is in regards to Individual State citizens and not to Citizens of the United States. And even then, it is used specifically for the purposes of maintaining liabilty in cases of civil suit between people of different states and does not impose upon them any loss of sovereignty to the State in which they live.

If we are to believe that only US citizens are protected by the US Constitution then we must also be forced to the conclusion that the only thing that makes us Free IS the Constitution, in which case none of us are free because it is in fact the Government Enforcement of the Constitution that ensures our freedom.

So the questions you must ask yourself are; are you free because all men are free and have all of the same rights as every other man? Or are you not free at all and can only claim to be because your Government says you are until the time they see fit that you are not to be any longer?

I myself believe we are free because our Creator(s) made us that way.
Again, I think it is you who must re-think this.

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by Tinhatman

It seems to me you are trying to ingage me in a debate based on simantics. The Declaration of Independence was not a delcairation of indepence for the entire world. The Preamble and Constitution were written for the American nation and it's citizens. Just because the founding fathers reconized the rights of all men indowed by the creator,is not to say that they could or would inforce those rights in foreign jurisdictions.

[edit on 12/1/2007 by rockets red glare]

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by rockets red glare

I am not implying that the US would enforce anything in foreign jurisdiction. I am only saying that the Constitution places limits on the action of our Government in it's dealings with Free people no matter what Nationality they are. It's quite clear actually. This is not a matter of symantics, it's a matter of Freedom. I believe in Freedom as a reality, not as a tool to be used as an excuse to strip Freedom away from other people in some twisted Sean Hannity universe where war is peace and slavery is freedom, a place where I am free because a piece of paper says so.

The Constitution protects mankind's freedom from the US government and also calls upon the US government to protect people within the borders of the United States from other governments infringing upon that freedom as well.

Edit: I never mentioned the Declaration of Independence BUT when taken into account the wording of the Declaration "We hold these Truths to be Self-Evident, that all Men are created Equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.. etc" we find that it truly was a declaration of independence for all men. The wording in th efirst 2 paragraphs do not mention in any way the Unied States of America, only the men of the British colonies and it is written in such a broad and sweeping language that it MOST IMPLICITLY IMPLIES that ALL MEN TRULY ARE CREATED FREE AND EQUAL. Re-read the many writings of Jefferson and Franklin and Madison. These men were in no way suggesting that the Physical territory of the 13 Colonies was somehow imbued with a magical power that set men free.

Again, this is not a game of semantics. Based on your previous posts what you call freedom is NOT in any way freedom.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by Tinhatman]

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:53 AM
Please correct me if I am in error.

Originally posted by bobafett
[What about elite groups like our SAS, and the USA equivalents? They often dress in civilian clothing and other disguise (although I heard some of them were being dumasses and driving humvees blaring out the Bruce Springsteen!)

Those guys are not in uniform for some missions, do they get protections?

Yes, they would not be a POW per se, but a "protected person". Slightly different, but still with protections, just would not have communication rights. I still think that if they ID themselves as members of the armed forces with a readily recognizable thing ie (dog tags), they would be awarded POW status eventually. Spies can not be summarily shot without a trail by the opposing power.

According to the fourth Geneva Convention Article 5:

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by pavil]

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:00 AM
reply to post by Tinhatman

Yes i will agree with the part of your statement pertaing to restrictions of gov. power. The part about going to war, war happens. We don't start them " maybe with the exception of the spn. amer. war". Our invassion in Iraq" in my oppinion" was justified. We do not and have not tortured uniformed Iraq soldiers. terrorist do not have those geneva convention protections.Not to imply that i believe waterboarding is torture. I wouldn't condone it on a uniformed legal soldier. I do however give leway for it in the war on terror because the terrorists ruetinly target civilians. it is why they are called terrorists. This we must not allow even if it means some degree of what some would call turture. They have called making them stand for to long, staying awake for to long torture ass well. it isn't unless it is medically dangerous and life threatning. It seems that the bar of what is and what isn't is so low that miisng a steak meal is now torture.

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by rockets red glare
reply to post by Tinhatman

Yes i will agree with the part of your statement pertaing to restrictions of gov. power. The part about going to war, war happens. We don't start them " maybe with the exception of the spn. amer. war". Our invassion in Iraq" in my oppinion" was justified. We do not and have not tortured uniformed Iraq soldiers. terrorist do not have those geneva convention protections.Not to imply that i believe waterboarding is torture. I wouldn't condone it on a uniformed legal soldier. I do however give leway for it in the war on terror because the terrorists ruetinly target civilians. it is why they are called terrorists. This we must not allow even if it means some degree of what some would call turture. They have called making them stand for to long, staying awake for to long torture ass well. it isn't unless it is medically dangerous and life threatning. It seems that the bar of what is and what isn't is so low that miisng a steak meal is now torture.

You're not convincing anyone, rockets.

In fact, you're not telling the truth. Is that deliberate, or is it because you just don't know any better ?

And while we're at it ....... who pays you to spin lies in forums ?

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:20 AM
reply to post by Dock6

For real, Rockets sounds like he is reading from a Clinton or Bush press release. Maybe we have found Alberto Gonsalez? Or some other Bushie that has bailed out of the sinking ship.

Sounds just like how I always imagined the Pro-Nazi Germans must of sounded like prior to WW2. "We must gather up those Jews, otherwise they will continue to crash our economy! They could be Soviet spies! We have to put them into work camps to ensure that no more terrorist attacks occur in the Fatherland and if worse comes to worse they must be tortured so we can get the names of the other Ommunist Terrorists. There could be a bomb ticking in downtown Hamburg right now and the only way we will find it is if we throw this guy in an oven! Polish soldiers attacked our Radio Post! We must liberate Eastern France from their Evil French Regime!! Look how many civilians died because of the French Revolution! That madman in France is building a defensive line across his country to Suppress his French speaking Germans!!"


posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:44 AM
RedGlare.. your hypocrisy, dellusions and sheer inhumane view upon such a topic is quite distubring..

To be quite frank "Rockets Red Glare" - you are an example of the product of your patriotic, sadly twisted and diasasterously mislead fascist state itself. Well - one of the two spawns - the other being a juggernaught of reason for the new age - where you, however, are a propogation of the evil of which you speak.

1. Demonization of Saddam. You must have forgot it was the US government that funded saddam's existance in teh first place, right?

More so, you need to think about economics buddy.

These people live in a destabilzed environment due to the face they lack the basic economic means to attain the sheer necessities of life itself. More so, through the trade of small arms (CIA, America mainly); american is one of the top global auses for the destabilization that occurs in such civil conflict.

The current state of corporatism has spawned many forms of "terrorists" as you would dub. Their struggle is the direct result of FUNDING from the USA itself.. merely, another set of "cold-war" proxy wars; however it is more economic in nature..

They fight for ::

Public-Sphere of ownership vs. Private
Freddom from corporate suppression
The SOVEREIGNTY they deserve as a NATION/STATE

Its not capitalism. Its corporatism.. you need to udnerstand GLARE that these people arent terrorists.. their means are simple and they may be extremist, but ultimately in all truth, they fight against the tyranny of corportism that suppresses, and oppresses billions internationally.

In my humble opinion; they are more SOLDIER than the americans that dont want to be in that country fighting anyway.. tell me who's heart is in the right place?

Of COURSE these people deserve fundamental rights.. Who doesnt? IMO, if the "terrorist" of the mideasst has no rights, the revolutionist of the west is in the same boat. What of sovereignty now mr. red white and blue?

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 01:21 PM
Red Rockets Glare is a disinfo agent. His white house talking points are very old.
Every atrocity he speaks of committed by so called "terrorists" or "insurgents" pale in comparison to the human rights violations and geneva convention violations that the USA has committed. Area bombing, torture, and the use of depleted uranium are just a few to start.

As of March 2007, after 4 years of war, the post-invasion Iraqi excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that did not have to happen) now total ONE MILLION as estimated from data from the top US medical epidemiology group in the World’s top Public Health School (the Nobel Laureate-containing Bloomberg School of Public Health) at the top US Johns Hopkins University, published peer-reviewed in the top UK medical journal The Lancet and endorsed by 27 top Australian medical experts.

One Million Iraqi Deaths

You also forgot to mention the fact that the USA has a huge hand in supplying and training these so called terrorist groups.
Red Rockets Glare, you are like a 2003 disinfo agent. Get with the times, get some new disinfo. Please, you're boring us.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by Trauma]

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 06:30 PM
To the above posters:

Members of terrorist organizations are NOT entitled to the same protections and rights as are members of a nations Armed forces or even civillians rising up against another nation. That is the point that is being made. They (members of a terrorist group) are not members of a nations Armed forces and can be treated in a different manner.

Sorry if you disagree with that. I understand the moral highground arguement, still they should not be treated the same as a POW, as they themselves do not follow the normal conduct of warfare.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:48 AM
I am very glad that the people above are questioning Rockets Red Glare in such a way. All thoughout this forum I keep seeing his topics/posts and wondering to myself, is this guy crazy? is he misguided? is he plain trolling? is he playing devils advocate? I have not posted about these thoughts before, as I thought it might be misconstrued as a personal attack.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:57 AM
reply to post by Dock6

It is the truth, and no one pays me to speak it! I started this thread in responce to all the America bashing I have seen by ideologicly bankrupt liberal ruetinly attacking my county, my people, and my government. I wouldn't exept payment if offered. i see it as my duty and my honor "and may I say my pleasure" to defend my country and its' honor!!

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 10:44 PM
reply to post by rockets red glare

There you go, attacking liberals again. Man, that record is really getting old, get some imagination. Everyone else out there is perfectly content to troll with bad pictures of fake UFOs, and honestly it's far less offensive than someone coming around here with poor spelling and grammar telling me that I'm ideologicly (sic) bankrupt. People like you need to realize you don't hold all the immutable truths of the universe and get over yourselves. People think differently. That's it. No one human knows whats best for everyone.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by Loki]

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:22 PM
reply to post by bobafett

I apologise bobafeet. I missunderstood your point. Yes an iraqie malitia that would be working for us would be covered i believe. After we went in and declaired to the U.N to be leagal occupiers of iraq, a militia working for the coalition would have legal authority. Once we the elections were held they would be under the new gov. authority. I don;t think we controled their malitias however. The coalition created the gov by election quicky

[edit on 12/2/2007 by rockets red glare]

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in