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

reply to post by Loki


Obviously you haven't seen the downright, low dispicalbe rude nasty fabiricated BS that has been spit around about my country! Of course you have. I see it as ideological, and it's bankrupt and lazy. It needs to be said. Maybe they are so used to spewing that crap about america and don't like getting allittle spew back at them.

Originally posted by rockets red glare
Obviously you haven't seen the downright, low dispicalbe rude nasty fabiricated BS that has been spit around about my country!

Such as? What specifically has you so angerred? Have you actually looked into some of those things to see if there is any substance to those complaints? Most complaints against the US are actually complaints against US Policy and its fabricators. It just seems that many of those people launching complaints dont know the difference.

Of course you have. I see it as ideological, and it's bankrupt and lazy. It needs to be said. Maybe they are so used to spewing that crap about america and don't like getting allittle spew back at them.

Hardly, Critical Analysis of ones policies and beliefs is the only way to grow. I try to remain as critical of my ideology as possible, I try to be careful not to follow the hubris and rhetoric that is spewed by the radicals on either side of the political spectrum.

No single political solution will lead this world and its people to salvation.

The reason so many people believe you are some kind of disinfo agent is because you talk in such black and white terms. Left vs. Right, Terrorist vs. Righteous Warrior, Patriot vs. whatever. Such belief only divides the people of the world and defelcts real causes of social problems into the petty bickering of "he said, she said".

I guess I have just one question for you. You say its liberals that are questioning your government and your country. So when did it become "UnAmerican" to question the policies and execution of such policies?

Edit: BB tag

[edit on 3-12-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Originally posted by pavil
They (members of a terrorist group) are not members of a nations Armed forces and can be treated in a different manner.

A nation of people need not have a geographical location that they call home.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sri Oracle

reply to post by Sri Oracle

A nation of people need not have a geographical location that they call home.

Meaningless in this discussion. Are you now contending a group such as A.Q. is a nation? They are not indigenous people of the area.

Originally posted by Loki
People think differently. That's it. No one human knows whats best for everyone.

Are you crazy soldier? Who is your commanding officer?

Back in line. Attention.

Originally posted by pavil
Meaningless in this discussion. Are you now contending a group such as A.Q. is a nation? They are not indigenous people of the area.

No... of course not... AQ views themselves as a terrorist organization... they blow up women and babies for terrorist delight. Just sick and twisted fun.

It might be that you should spend some more time on the wiki "nation" page I linked... perhaps peruse "diaspora" while you are wiking.

Then get back to me with that bitter to swallow rhetorical question.

Sri Oracle

[edit on 29-12-2007 by Sri Oracle]

reply to post by Sri Oracle


I did read that link. Not sure what are you stating, please clarify. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter? Still not what we are talking about.

Yes some groups, such as Kurds, do not have a nation, but share many characteristics of a nation ie common language, culture ect ect.

Originally posted by pavil
I did read that link. Not sure what are you stating, please clarify. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter? Still not what we are talking about.

Yes some groups, such as Kurds, do not have a nation, but share many characteristics of a nation ie common language, culture ect ect.

Who does that "terrorist" that YOU percieve believe he is?

Does he believe he is a terrorist?

Does he believe he is a warrior?

Does he believe he represents a "people"?

Does he believe he represents a "nation"?

geneva conventions
en.wikipedia.org...

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
[]
Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
[]
The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law"

Is AQ party to the conflict?

Are AQ terrorists (unlawful combatants, proxy soldiers, etc) an "armed force"?

Then they are protected.

Sri Oracle

The only place one can speak the word "terrorist" is from a civilized podium.

The only place one can speak the word "unlawful" is from a civilized podium.

Only when one adheres to all civilized convention with religious duty will one be given a podium from which to speak.

And if one attempts to speak from uncivilized ground... be warned, these days you can expect a terrorist will blow the podium up.

Sri Oracle

[edit on 29-12-2007 by Sri Oracle]

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
Who does that "terrorist" that YOU percieve believe he is?

Again Irrelavent. All that that matters is those attributes under Geneva conventions. Most terrorists do not meet all of the requirements necessary to obtain POW status per article 4 of the third Geneva convention.

You quote the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, all that is is just a comentary and not binding. Sorry. Terrorists do not deserve the same rights as members of a nations armed forces or militias.

Is AQ party to the conflict?

Are AQ terrorists (unlawful combatants, proxy soldiers, etc) an "armed force"?

Then they are protected.

Yes they are party to the conflict. Yes they are an armed force but do not meet the requirements for article 4 of the third Geneva convention. Thus they are not protected under it (3rd Geneva Convention) nor the 4th Geneva Convention concerning treatment of civilians, which A.Q. most assurderly are not.

Sorry the Geneva conventions do not apply to groups such as A.Q., though they may apply to certain other groups that have been declared terrorist groups that operate as the defacto "army" of a displaced people. Article 4 of the third convention is the real determining factor to see if they qualify. Read up on it.

If you are a non uniformed, none readly identifiable member of an armed force and blend into the civilian population, then you do not get the rights of a "soldier" as defined in article 4. For most of the terrorist groups we are talking about, that standard (article 4 of the third convention) excludes them as being able to be POW's.

America has set itself up to fight a war on terror. There are terrorists everywhere from the point of view of the US, even the Iranian Republican Guard. Whoever it decides is the enemy becomes terrorists. So it is in a position really that it can fight any war and the enemy should not be covered by the geneva convention by the basic initial premise that they are fighting a war on terror , therefore fighting terrorists . So you have the situation that the US should be protected by international agreements and conventions, by whoever US fights, by default, should not.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by Gun Totin Gerbil]

reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil


Again, please read up. The U.S. has decided to call the Qods Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terror sponsoring group. It also declared the whole of the IRG and other parts of Iran's military industrial complex to be proliferates of weapons of mass destruction.

The Qods force is the father of Hezbollah and supports other groups in the region as well. www.ustreas.gov...

The US is well within it's rights to do such things as the orders only affect those businesses dealing with those groups in Iran with US based entities or persons. The US did not declare those groups unlawful combatants. You are getting things confused.

It is a distinction that escapes many media source too.

The president says we’re in a global war on terror, and then he declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and also a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.

www.nytimes.com...

U.S. to Label Iran Revolutionary Guard ‘Terrorists’

www.foxnews.com...

Senate vote to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization

economictimes.indiatimes.com...

resolution labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization

blog.washingtonpost.com...

Clinton responded. "Having designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, we've actually seen some changes in their behavior."

blog.washingtonpost.com...

Let us hope Hilary appreciates the difference too, should she become president. But I am sure they will become fully fledged terrorists anyway , should the US invade Iran and they have the temerity to shoot back.






[edit on 30-12-2007 by Gun Totin Gerbil]

reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil


Yes, sadly people tend to generalize and summarize, which leads to bad places and assumptions, remember Deny Ignorance.

That being said, you still have to call out people and nations and organizations for their bad behavior. Calling out the Oods Force for its support of groups in Afghanistan and Iraq and well as Hezbollah and Hamas is not a bad thing. What would you rather do, just ignore the facts about that group?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

www.quotationspage.com...

The semantics here and wether I specifically deny the ignorance or not is irrelevant. It is a question of common perception. Your media and your politicians generalize , as you say, and call them terrorists. So will the Grunts in Iraq/Iran. Do you think a Congressman, General or Senator will come flying in with Executive Order 13224 in his hand saying.. no no, you can't torture those prisoners, they are only supporters of terrorism not terrorists themselves...These prisoners must be treated according to the Geneva Convention. No, that wont happen, the fine print might say they are not specifically terrorists, but in the world of war on terror and' for us or against us' .. you will find they are effectively terrorist and specific details of 13224 will not exactly be closly scutinized or adhered to.

So, until the distinguishing feature you mention that exists with Executive Order 13224 is known commonplace and likely to be upheld , then it still remains in effect .. the IRG are deemed to be terrorists .

But you would say the US administration would recognize the distinction and act upon that thus giving the rights of the geneva convention to any Qods prisoners. I do not share your faith in your governments inclinations to act legally however and I am sure the difference beween supporting terrorism and actually being terrorists will soon be lost in some cia black prison .

Calling out the Oods Force for its support of groups in Afghanistan and Iraq and well as Hezbollah and Hamas

That will just lead us back to the old argument already discussed many many times before. The USA is the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world, should we call out the USA for it's support of the muhadjadeen ? that amongst many many other examples. Should we call George Washington a Terrorist ? This question is old and beyond the scope of the
thread.





[edit on 30-12-2007 by Gun Totin Gerbil]

I am pleased you posted regarding this Executive Order 13224 , I was not aware of those details . I think the argument between you and me, it is your 'what is specific and what it should be' against my 'what is perceived and what will really happen '. American government will not relinquish a chance to call a few Iranians 'terrorists' over wording in an executive order, they can hardly contain themselves against calling their own population terrorists .

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
Is AQ party to the conflict?

Are AQ terrorists (unlawful combatants, proxy soldiers, etc) an "armed force"?

Then they are protected.

Yes they are party to the conflict. Yes they are an armed force but do not meet the requirements for article 4 of the third Geneva convention. Thus they are not protected under it (3rd Geneva Convention) nor the 4th Geneva Convention concerning treatment of civilians, which A.Q. most assurderly are not.

Sorry the Geneva conventions do not apply to groups such as A.Q., though they may apply to certain other groups that have been declared terrorist groups that operate as the defacto "army" of a displaced people. Article 4 of the third convention is the real determining factor to see if they qualify. Read up on it.

Geneva Conventions
usmilitary.about.com...
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 4 )

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. []

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

[]

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

>> Next Article

Is there something you're reading that I am not reading?

If you are a civilized armed force... the geneva conventions say you can treat captive people like civilians GC4 or like enemy combatants GC3.

No where does it say you can label someone a piddlypatoottlypadobit and then be free to act against a sentient human being in captivity with absolutely no applicable rules to guide your acts.

Civilians (4) or Armed Forces Party To Conflict. (3) Thats it.

Either way they (human beings) have (certain unalienable) rights and to withold those rights makes one uncivilized, out of line, morally wrong, without higher ground, liable, criminal, etc. per the international Geneva Convention.

civily yours,

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
Is there something you're reading that I am not reading?

If you are a civilized armed force... the geneva conventions say you can treat captive people like civilians GC4 or like enemy combatants GC3.

No where does it say you can label someone a piddlypatoottlypadobit and then be free to act against a sentient human being in captivity with absolutely no applicable rules to guide your acts.

Civilians (4) or Armed Forces Party To Conflict. (3) Thats it.

Either way they (human beings) have (certain unalienable) rights and to withold those rights makes one uncivilized, out of line, morally wrong, without higher ground, liable, criminal, etc. per the international Geneva Convention.

civily yours,

Sri Oracle

Yes you are missing something. The Third Geneva convention stipulates who is considered armed forces and can be considered prisoners of war and sets a criteria for them. Terror groups like A.Q. do not meet the definition of article 4:

Article 4) "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy"
"Members of the armed forces"
"militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
"Persons who accompany the armed forces"
"Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
"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."

Those are the definitions the convention uses to determine a POW. AQ does not meet those standards and thus do not deserve to be treated as POW as normal soldiers of a nation under the Geneva convention. While they are armed they are not members of the armed forces of a nation. Since they are not POW's the third Geneva convention does not apply at all to them.

The 4th Geneva convention applies to civillians and noncombatant ones at that, which AQ is not as well. AQ are not noncombantants (Civillians) nor are they following the normal rules of war and are not POW's as well. Yes, you can classify a group of fighters as not worthy of POW status, simply by their conduct on the battlefield. They are in the no mans land of not being POW's or Civillians, hence their classification as enemy combantants, which they are, hostile armed forces that don't follow the normal rules of warfare. To be treated under the Geneva conventions, you have to play by the rules, if you don't they don't get applied to you. It's a pretty simple framework that along with other agreements makes warfare a structured affair, as funny as that sounds. That is why armed forces of a nation have a code of conduct otherwise it just disingrates into chaos.

You are incorrect that you are either a POW or a civillian, please look into it if you doubt me, start with the Balkans. What inalienable rights does a captured AQ person have? It's a serious question.

I find it offensive that you are willing to give a thug the same rights as a trained soldier who follows a code of conduct or the same rights as an innocent civillian. You contend that treating such terrorist in a manner different to a POW or an innocent civillian makes the detaining party liable and criminal under the Geneva Conventions? Try making that one stick.


In short AQ and most of their ilk do not get the benefits of the 3rd Convention and most assurdly are not noncombatant civillians and don't get the benefit of the 4th convention. Please feel free to disagree but prove to me why they get either.

They don't meet ALL of the qualifications of article 4 of the third, thus they are not able to be classified as POW's. Mainly having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, carrying weapons openly and not blending in with the civillian population. Prove to me that they do.


They don't meet the definition of a noncombatant civillian as well. Prove to me that they do.

Respectfully,

So, you can walk into any country and disband their army and then ...

use this :

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

as your guideline on who qualifies for treatment under the geneva convention

To say any member of the population resisting the occupation, who obviously cant afford army clothing and guns after years of sanctions ..and you confiscated all their army's equipment ...they qualifty as terrorists and be called AQ and you can torture then because they do not apply under section (1) ?

There ought to be a UN resolution that states no member of a civil population under military occupation can be deemed a terrorist and full cover of the geneva convention shall apply in all cases . They need special rules now to overcome rabid US global aggression.





[edit on 31-12-2007 by Gun Totin Gerbil]

we give the mass murderers of this country due rights......and it's against the law to torture them......
a murderer is a murderer, there isn't much difference regardless of where they are at. so why is one deserving of basic human rights, and one isn't?

you accuse everyone who speaks out against the torture and such of not seeing the horrors of the crimes they commit, we are all evil liberals, in league with those nasty terrorists...
well, I'll tell you why I speak out, and it nothing to do with liberalism or being in league with a group of wackos who would prefer that I cover myself from head to toe, darken my windows so I can't be seen, and never venture outside to even go to the market, let alone go to a job!!
I have family members in the military, it's been a family tradition since the danged revolutionary war. To be able to force those that you've captured and who are now totally dependant on you for everything to even do the poses that came out of abu garig or whatever it was called, not to mention the water boarding ect....well, it requires a very sick soul!! a very dark soul!!
YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR DANGED COTTON PICKING MIND IF YOU THINK THAT I WANT THIS GOVERNMENT TO CORRUPT MY SON TO THAT EXTENT!! and then when they are through with him, send him home for me to contend with!!

My dad was in WW2, and the things he saw, the things he had to do, to protect this nation, effected him the rest of his life!! But, he never got orders from the top to go out and torture anyone!! I can only imagine what it will be like for those coming out of this war, who were given that order, and well......found kind of fun, kind of stimulating even!! No thanks, I don't care how corrupt, how evil, the opponent is, you don't corrupt you own army and play the game in the same manner!!

I wouldn't mind my son going over there, if he was over there to actaully help protect this nation (I have my doubts on this one), and well, the war is over, the evil dictator is gone, the mission now would be to get the Iraqi people back on their feet, with a new, hopefully more friendly towards american, government ruling them....wouldn't mind my some helping in this venture...
but, ya see, he would be more of a beacon of light now, wouldn't he...helping the Iraqis rebuild, shooting the bad guys if they came along to interfer with that rebuilding...
but, torture......that's a very, very dark issue!! and we are talking about areas of the world that have been under many, many long years of darkness. dark spirits will kind of congregate in areas where fear, hopelessness, dispair, never ending pain is! It's their feeding ground so to speak!
So, which side do you want the US to fight on? Because if she's to be a beacon of light, well, there is no place for torture within her, or within the army she fights with!