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.

 

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

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


American soldiers have been tortured in every war by every enemy we have had since signing the geneva treaty. We signed it to protect our soldiers! It hasn't and doesn't. Terrorists are not solders and thay are not human either. Hear that! terrorists are not human. they may share our DNA, they May look like us, But, the things that make us human are not part of them. i was not speaking of tearing out there fingernails. But, if it would stop a bomb that was set to kill 50 innosent people, do it!




posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   
well, if this is the way bush feels, then maybe he should just openly withdraw from the geneva convention treaties, since untill he does, he is bound by them!!

So, we now have a new species living on the planet, you say? I didn't know this, they're kind of subhuman, huh?? well! what do you know....
OF COURSE THEY ARE HUMAN!! what, you think that a UFO dropped them off or something?
Women, by the way, were though of as being subhuman for awhile also....they were kept oppressed, uneducated, and well, THEY WERE FORCED TO LIVE A SUBHUMAN LIFE!! Which many of those who are touting this "religious right, compassionate conservative" crap, would like for our women to return to..


are you one, because if you are, I have one more thing to say to you:

I've had these religious right fanatics saying all kinds of things to me the past decade or so, about how I should be obeying my husband, blah, blah, even when I know he is wrong...blah, blah, blah, blah....that I should PRAY, and TRUST GOD, that everthing will turn out right!!

Okay, now, pull up your britches, strap on you holy armor, AND PRAY, that's right Pray, and TRUST, that's right, I said TRUST, that God will keep that terrorist from blowing you up!!
Does the religious right have the same amount of faith that they are expecting from their women??? Or would they rather sell their soul to satan and continue building those dark kingdoms that the taliban and saddam have begun to build, just in the name of another god?
Torture is wrong...
Torture rules by fear..
Torture will leave it's victims in a hopeless state of despair...
Torture is evil...
Torture will corrupt the purist of souls if they are forced to take part in it..
Torture will create an atmosphere that will draw evil to it!!

which side do you prefer to be on??






[edit on 31-12-2007 by dawnstar]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil
 


No that is not what I am saying. The Conventions are rules, the rules must be followed or they don't apply. Civilians rising up against and occupying force are one of the categories that would be considered POW's, please read up.

Just because an occupying force "disbands" an opponents armed forces does necessarily mean than any armed forces still fighting would not be considered POW's, provided they meet the stipulations of article 4.

They aren't my personal definitions, they are what is stated in the 3rd Geneva Convention. Guerrilla warfare is addressed in Protocol I and has not been ratified by everyone. Even then, guerrillas must be readily distinguishable from the civilian noncombatant population.

You can choose to fight an opponent outside of the normal rules of warfare, however you run the risk of not having the Geneva conventions apply to you then.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


arab fighters or other aliens to afganistan are not a populace rising up! they are not citzens of that nation. the same is true for Iraq. they are the invaders killing the civilians. trying to force them into their belief system. both in iraq and afganistan the people of those countrys overwelmingly voted for their goverments!!! it is the terrorists from other nations comming in to kill the iraqies and afgans for the most part. Don't confuse who the enemies of those nations are.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
well, if this is the way bush feels, then maybe he should just openly withdraw from the geneva convention treaties, since untill he does, he is bound by them!!

So, we now have a new species living on the planet, you say? I didn't know this, they're kind of subhuman, huh?? well! what do you know....
OF COURSE THEY ARE HUMAN!!



I understand you are agitated by all of this, but have I not made myself clear? Terrorists like AQ by the way they do their violence, do not deserve to be treated as POW's like a nation's real armed forces. Neither do they deserve to be treated as innocent noncombatant civilians. Neither do they follow the conventions in the first place, not that that is a requirement, just stating it. They most assurdely do not treat civilians or POW's as dictated by the conventions.

Explain to me why they should be treated as either of the above? Read the 3rd convetion, groups such as AQ do not qualify.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by rockets red glare
 


I didn't say that. I was refering to the scenario put out by GTG. Foreign, non armed forces fighters coming into a country most assurdely would not be civilans rising up.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 

my apologies i miss understood the point you were making. In all the legal ways the invations of iraq and afganistan were legal. it has had the backing of many nations and the U.N. The U.N. recently reathorised the iraq war by a unanimous vote of the security counsil. The people in iraq and Afganistan cryed out to the whole world for help. it is a shame that it took a 9-11 insodent to get the people of the world to listen and finally acknowlage the threat to the world. Sadly, to many still want to bury their heads in the sand. A terrible and unreasonalble hatred of the the United States due to decades of very effective communist and socialist propaganda is to blame. These people world rather see the U.S. and allies fail, Nothing could be more important to them. if the terrorist would succeed in their efforts to control afganistan, iraq, (on behalf or their masters) it would be a terrible defeat for democracy and social justice. it could completely reverse the social gains of the common man and woman, that were so costly to win in the last two centuries. This is not a minor thing. Thugs and athoritarians fear democracy more than anything else! And they would do anything to stop it's gains in the world. You see it playing out before your very eyes.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
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.


You become a signatory country to the conventional standards of Geneva not because you want to assure your solders will not be treated wrongly in the event of war... there is no such assurance in the fight against evil. You sign to assure the world that what your armed force stands for is the collective convention and collective good.

I, signatory of this convention, will not treat human beings in captivity against convention regardless of their offense.

By signing you place yourself on moral high ground...
So when the world sees you doing something with your military... they applaud.

Now... that said.

A POW does not have to meet ALL of the qualifications of A4-3.

Again...



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[...]


The way that reads to me... if you qualify for Convention 3 Article 4, A-1... you are protected... Regarless of whether or not you qualify for A-2; , carrying weapons openly and not blending in with the civillian population, etc.

We have agreed...

AQ is an armeded force.
AQ is party to the conflict.

Therefore their HUMAN BEING foot soldiers... are protected.

Peroid.

And to violate their rights or anyones rights, criminal, terrorist, murderer, war crimina, or otherwise removes the moral high ground upon which the world signatories of the treaty deem you right, just, and thereby supported to keep supposed "terrorists" captive.

I AM,

Sri Oracle



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Sri Oracle
 



Simply put, you are incorrect. AQ while armed, is not an "armed force" as is the army, navy ect of a nation. They do have to follow all the "rules" of commonly accepted behaviour of warfare to be considered as an "armed force" and be eligible for POW status. You can't just say "well you carry arms and fight, therfore you MUST be considered a POW if captured. You have to be readily identifiable from a distance with a distinctive emblem, usually a uniform. You have to carry arms openly, you have to have a chain of command. You can't just blend in with the civilian population and you have to follow all the other norms of warfare. Your interpetation of the 3rd Geneva convention is very loose and would allow paramilitary death squads and mercanaries to be considered POW, that simply is not the case. Here is some background on the rules of warfare that might help you to make a better determination of is A.Q. truly an "armed force" in the sense of these agreements.
www.yale.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

Furthermore a nation that did not sign the Conventions or does not abide by the Conventions is not protected by said Conventions. To the best of my knowledge OBL has not signed either Convention on behalf of A.Q. The U.S. has not violated the Conventions by declaring groups such as A.Q. as not qualifiying as POW. AQ, since they are not a nation nor a Army of a nation are again, outside of the scope of both the 3rd and 4th Conventions as the 3rd applies to soldiers and the 4th to Noncombatant civilians.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Hey, rockets red glare. For sure, the terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Conventions agreements, because they wear no military uniform. On the other hand, they are making war, thus not civilian criminals. So they are in a gray area and deserve neither shelter of courts or Geneva Conventions. In earlier wars, according to the Geneva Conventions, a person who fights a battle and doesn't wear a uniform can be executed, not civll trial or whatever.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Your interpetation of the 3rd Geneva convention is very loose and would allow paramilitary death squads and mercanaries to be considered POW, that simply is not the case.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.


So... if I am a US Marine, on patrol, ...and I take into my possession another human being that I believe to be a member of a paramilitary death squad, I can...

Chain my slave up, stick a broom in his arse, attach his nuts to 12v battery, and burn him with cigarettes until he moans in a way that makes the platoon leader happy?

Do I get to use one of those fancy orange ball gags on my non-POW-terrorist-combatant and still call myself a Geneva signatory?

When you sign... you hold yourself to a standard.

I disagree that we should "agree to disagree" because you need to become a little more agreeable on human rights and the immutable Law behind the Geneva Conventions.

Sri Oracle



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Pavil from your source:



Who, after communication of their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed on the following:

Article 1

The High Contracting Parties shall issue instructions to their armed land forces, which shall be in conformity with the "Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land" annexed to the present Convention.



That being, I signatory of this convention, do so solemnly swear to tell my boys that they, if representing my nation, must abide by the:



Annex to the Convention

REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

SECTION I.--ON BELLIGERENTS
CHAPTER I.--On the Qualifications of Belligerents

Article 1

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."


that is... boys... if you are a member of our army, or if you are a member of our national militia, or you carry open arms, a fixed emblem, and report to someone.... then YOU must, if you represent my nation, because I am a signatory of the convention, conform to:





Article 2

The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy's approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded a belligerent, if they respect the laws and customs of war.


Article 3

The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In case of capture by the enemy both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.



wikipedia: belligerent
en.wikipedia.org...

wikipedia: combatant
en.wikipedia.org...

wikipedia: unlawful combatant
en.wikipedia.org...



Once a combatant is found by a competent tribunal to be an unlawful combatant, he or she no longer has the rights and privileges accorded to a prisoner of war (POW), but he retains all the rights any other civilian would have under municipal and international law in the same situation.[2]
[]
An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."


That would be once you loose your POW status... you're still a civilian.

criminal or not.... terrorist or not... murderer or not...

captive of a signatory state; you are now their civilian

wikipedia: civilian

A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces.

some latin for you:

Malum in se
en.wikipedia.org...

Malum prohibitum
en.wikipedia.org...


So either you recognise them as 3 or they fall into 4 unless you see some legal loophole that says certain human beings have absolutely no rights so long as you do not tell the rest of the world who they are, lock them in a dark box on the far side of the universe and use your media machine to Goebbels-glue the term "terrorist" to "no rights".


Terrorists shouldn't have rights
Terrorists don't have rights
Should terrorists even have rights?
I don't think a terrorist has rights...
Does the geneva convention allow terrorists rights?
It might be right to give terrorist right in some humanitarian way, but in the real world their rights are in question.
What are your thoughts on the rights of deranged terrorists?
Terrorists have no rights.
Even if terrorist did have rights...

Perhaps you are just yet another indoctrinated iteration of the faux news machine?

twitch
twitch
propoganda
twitch

damn terrorists...they're whats wrong with this world...
we should just nuke Iran; arming insurgent terrorist scum.
they don't deserve the oil anyway

towel heads.

Sri Oracle

[edit on 6-1-2008 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
Chain my slave up, stick a broom in his arse, attach his nuts to 12v battery, and burn him with cigarettes until he moans in a way that makes the platoon leader happy?


Sigh, you don't really get it, do you? A Marine has a code of conduct that they follow, they don't normally shoot captured soldiers or civilians, nor do they torture them. Please prove otherwise if you doubt me. A terrorist who does not openly abide by the normal laws of warfare is not entitled to POW status for the umpteenth time. Nor are they noncombatant civilians. I really don't see what is so hard about this distinction to you. Yes, a terrorist has less rights than a POW and certainly far less rights than an unarmed civilian.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Sri Oracle
 


I don't see this as a very productive use of my or your time, especially when you start to get petty with innuendo insulting with the last part of your post. It's obvious that you are right and I am wrong in your mind, why don't we let the courts and legal systems see which interpretation is correct? Terrorism has created a whole new legal field that probably needs more codification. I think we might be able to agree on that perhaps.

Sorry you had to go the route you did on this last post, I rather enjoyed debating you till then.

Have a good day.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil A terrorist who does not openly abide by the normal laws of warfare is not entitled to POW status for the umpteenth time. Nor are they noncombatant civilians. I really don't see what is so hard about this distinction to you. Yes, a terrorist has less rights than a POW and certainly far less rights than an unarmed civilian.


Regardless of how many umpteen times you repeat something... that does not make your interpretation correct.

quote, bold, italicize, make line by line commentary... perhaps I will come to see your wisdom.


Originally posted by pavil
I don't see this as a very productive use of my or your time, especially when you start to get petty with innuendo insulting with the last part of your post.
[]Sorry you had to go the route you did on this last post, I rather enjoyed debating you till then.


Easy there soldier... nothing personal suggested; I speak to the community, not just yourself. Pointing out the finer aspects of the Geneva Convention to the online community is a fine usage of my day off.

One must associate themselves with something in order to be insulted by a derogatory comment against said group. Perhaps if you did not think as my innuendo suggested you could not be thereby insulted? Was it my allusion to those who think of arabs as "towelheads" that left you feeling insulted on home ground? Or being an "indoctrinated iteration" that tipped you off the edge of "I think like that... how dare he call me on it"?



Sigh, you don't really get it, do you? A Marine has a code of conduct that they follow, they don't normally shoot captured soldiers or civilians, nor do they torture them.


When we tell them that there is a certain class of being that is neither civilian nor captured soldier... that leaves the door wide open for human rights violations against supposed "terrorists". More so when Marines are not doing the job; Caci Agents in their stead.

Sri Oracle



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
One must associate themselves with something in order to be insulted by a derogatory comment against said group. Perhaps if you did not think as my innuendo suggested you could not be thereby insulted? Was it my allusion to those who think of arabs as "towelheads" that left you feeling insulted on home ground? Or being an "indoctrinated iteration" that tipped you off the edge of "I think like that... how dare he call me on it"?



No not really. Why do a dergotory comment (which you yourself admit to) at all? I just find it offensive when anyone resorts to tactics such as the one you did. Do I have to be Black or Gay to be insulted by someones inflamatory insulting of them? I find it a rather weak way of getting a point across and I'd rather not debate someone who does that. Just my opinion, which I'm entitled to. Civility and decorum in this forum please. They apply to those you even disagree with and those who you really know nothing of. I've defended those I disagree with when things start going this way, debate the topics not the persons.

Again, you have a good day.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
We call them terrorists, unless they've spent 10 weeks in basic training, then they are soldiers... this thread is dumb.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
how can goverments have totaliterism in their agenda and apply it´s citicents and then exclude at the same time ,

something is very rotten and smells



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
LOAC = Laws Of Armed Conflict.

No uniform/formal organization = an irregular combatant = no Geneva protection.

How about this: A US pilot is shot down, and while he's on the ground, blows up an ammo dump. If he later gets captured, he's a POW.

Now, if he was wearing civilian clothing while he did it, and he's caught, he can be executed.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I would agree that we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct, however, I can't believe how quick people are to defend terrorists and criticize our military!

Do I believe everything the Bush administration has told us? Absolutely not.

Am I happy with everything that has happened? Absolutely not.

BUT, I am for our country and our troops and will support what troops are doing, while risking their lives to keep us safe. Some of the comments here show how much pride in country people have flushed down the toilet since 2001. I wonder why some stay in this country. I think it is very important to be critical of what we are told and think for ourselves but some of the comments I have seen while lurking these boards are extremely anti-American.

I don't want to be offensive as I value others opinions’ but some of the liberal thinking people have is dangerous to say the least. These terrorists came here and killed innocent people! No matter what lies we have been told it is a fact that there are dangerous terrorist groups operating and plotting ways to kill us daily. Let's fight for their protection!


For the record, I support a war in Afganhistan going forward until Bin Laden is captured.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join