Rebuff for Bush on civil liberties

  • News
  • Thread starter Adam
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Civil
In summary: POWs.Originally posted by russ_watters In summary, the Bush administration may be forced to rethink its war on terrorism strategy after two US courts ruled yesterday that detainees should not remain indefinitely in a legal twilight zone.
  • #36
Originally posted by Njorl
I think it is due to the nature of the conflict. If they are classified as PoWs captured in a war against Afghanistan, they must be repatriated after the fall of Afghanistan. Many of these men are presumed to be engaged in a war against the US that is not limited to Afghanistan. It is assumed they would likely continue fighting the US in some other venue.
If I read correctly, the prisoners at gitmo are from something like 40 different countries. That certainly makes it complicated to classify them as combatants in the Afghanistan war.

MEN?
Hadn't heard that one, pelastration, but I can't say I'm surprised. They start learning to be terrorists pretty young in some places. I'm sure you've seen the home videos of Arabic infants dressed up as suicide bombers. Its really pretty sick - american boys grow up wanting to be SpiderMan or a rock star and Arabic boys grow up wanting to blow themselves up while murdering civilians.

Two more related implications of the criteria discussed above for lawful combatants:

Special forces such as the Australian ones referenced above often operate in such a manner as to be capable of being considered unlawful combatants. They are similar to spies in that they fulfil roles such as infiltration and surveilance. For these roles they don't carry weapons openly, wear uniforms, etc.

In the US anyway, special forces are made aware of the implications of their role prior to signing up for special forces. I'm not sure if they officially waive Geneva Convention protection, but they are informed that in some circumstances the GC may not protect them and in some cases don't even carry GC ID cards. Of course that isn't a whole lot different from the fact that most countries we fight don't obey the GC anyway. Your treatment at the hands of an Iraqi or Afghani captor wouldn't vary much based on your GC status.

Somewhat related are some of the war crimes comitted by Saddam. Many of the troops the US opposed operated similar to the manner described above (didn't wear uniforms, didn't display weapons openly, etc), but went one giant step further - they actively hid among civilians. One of the main purposes of those four criteria is to protect civilians by making it easy to distinguish between soldiers and civilians. Saddam knew that guys like Adam wouldn't distinguish different reasons for civilian deaths, so one of his GOALS was to kill as many of his own civilians as possible by essentially using them as human shields (though he went further even than that, actually using civilians as cannon fodder by sending them unarmed to probe our positions). That crime alone could get him executed or jailed for life at the Hague.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37


Originally posted by Adam
The "following conditions" bit refers ONLY to section 2, as I'm sure you're aware from actually reading it. Those under sections 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, are also combatants, as I'm sure you're aware. So why try to suggest otherwise?
READING COMPREHENSION Adam. You are quite simply misunderstanding what you are reading.

Unless of course you do understand in which case you are trying to argue your point by misrepresenting the evidence.

Adam, I guess I'm finished with you. You really are pretty pathetic. If you don't understand by now, you won't. If you are just misrepresenting the facts (consciously or unconsciously), then you need help of a sort I am not qualified to provide. I keep going back and forth between believing you are deluded about your opinions and really do believe the things you say or that you are simply a hateful person, lying and misrepresenting facts to justify your hate. Either way, this is useless. I will continue to point out your errors, lies, misrepresentations, etc., but I won't be explaining them to you anymore.
 
  • #38
russ_waters

Despite your desperate ad hominem attacks, you have yet to demonstrate me typing a single lie. Additionally, you have continually gotten it wrong regarding the combatant status issue as outlined in the Geneve Convention under discussion.

For your desperately needed edification, here is the entirety of Article 4 of the convention under discussion:
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. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

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.

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

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

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.

Once again, in terms of pure logic: POW = 1+3+4+5+6+(2a.2b.2c.2d)

There is no way around this, russ_waters.
 
  • #39
No, I think it is very clearly saying:
POW=A1/(A2a+A2b+A2c+A2d)/A3/A4/A5/A6/B1/B2
Where '/' is 'or' and '+' is 'and'. However, I admit to only reading it for grammar, not for content, so I do not know if it makes it clear in the content of any of those that there are no '+'. But I did read the little intro to A and the intro in 2 (quote) before A2a, A2b, A2c, A2d are listed, and I think they make it quite clear. I think where you are getting confused is that you think that, say, A2b is just as legitimate a category as, say, A4, when in fact A2b is a subcategory of A2, meaning that it has to be true along with A2a, A2c, and A2d in order for A2 to be true. You are thinking: Where in the world did I get that idea? Right here, quoting from your post:
...provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:(A2a, A2b, A2c, A2d)
It doesn't say at least one, or even some, but it implies all.
I like this quote:
There are some people who if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
-Louis Armstrong
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Jonathan

No, I think it is very clearly saying:
POW=A1/(A2a+A2b+A2c+A2d)/A3/A4/A5/A6/B1/B2
Where '/' is 'or' and '+' is 'and'.
In Boolean logic, which I was using:
. is "and"
+ is "or"

Once again, the convention says "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories", then lists the categories by number.

POW = 1+3+4+5+6+(2a.2b.2c.2d)
 
  • #41
Then what are we arguing about?
 
  • #42


Originally posted by russ_watters
READING COMPREHENSION Adam. You are quite simply misunderstanding what you are reading.

Unless of course you do understand in which case you are trying to argue your point by misrepresenting the evidence.

Adam, I guess I'm finished with you. You really are pretty pathetic. If you don't understand by now, you won't. If you are just misrepresenting the facts (consciously or unconsciously), then you need help of a sort I am not qualified to provide. I keep going back and forth between believing you are deluded about your opinions and really do believe the things you say or that you are simply a hateful person, lying and misrepresenting facts to justify your hate. Either way, this is useless. I will continue to point out your errors, lies, misrepresentations, etc., but I won't be explaining them to you anymore.
Take a time-out Russ...you don't need to continue in this tack ever ever again, comprende?
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
86
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
52
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
Back
Top