How many children will have to die for you to realize that our society has a problem?

If your bissy we can debate it later but they ARE POW's and your goverment can't escape that by making up some title for them

Ok adam
 
Well....

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.
Click to expand...

We are occupying Afghanistan, are we not?

They will be dealt with, "at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State".....sometime after hell freezes over ;)

Finally, Al-Queda fighters are a measly bunch of fuckwits who - pardon - are terrorists, not signers of the Geneva Convention. As such, they are not entitled to its protections. Only the Taliban detainees are.

I should also note that:
The detainees will not be subjected to physical or mental abuse or cruel treatment. The International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to be able to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.
Click to expand...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-13.html
 
Tyler,

Now, I leave you to your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Who is really the ignorant here... :rolleyes:

Posted by Xev:
I will say a few last things
Click to expand...

Posted by Tyler:
Nelson, I will soon be permenatly ignoring you, but i have to say one thing....
Click to expand...

Yeah... can't argue with me and then run away...!! :bugeye: :eek: :rolleyes: :bugeye:

*sights...

Good Luck...
Nelson
 
Ok this is Artical4 of the geniva convention on POW's in intirety (SO you don't think i cut and paste to suite my own purpose

Sorce

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.
Click to expand...

The taliban fall into section 1 of that (so why did you denie them that right for so long) and al quieda fall into sections 1 or 2

Or you could class them as CRIMINALS under your civillan law

BUT even if it was decided later that they were NOT POW's artical 5 said that you should have started by treating them as POW's and decided later there statice (hope you can find the stuff i wrote in between all these quotes)


ARTICLE 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal
Click to expand...
 
I think what bothers me in this discussion is that we are talking about the "rights of POW's". Where were those rights for the victums of the 9/11 incident?

For years, Bin Ladin has enjoyed the sheild of the Taliban while preforming his terrorist activities. The Taliban benefited from the realtionship and denied any help to any country in the securing of Bin Ladin and eliminating the continuing threat of such terrorism. In effect making them the harbors of international criminals with the unacknowledged blessings of the Taliban. By such acts the Taliban made themselves criminals in the act. They were given more chances than can be counted to do the right thing. I fail to see where the Geneva Convention applies from the start. The Geneva Convention was not designed to protect criminals.
 
Im sorry but a hell of a lot more people were killed by Hitler than by those 2 planes

just like there are rights acorded to ACUSED criminals (rember no one has been found gulity by a court of law) the geneva convention aplies to ALL millatry action. NO EXCEPTIONS
 
I just thought of this

WHY ARE WE IN HUMAN SCIENCE?

We should be in politics or eithics
 
Ah, no Nelson. It's because we no longer wish to justify your comments with responses. You refuse to argue on any kind of basis but your own faiths.

And your claim about Hitler wanting to kill Jews for money is the final step. There is always a shadow of a doubt that maybe, just maybe, you truly are the next great type of thinker. That comment about Hitler erases all doubt.

As a simple rebutal I could have said; then why did he hate gypsies? They had NO money.
 
Nelson, it is not so much a matter of running away as it is a matter of not being a masochist. You have never and will never admit that you are ever in error, and you do not seem to be interested in debate.

I look forward to more cordial interactions with you, but I refuse to debate you any longer.

Asguard: Wet1 is right. We are talking about both criminals and fighters....which are they?

I submit they are both, and in a rather unique position re:international law. Therefore, while we may be violating the Geneva convention by holding them, it is not somthing I shall worry much about. I leave that to the lawyers, and if they are still hanging around Guantanamo in a few months, I'll rethink.

BTW, two planes? There were more than two......
 
Yes i apoligise to everyone for saying 2 planes, i realise there was 4 (that we know of) but the fact still remains that hitles killed WAY more and he was still protected and you are breaching section 5 at least. There is NO exceptions to the geneva convention because for starters it was put in place for times of last resort (WAR).

They are ALL POW's untill an independant body dimes otherwise, and MUST be treated as such (ESPECIALLY the taliban fighters who should ALLWAYS have had the full protection of the geneva convention)

Sorry i can't say more today (ran out of downloads and are at the libary)
 
Asguard,

I truely hope that you never, as a nation, have to experience some atrocity such as the 9/11 incident. Should this happen, you will find a profound attitude change from those around you, especially those directly effected, as they come out of the greiving for their loved and lost ones.

Hitler did many things that were right for his country. No, I am not talking about the atrocities he committed or those who committed them in his name. What he did good is overshadowed by what he did bad. I do not mean to condone the acts that underline his time on the world stage. Japan did many things that were also in line with this type of mentality.

Nor do I condone what the terrorist have laid out to do as something that if I turn my head they will go away. No, they won't. To make matters worse, they will continue and at the same time get stronger and more sophistacted, until it is not planes we are worring about but atom bombs and biowarfare. It is us or them. No other mentality works. Personally, if the Taliban fighters are there being detained a couple of years from now, it won't get more than a raised eyebrow from me. Their governments actions paved the way for them. The Geneva Convention was laid out when wars were fought differently, when you knew your enemy. Here the lines are blurred and it was never meant to protect criminals. Nor was it heard of at the time for the military to be policemen. The Convention has not kept up with the times. It is out dated and needs modification. I do not shed tears for those held in detainment.
 
Asguard:
They are ALL POW's untill an independant body dimes otherwise, and MUST be treated as such (ESPECIALLY the taliban fighters who should ALLWAYS have had the full protection of the geneva convention)
Click to expand...

And, eventually, we'll get around to taking care of the Taliban fighters - however, Al Queda is a criminal group, not an army. They are being treated well, and will continue to be treated well.

Nor do I condone what the terrorist have laid out to do as something that if I turn my head they will go away. No, they won't. To make matters worse, they will continue and at the same time get stronger and more sophistacted, until it is not planes we are worring about but atom bombs and biowarfare. It is us or them. No other mentality works. Personally, if the Taliban fighters are there being detained a couple of years from now, it won't get more than a raised eyebrow from me. Their governments actions paved the way for them. The Geneva Convention was laid out when wars were fought differently, when you knew your enemy. Here the lines are blurred and it was never meant to protect criminals. Nor was it heard of at the time for the military to be policemen. The Convention has not kept up with the times. It is out dated and needs modification. I do not shed tears for those held in detainment.
Click to expand...

Here here, Wet1! They are being provided

All detainees at Guantanamo are being provided: - three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws - water - medical care - clothing and shoes - shelter - showers - soap and toilet articles - foam sleeping pads and blankets - towels and washcloths - the opportunity to worship - correspondence materials, and the means to send mail -the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, subject to security screening
Click to expand...

Monitering by the Red Cross - what the fuck else could they want? My government has been extremely generous and will most likely continue this generosity. They do not have my sympathy.
 
Exscuse me but YOU declared war on the Taliban NOT the other way around. The ARE POW's because you capured them in WAR. There should be no "getting around to it", it should have been automatic.

As for the others, Fine they are crimals. SO when do they get charged, when do they get their independant representation and there speedy trial?

If they are crimals you are breaching you own constitution by dening them the rights of everyother "aleged" (and thats all they are, you know presumption of inocents, burden of proof on the crown (its the crown here don't know what you call it)) crimal.

What do i think they should have, i don't know. Maybe the rights put in place to protect even the hardest crimal from abuse.
 
Tyler,

And your claim about Hitler wanting to kill Jews for money is the final step. There is always a shadow of a doubt that maybe, just maybe, you truly are the next great type of thinker. That comment about Hitler erases all doubt.
Click to expand...

Helo-oooooo!!

There are History professors all around the world who consider this as the biggest possibility... :bugeye: :eek:

There was a huge inflation in Germany and Hitler needed money for all those military things...

From where do you thing the money came from?

From the sky?:bugeye:

Helloooo...
Is anyone home...? *knocking in Tyler's head*

Love,
Nelson
 
Inflation was mostly under control before Hitler started attacking the Jews. The money he seized from them was hardly enough to build a large military, and not even enough to stabalize the currency.

And no, there are not such history professors, that I have heard of. When one reads 'Mein Kampf' one recognizes that Hitler hated Jews from very early on in his career. His attack may have been to his advantage, but it did not stem from the desire for money.

Also, Hitler attacked many groups besides the Jews, and had planned to send 'inferior' "Aryans" to the camps once he won the war.

Asguard:
Actually, they attacked us, in essence declaring war.

If they are crimals you are breaching you own constitution by dening them the rights of everyother "aleged" (and thats all they are, you know presumption of inocents, burden of proof on the crown (its the crown here don't know what you call it)) crimal.
Click to expand...

It's the state here.

And they are not American citizens, thus not entitled to protection under our constitution.
 
I was under the imprssion that if i came over to the US and was charged with a crime i was intilted to protection of you legle system the same as everyone else.

And im sorry but YOU atacked first

There was no attack by TALIBAN military forces on you, only you on there's. That dosn't mean you wern't right to attack (although im against this war) but you atacked them.
 
Oh......
right Nelson.......

of course that's the same reason he hated the Gypsies? Because they had so much money?

And the Communists too? Because they had so much money?

And the gays too?

And everyone else that he linked with Jews?
 
But Tyler, that's what Nelson's profs tell him. And we all know that everything our profs tell us is the absolute truth....

Asguard:

No, they attacked us on the morning of September 11th. We had not attacked before.

I was under the imprssion that if i came over to the US and was charged with a crime i was intilted to protection of you legle system the same as everyone else.
Click to expand...

You would be, but these people were not on American soil when the commited their alleged crimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top