NationStates Jolt Archive

No, all you al-Qaeda gunsels out there, it’s not being shut down.

But we have added another smiling happy inmate:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337968,00.html

Now squeeze this bastard for everything he knows, and make him regret the day he was born in the process. :D

No, all you al-Qaeda gunsels out there, it’s not being shut down.

But we have added another smiling happy inmate:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337968,00.html

Now squeeze this bastard for everything he knows, and make him regret the day he was born in the process. :D

(Gets box of Dots)

Let the flaming begin!

Who's Usama Bin Ladin?

I remember not too long ago when we put criminals on trial. Ah, those were the days! *sighs wistfully*

It's not a big deal - if you read the various news stories, he's been held for some time by the CIA, who has probably waterboarded him to the point where he's going to piss straight water for the next 10 years.

If he had any useful information, they've gotten it out of him. At the very least, he probably is psychologically beaten.

I remember not too long ago when we put criminals on trial. Ah, those were the days! *sighs wistfully*

You mean back before we had evidence before arresting people and didn't rely on torturing them til they confessed?

This'll be news in about 50 years when they actually charge him with something.

You mean back before we had evidence before arresting people and didn't rely on torturing them til they confessed?

And the arrested had a right to an attorney during questioning. I miss that. :(

You mean back before we had evidence before arresting people and didn't rely on torturing them til they confessed?

Torture? Anti-American slander I say! The Islamo-fascist prisoners who confessed to having sunk the Titanic, shot JFK and stolen fire from the gods did so under no coercion whatsoever. How anyone could suggest otherwise is completely beyond me.

And the arrested had a right to an attorney during questioning. I miss that. :(

Why do you hate freedom?

Torture? Anti-American slander I say! The Islamo-fascist prisoners who confessed to having sunk the Titanic, shot JFK and stolen fire from the gods did so under no coercion whatsoever. How anyone could suggest otherwise is completely beyond me.

I like you, you're fun.

I remember not too long ago when we put criminals on trial. Ah, those were the days! *sighs wistfully*

That never happened. You are just a victim of the evil liberal terrorists coddeling media.

I remember not too long ago when we put criminals on trial. Ah, those were the days! *sighs wistfully*

We still do, LG. But in case you haven't heard, this is a matter of war, not crime. When we go to war, we find the enemy, find out what they know, and kill them. Sometimes even in that order ;)

I remember not too long ago when we put criminals on trial. Ah, those were the days! *sighs wistfully*

Oh yeah? Well, I remember when we used to put them in a stockade and throw small pebbles at them.

Why do you hate freedom?

I don't hate freedom. We just don't seem to hang out in the same places anymore. :(

Why do you hate freedom?

Sorry matey, I'm clearly not as clever as you, what does that mean?

Is it one of those sayings like "work makes you free" or "Arbeit Macht Frei" as it was in the original?

We still do, LG. But in case you haven't heard, this is a matter of war, not crime. When we go to war, we find the enemy, find out what they know, and kill them. Sometimes even in that order ;)

Then they're prisoners of war? Because I could have sworn we signed this ...uh...Geneva Convention thingy...

Sorry matey, I'm clearly not as clever as you, what does that mean?

http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg

Oh yeah? Well, I remember when we used to put them in a stockade and throw small pebbles at them.

That was probably very entertaining for the kids. :)

Then they're prisoners of war? Because I could have sworn we signed this ...uh...Geneva Convention thingy...

Again, more lies from the liberal media.

http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg

Aaahhh. Now I understand.

Sorry matey, I'm clearly not as clever as you, what does that mean?

Is it one of those sayings like "work makes you free" or "Arbeit Macht Frei" as it was in the original?

I wasn't serious.

Then they're prisoners of war? Because I could have sworn we signed this ...uh...Geneva Convention thingy...

Yeah, but according to the latest White House interview (http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) you had your fingers crossed.

Again, more lies from the liberal media.

Damn them. :mad:

Yeah, but according to the latest White House interview (http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) you had your fingers crossed.

You know of course that the attack weasels are on their way to your house as we speak. :mad:

I don't hate freedom. We just don't seem to hang out in the same places anymore. :(

Freedom is a bitch.

No, all you al-Qaeda gunsels out there, it’s not being shut down.

But we have added another smiling happy inmate:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337968,00.html

Now squeeze this bastard for everything he knows, and make him regret the day he was born in the process. :D

I hate celebs in the media. And I feel sorry for the people who are blinded enough to actually post about it on a forum.

You know of course that the attack weasels are on their way to your house as we speak. :mad:

It was worth it.

Then they're prisoners of war? Because I could have sworn we signed this ...uh...Geneva Convention thingy...

1) This is war.

2) The enemy are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention that apply to prisoners of war for numerous reasons, among others, not wearing uniforms and not following a chain of command. They are no more entitled to POW status than spies or saboteurs.

3) Have you actually read the Geneva Convention(s)?

2) The enemy are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention that apply to prisoners of war for numerous reasons, among others, not wearing uniforms and not following a chain of command. They are no more entitled to POW status than spies or saboteurs.



Supreme Court disagrees. Rusual V Bush.

We still do, LG. But in case you haven't heard, this is a matter of war, not crime. When we go to war, we find the enemy, find out what they know, and kill them. Sometimes even in that order ;)

Are you a Klingon?

3) Have you actually read the Geneva Convention(s)?

Since we're comparing readings, have you read the UNCAT?

Are you a Klingon?

No, Klingons have honor.

1) This is war.
Against what army?

2) The enemy are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention that apply to prisoners of war for numerous reasons, among others, not wearing uniforms and not following a chain of command. They are no more entitled to POW status than spies or saboteurs.
SCOTUS disagrees, as someone else already mentioned.

3) Have you actually read the Geneva Convention(s)?

Have you? Since we're all asking each other. :)

You know, I was just looking the good old Geneva Convention up on wikipedia. Looky what I found:
The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" by the George W. Bush administration. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. 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,"[1]
All your terrorists in Gitmo are civilians. Still no torturing them.

2) The enemy are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention that apply to prisoners of war for numerous reasons, among others, not wearing uniforms and not following a chain of command. They are no more entitled to POW status than spies or saboteurs.

Cool. Now how do you prove that they're guilty of these things? Or do we just randomly accuse and torture nowadays? You see, this is where fair trials and all that other neat stuff that civilized nations have come in handy when it comes to dealing with criminals...

Are you a Klingon?

Don't insult Klingons like that. They have a warrior tradition and a code of honor that goes back ages. NM is a Bushevik lackey who thrives on the torture and murder of real freedom and liberty.

Don't insult Klingons like that. They have a warrior tradition and a code of honor that goes back ages. NM is a Bushevik lackey who thrives on the torture and murder of real freedom and liberty.

Most Klingons seen on screen are little better than petty thugs though.

2) The enemy are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention that apply to prisoners of war for numerous reasons, among others, not wearing uniforms and not following a chain of command. They are no more entitled to POW status than spies or saboteurs.

Sounds illegal. Have they been arrested?

No, all you al-Qaeda gunsels out there, it’s not being shut down.If you plan on voting for an Al Quaeda gunsel, you are an Al Qaeda gunsel as well. Unless your earlier remarks about voting for McCain (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-18-gitmo-candidates_N.htm) were lies and you actually will be voting for Reagan.

2) The enemy are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention that apply to prisoners of war for numerous reasons, among others, not wearing uniforms and not following a chain of command. They are no more entitled to POW status than spies or saboteurs.

Spies and saboteurs are civilians and treated as such. In fact, laws have specifically been made to deal with spies, saboteurs and terrorists.

So why not apply them?

Spies and saboteurs are civilians and treated as such. In fact, laws have specifically been made to deal with spies, saboteurs and terrorists.

So why not apply them?

Then you can't torture them. If they stick with calling them unlawful combatants then they can pretend that what they're doing is legal.

Torture? Anti-American slander I say! The Islamo-fascist prisoners who confessed to having sunk the Titanic, shot JFK and stolen fire from the gods did so under no coercion whatsoever. How anyone could suggest otherwise is completely beyond me.

Sigged

When we go to war, we find the enemy, find out what they know, and kill them. Sometimes even in that order ;)

So Osama Bin Laden must still be on the "Friends " list from back in the 80's then so....

We still do, LG. But in case you haven't heard, this is a matter of war, not crime. When we go to war, we find the enemy, find out what they know, and kill them. Sometimes even in that order ;)

Gee, and here I thought that in addition to fundamental American values, there were some kind of international agreements that were meant to regulate what conduct was acceptable during war towards enemy prisoners. The Geneva somethings-or-other.

1) This is war.

2) The enemy are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention that apply to prisoners of war for numerous reasons, among others, not wearing uniforms and not following a chain of command. They are no more entitled to POW status than spies or saboteurs.

3) Have you actually read the Geneva Convention(s)?

That's right the Geneva Conventions, that's what I was thinking of. :p

Please feel free to cite the provisions of the Conventions that say "enemy combatants" are exceptions to human rights laws and can be treated however we like. This could be most educational.

In short, NM; SOmetimes being the 'good guys' sucks. But at least we get tacos. :)

In short, NM; SOmetimes being the 'good guys' sucks. But at least we get tacos. :)

Bad guys don't get tacos? That's inhumane!

Bad guys don't get tacos? That's inhumane!

They get Tostadas. :(

Please feel free to cite the provisions of the Conventions that say "enemy combatants" are exceptions to human rights laws and can be treated however we like. This could be most educational.Fifty nigh worthless American Dollars that the link will be from FoxNews.

They get Tostadas. :(

Hang on a moment, I've seen you in other threads claim the following:

Paraphrased: "Come to the dark side, we've got Tacos"

What is this sudden muddying up of the situation?

Hang on a moment, I've seen you in other threads claim the following:

Paraphrased: "Come to the dark side, we've got Tacos"

What is this sudden muddying up of the situation?

Me? Muddying things up? Don't be silly. ;)

I remember not too long ago when we put criminals on trial. Ah, those were the days! *sighs wistfully*

what this on trial? the government always did things this way havnt they? gosh you must be old!:p

Me? Muddying things up? Don't be silly. ;)

So you admit switching your allegiance from the mountains of mud to the jars of jelly and cans of cream?

They get Tostadas. :(

:(
Oh the huge manatee!

Freedom is a bitch.

i must of slept with it then.

So you admit switching your allegiance from the mountains of mud to the jars of jelly and cans of cream?

During the winter months, beggars can't be choosers. *nod*

Now squeeze this bastard for everything he knows, and make him regret the day he was born in the process. :D
I doubt he knows much of relevance. I question whether he is even what they crack him up to be. I mean, how many "heads" of Al-Qaeda have we captured or killed?

:(
Oh the huge manatee!

O.o

Who's Usama Bin Ladin?
Don't you mean: Where is Usama Bin Ladin? :D

O.o

http://raven.subsume.com/mu/ohTheHugeManatee.jpg

http://raven.subsume.com/mu/ohTheHugeManatee.jpg

Woah, haven't seen that pic in a while

what this on trial? the government always did things this way havnt they? gosh you must be old!:p

Yep. Firemen have always burned books. ;)

http://raven.subsume.com/mu/ohTheHugeManatee.jpg

This makes up a little bit for that earlier link.

:fluffle:

Since we're comparing readings, have you read the UNCAT?

Yes. And I will construe the term "severe" in the definition of "torture" in Article I very narrowly.

The rack: severe
Iron maidens: severe
The wheel: severe
Waterboarding: not severe

This makes up a little bit for that earlier link.

:fluffle:
So the attack weasels won't go for the crotch? Sweet.
Yes. And I will construe the term "severe" in the definition of "torture" in Article I very narrowly.

The rack: severe
Iron maidens: severe
The wheel: severe
Waterboarding: not severe

Doesn't really matter what you think, now does it. You're not exactly in a position to decide what is and isn't torture.

Yes. And I will construe the term "severe" in the definition of "torture" in Article I very narrowly.

The rack: severe
Iron maidens: severe
The wheel: severe
Waterboarding: not severe


O for fucks sake, thats the most amateurish troll you've tried in months. Go kneel on pencils for 30 minutes.

Yes. And I will construe the term "severe" in the definition of "torture" in Article I very narrowly.

The rack: severe
Iron maidens: severe
The wheel: severe
Waterboarding: not severe

And since when are you in a position to judge or to make those decisions.


Many people who are in a position to judge or those kind of decisions disagree with you.


I officially declare that casturating conservatives and republicans and then throwing them into a tank of acid is not cruel and unusual punishment, or does it deny them of their right to free speech.

See how silly I sound?

Yep. Firemen have always burned books. ;)

i know that why there call firemen! they set fire to the thing not excepted by our great governments who never get it wrong :p

Yes. And I will construe the term "severe" in the definition of "torture" in Article I very narrowly.

The rack: severe
Iron maidens: severe
The wheel: severe
Waterboarding: not severe

Fascinating. I bet you wish you knew more than jack shit about law right now.

No, all you al-Qaeda gunsels out there, it’s not being shut down.

But we have added another smiling happy inmate:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337968,00.html

Now squeeze this bastard for everything he knows, and make him regret the day he was born in the process. :D

You know, Mitanni, most people just masturbate to porn.:rolleyes:

Please feel free to cite the provisions of the Conventions that say "enemy combatants" are exceptions to human rights laws and can be treated however we like. This could be most educational.

Get ready to go back to school:

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. 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.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

I submit that al-Qaeda terrorists and their allies who fall into the hands of forces of the United States fail to meet the requirements for inclusion in any of the categories included in Article 4, and thus cannot be considered prisoners of war in the sense of the cited Geneva Convention. They therefore are not entitled to any of the protections accorded those who do meet such requirements.

Sometimes I wish the Cuban government would demand that piece of land back and close it down themselves.

Anyway, isn't this like the 20th Al Qaeda Commander that has been captured/killed. I also have a problem with the term unlawful combatant. Unfortunately for the troops ( who I blame for nothing as it was their respective governments that sent them to war) they could be considered unlawful combatants in this War on Terror. See Illegal invasion of Iraq...

Yes. And I will construe the term "severe" in the definition of "torture" in Article I very narrowly.

The rack: severe
Iron maidens: severe
The wheel: severe
Waterboarding: not severe

Something tells me that is completely irrelevant to the point... Oh yeah, this is what tells me: Bolded mine

Now squeeze this bastard for everything he knows, and make him regret the day he was born in the process.

You know, Mitanni, most people just masturbate to porn.:rolleyes:

Wow, that's fresh! Never seen a masturbation analogy on this board before! I bet all your little friends think you're so clever. :rolleyes:

I submit that al-Qaeda terrorists and their allies who fall into the hands of forces of the United States fail to meet the requirements for inclusion in any of the categories included in Article 4, and thus cannot be considered prisoners of war in the sense of the cited Geneva Convention. They therefore are not entitled to any of the protections accorded those who do meet such requirements.

If they aren't prisoners of war, they are civilians by default. Thusly, they are still covered. Thus, you never answered the original challenge, which I will repeat:

Please feel free to cite the provisions of the Conventions that say "enemy combatants" are exceptions to human rights laws and can be treated however we like.

You didn't do that.

I remember not too long ago when we put criminals on trial. Ah, those were the days! *sighs wistfully*

Not a U.S. citizen therefore is not protected by constituition. Besides he is a terrorist not a simple criminal. If it were up to me they would all be executed.

Wow, that's fresh! Never seen a masturbation analogy on this board before! I bet all your little friends think you're so clever. :rolleyes:

The same could be said about your lacks-of-points: "Wow, that's new, a guy who has no consideration for human life whatsoever, not even on the very good off-chance that they may be innocent."

Not a U.S. citizen therefore is not protected by constituition.



*sigh*


Again, the Supreme Court disagrees. See Rusaul V Bush.


Seriously, people really need to do research before they make factually incorrect claims.

Not a U.S. citizen therefore is not protected by constituition. Besides he is a terrorist not a simple criminal. If it were up to me they would all be executed.

I believe that all ( or tha mjority of people) in any nation have the right to a tria making this statement void. This is where things like Extraditing prisoners to their home or neutral countries for trial comes in where the US Gov. could testify as a witness.

Not a U.S. citizen therefore is not protected by constituition. Besides he is a terrorist not a simple criminal. If it were up to me they would all be executed.

They are. Yay SCOTUS. And don't forget international law. And luckily, it isn't up to you.

Something tells me that is completely irrelevant to the point... Oh yeah, this is what tells me:
Bolded mine "make him regret the day he was born in the process."

When he cracks like Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, cries like a baby, spills his guts, realizes that he's betrayed his fellow terrorists to their worst enemy, and is forced to accept that he is nowhere near as big and bad as he thought he was and that our power has crushed him like the insect he is, then he will indeed "regret the day he was born."

Just like all the other al-Qaeda gunsels out there will when we eventually destroy their movement, thanks in no small part to the information we squeeze from those we capture and forcefully interrogate. :D

I submit that al-Qaeda terrorists and their allies who fall into the hands of forces of the United States fail to meet the requirements for inclusion in any of the categories included in Article 4, and thus cannot be considered prisoners of war in the sense of the cited Geneva Convention. They therefore are not entitled to any of the protections accorded those who do meet such requirements.

If they are not POWs then they are civilians and thus still covered by the Geneva Convention. There is no middle ground.

And luckily, it isn't up to you.

Nor you.

Not a U.S. citizen therefore is not protected by constituition. Besides he is a terrorist not a simple criminal. If it were up to me they would all be executed.

They who? People who you are SURE are terrorists? Yes, you see, it takes a TRIAL to MAKE sure. Of course, your blood lust would prevent you from seeing that, but, then again, that's what makes you you and me human.

Nor you.

No, it's up to:

1- the Supreme Court, who disagrees with you.

2- the UN, who also disagrees with you.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot there, Mit.

Not a U.S. citizen therefore is not protected by constituition.

Prove it.

Not a U.S. citizen therefore is not protected by constituition. Besides he is a terrorist not a simple criminal. If it were up to me they would all be executed.

Funny how, whenever I am in the US, I am covered by the US constitution.

I can just see your factoids crumbling around you right about now.

Nor you.

Nor did I claim it was. I did, however, claim that it was up to the US Constitution by means of the Supreme Court as well as the United Nations via international law.

So what's your point here? To shoot down an argument I didn't make? Want to play ball, scarecrow?

Not a U.S. citizen therefore is not protected by constituition. Besides he is a terrorist not a simple criminal. If it were up to me they would all be executed.

And it people wonder why the world hate American! Stop giving them a bad name!

Yes. And I will construe the term "severe" in the definition of "torture" in Article I very narrowly.

The rack: severe
Iron maidens: severe
The wheel: severe
Waterboarding: not severe

Well, that would seem to put you at odds with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Not to cast doubt on the immense political capital that I'm sure you've got at your disposal, but I don't think you're going to win that one.

If they are not POWs then they are civilians and thus still covered by the Geneva Convention. There is no middle ground.

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

Article 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Article 4
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

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.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

In view of the foregoing, I will argue:

1) AQ is not a party to the Convention, nor has it accepted and applied the provisions thereof, and thus cannot invoke Article 2.

2) AQ is taking active part in hostilities, and thus cannot invoke Article 3.

3) Since the states of which AQ fighters and their allies are nationals are not parties to the present conflict against the United States, and since AQ itself is not a state, still less a party to the Convention, AQ fighters and their allies cannot invoke the Convention and are not protected by the Convention.

4) As to Article 5, any protections that AQ fighters might otherwise have been entitled to cannot be claimed such that our security is prejudiced.

Furthermore , even assuming AQ fighters and their allies would otherwise constitute “protected persons,” their activities constitute espionage and/or sabotage. They are thus not entitled to any rights of communication they might otherwise have been afforded under the Convention.

Furthermore, Article 5 does not state that such persons are entitled to trials.

I further submit that the principles that are most appropriate for dealing with AQ and its allies would be analogous to those of the classic law of piracy, under which English admiralty courts ruled that "neither Faith nor Oath is to be kept", and under which pirates were legally subject to summary execution by their captors if captured in battle.

Wow, that's fresh! Never seen a masturbation analogy on this board before!

Ooh, that's sarcasm, meaning that contrary to the obvious meaning of the words, you actually do see masturbation analogies all the time on this board! I get it. Ha ha!

But the reason you do is because your little tendency to express your desire to watch tortures on Youtube and the obvious glee you take in death and killing. It's not like we go around accusing everyone of fapping to warporn, because really, very few people are as sick as you are, and very few of those post on this forum.

1) AQ is not a party to the Convention, nor has it accepted and applied the provisions thereof, and thus cannot invoke Article 2.

People who are a member of terrorist organizations do not renounce their citizenship.

The parties in this case are the US, Iraq and whichever country the alleged insurgent happens to come from.

2) AQ is taking active part in hostilities, and thus cannot invoke Article 3.

True.

3) Since the states of which AQ fighters and their allies are nationals are not parties to the present conflict against the United States, and since AQ itself is not a state, still less a party to the Convention, AQ fighters and their allies cannot invoke the Convention and are not protected by the Convention.

AQ fighters and their allies can invoke the Convention if their country of citizenship is a signatory to the convention.

4) As to Article 5, any protections that AQ fighters might otherwise have been entitled to cannot be claimed such that our security is prejudiced.

The article makes it clear that this is only for those rights that would pose a threat. What this means is merely that you can imprison them.

Furthermore , even assuming AQ fighters and their allies would otherwise constitute “protected persons,”

They are, as long as whatever country they hail from is a signatory to the convention.

their activities constitute espionage and/or sabotage. They are thus not entitled to any rights of communication they might otherwise have been afforded under the Convention.

Now, do you know what rights of communication are?

Furthermore, Article 5 does not state that such persons are entitled to trials.

It states that they are entitled to just and fair trials. It states they are to be treated humanely. Imprisoning someone for five years is not treating them humanely. The humane thing to do would be to submit them to trial.

I further submit that the principles that are most appropriate for dealing with AQ and its allies would be analogous to those of the classic law of piracy, under which English admiralty courts ruled that "neither Faith nor Oath is to be kept", and under which pirates were legally subject to summary execution by their captors if captured in battle.

So you do want civilization to crumble and for us to go back in time a few hundred years?

(Gets box of Dots)

Let the flaming begin!

Ooh, Dots. *takes a small handful*

Drinks, anyone?

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

In view of the foregoing, I will argue:

1) AQ is not a party to the Convention, nor has it accepted and applied the provisions thereof, and thus cannot invoke Article 2.
AQ is not a state. Its members are citizens of a variety of states.

2) AQ is taking active part in hostilities, and thus cannot invoke Article 3.
America's so-called War On Terror is clearly an international conflict, so it doesn't matter.

3) Since the states of which AQ fighters and their allies are nationals are not parties to the present conflict against the United States, and since AQ itself is not a state, still less a party to the Convention, AQ fighters and their allies cannot invoke the Convention and are not protected by the Convention.
What state is the US in conflict with? Iraq and Afghanistan are both parties to the treaty, so you can't be referring to them.
Furthermore , even assuming AQ fighters and their allies would otherwise constitute “protected persons,” their activities constitute espionage and/or sabotage. They are thus not entitled to any rights of communication they might otherwise have been afforded under the Convention.
Somehow I don't think that means you can torture them.
Furthermore, Article 5 does not state that such persons are entitled to trials.
No, that would be your own constitution.

I further submit that the principles that are most appropriate for dealing with AQ and its allies would be analogous to those of the classic law of piracy, under which English admiralty courts ruled that "neither Faith nor Oath is to be kept", and under which pirates were legally subject to summary execution by their captors if captured in battle.
If you refuse to respect the rights of those you fight then how are you any better than them? Surely you should declare war on yourself.

You know, Mitanni, most people just masturbate to porn.:rolleyes:

ROFLMAO

I've never seen anyone else show such glee over the idea of torturing people. It's scary, really. :(

I've never seen anyone else show such glee over the idea of torturing people. It's scary, really. :(

You think that's bad, some of the guards and 'interrogators' could well share Mit's glee.

You think that's bad, some of the guards and 'interrogators' could well share Mit's glee.

I'm sure they do. :(

You think that's bad, some of the guards and 'interrogators' could well share Mit's glee.

I'm sure they do. :(

Unfortunately, some do. Thank god it's not a majority of them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15249053/

Quit the personal remarks, people! Last time I checked, flaming was still against the rules.

New Mitanni, their responses show why your OP was out of line.

Not a U.S. citizen therefore is not protected by constituition. Besides he is a terrorist not a simple criminal. If it were up to me they would all be executed.

That's right! We need to find those terrorists guilty, execute them, and then hold a fair trial!

Not a U.S. citizen therefore is not protected by constituition. Besides he is a terrorist not a simple criminal. If it were up to me they would all be executed.
1) You're trying him on your terms, and doing things half-arsed is weak.

2) Creating martyrs is never a good idea.

1) This is war.

2) The enemy are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention that apply to prisoners of war for numerous reasons, among others, not wearing uniforms and not following a chain of command. They are no more entitled to POW status than spies or saboteurs.

3) Have you actually read the Geneva Convention(s)?


Listen, I hate the terrorists just as much as you do, buddy, but you can't say "We're fighting a war against these people" and then say "Well, it's not really a war after all, so the laws of war don't really apply." If we are considering these guys combatants, then prosecute them through the military justice system. If they are not military, that makes them civilians. we have a thing for them too. Prosecute them through the civilian court system. Spies and saboteurs get prosecuted through this system. We can't just decide all of a sudden that certain people don't have what we consider basic guaranteed human rights. And this is coming from a person who does believe that torturing these terrorists should be acceptable if we have 100% confirmation that they are in fact terrorists and it is for the greater good. I just think we need to have a clearly laid-out and legal policy that doesn't hide behind false logic and that we can't just arrest random people on the street and hold them in Gitmo for how ever long we feel like.

We still do, LG. But in case you haven't heard, this is a matter of war, not crime. When we go to war, we find the enemy, find out what they know, and kill them. Sometimes even in that order ;)

*kills New Mitanni*

He was an enemy! We don't need any evidence that he was! It's because I say so! My word's good enough! And if you question it, you hate freedom and are an enemy too!

*kills New Mitanni*

He was an enemy! We don't need any evidence that he was! It's because I say so! My word's good enough! And if you question it, you hate freedom and are an enemy too!

Without not-torturing-waterboarding him first?

Without not-torturing-waterboarding him first?

Ahh, a true patriot. Here, you can waterboard his corpse.

Ahh, a true patriot. Here, you can waterboard his corpse.

But it doesn't turn me on as much. :(

But it doesn't turn me on as much. :(

Well wrap it in copper wire, stick a magnet on top, and tune the corpse in on some liberal media. He'll spin quite a bit, and might as well be of some use in death as he obviously wasn't in life.

But it doesn't turn me on as much. :(

Pervert.

Well wrap it in copper wire, stick a magnet on top, and tune the corpse in on some liberal media. He'll spin quite a bit, and might as well be of some use in death as he obviously wasn't in life.Speaking of wrapping things in wire, shouldn't something along those lines be stuffed somewhere?

Ooh, Dots. *takes a small handful*

Drinks, anyone?

Sure! Got any Manhattans?

Speaking of wrapping things in wire, shouldn't something along those lines be stuffed somewhere?

In a tap?

Sure! Got any Manhattans?

Coming up. :)

*hands Straughn a Manhattan*

We still do, LG. But in case you haven't heard, this is a matter of war, not crime. When we go to war, we find the enemy, find out what they know, and kill them. Sometimes even in that order ;)

I miss the Geneva convention...

From Moderation, but let's not spam that unnecessarily:
1) It is your imagination.

2) "Out there" refers to more than just the little world of NSG.Indeed. It includes Senator McCain.
3) If the shoe fits, wear it.You've stated before you stand behind the current Republican nominee, who is in favor of closing Guantanamo Bay. By extension, the shoe fits you.
4) The term you're crying about contains a wealth of allusions, suggestions and inferences, most of which I'm sure went right over your head.

5) There are an awful lot of crybabies on NSG. :rolleyes:Indeed there are, however sometimes "crying" (or as we say in English "complaining") about it is warranted.

Pervert.

Well, I AM, but I was being sarcastic in that one.