A political thread : Geneva Convention

[sexy-girl]

i have a rule to try and do a sexual thread every so often well heres my political thread

i feel very strongly about this and i've been thinking about it over the past few days ... i think it is outrageous that america has decided to break the geneva convention ... the specific part that they have broken is deciding not to call them POW's (seems obvious but read on)

the only time when a prisoner cant be called a POW is after there has been a tribunal to decide that they are not POW's ... up to that point they have to be treated as POW's ... and that tribunal has to be done by an independent source (none of this has happened)

so whats the big deal what kind of rights do they lose by not being POW's well ... they are not entitled to visits by the international red cross to make sure they are being treated ok also in the geneva convention there is restrictions on interrogation and such none of those will apply also they would have a military trial (why does america want to restrict those rights ?)

so who cares these people are responsible for sept 11 ? ... well not really they are just soldiers of the taliban who probably had no idea about sept 11 ... these soldiers weren't even members of the al qaeda ... how would you feel if american soldiers were being treated this way and having their rights restricted and geneva convention laws being broken ... in world war 2 the germans treated american and english prisoners as POW's ... shouldn't we treat the taliban soldiers as such too ?




P.S : i apologize in advance if i annoyed anyone but i do believe everything that i wrote perhaps some parts of it i should of wrote more tactful though

 

[Vinny]

Best solution

Is to see what the Red Cross and the human rights group decide after they inspect which is going on now. We are the most civilized country when it comes to the Geneva convention. If we were prisoners of war like in Iraq and other times, we the Americans, Brits etc have been severely abused, at times skinned alive, tortured etc. Now as far as these low lifes go, wether they new about 9/11 or not, makes no difference. They knew about all these innocent women they raped, maimed, killed and tortured throughout the years in Afghanistan. Am I perturbed by your message, not at all. But truthfully, I think they the fact that they get 3 culturally related meals a day, a Koran, and many other things is pretty humane. DId those people in Nam and or other wars get a bible, koran or whatever they read, did they get meals not. Sometimes leaches tasted great. What am I getting at, the media blows things out of proportion at times and I think we should just wait. So hopefully I did not offend anyone but personally, I had major losses in my family on 9/11 and I would love to blow the guilty parties dayum brains out without a trial.

 

[Texan]

Let me refer you to this thread.

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63081&highlight=Geneva+Convention

A lot has already been posted on this subject in several threads over the past week or so, but the above referenced thread is the most complete discussion on the subject.

 

[MissTaken]

I can't pretend to understand this complex issue, so I won't post haphazardly as if I do know what I am talking about.

I do wonder though, what does the US gain by not treating them as POW's? I am not sure that I can see that reasoning even at the most basic level.

Hmmmm I wonder why.

 

[MissTaken]

Forget my previous post....

I am reading the thread.

Thank you, Texan/

 

[Texan]

Forget my previous post....

I am reading the thread.

Thank you, Texan/

you are most welcome ......

 

[Guru]

 

[sexy-girl]

guru that is one of the biggest mistakes that people are assuming ... its not up to americans to decide if the geneva convention applies or not ... when there is ANY confusion (and i noticed you said MAY not apply) then the geneva convention should apply ... its up to an independent tribunal to decide if they aren't POW's ... because of course it would be very unfair if a country decided for themselves (this is all written into the geneva convention)

not all countries follow the geneva convention... but the geneva convention is still a powerful and respected treaty all over the world ... when a country doesn't follow it ... then world opinion unites against them ... but america is just totally ignoring the treaty and showing no respect for it ... what will happen next time a country takes prisoner an american or an english solider ... if we try to say they aren't following the geneva convention they will just say well american doesn't

and as for saying the taliban dont wear uniform that is silly ... the geneva convention is quite old (like the american constitution) and some of the terminology is out of date ... but taliban were the ruling government of afghanistan to say their solders dont count as soldiers is ridiculous

i find it amazing that american people will fight for freedom of speech and will say how important it is to uphold the american constitution and never give an inch on issues like freedom of speech (i admire that trait) but when it comes to something like the geneva convention you dont mind if american doesn't follow it or break it ... i dont understand how you can be patriotic about the constitution but not care if you break something like the geneva convention ...

shouldn't american be full of honor and valor and set examples to smaller countries on how you fight a war and how you treat the prisoners of war


P.S if england was doing something like this i would speak out twice as strongly as what i am now

 

[SA Storm]

.

 

[bluespoke]

sexy-girl

Two terrific posts.

Couldn't agree more or put it better.

Thanks for airing the subject.

 

[Guru]

 

[Frimost]

well

Maybe you should read some of the news articles because from what I read the prisoners taken to Cuba were ALL hard-core valuable AL-QUIDA operatives.

The Geneva conventions were written for COUNTRIES engaged in a inter-STATE war, not for terrorists who are not affiliated with any governments and are not acting on behalf of anyone but themselves. Bin Laden is NOT a Nation, al-Quida is NOT a country, therefor other than very BASIC rudimentary ground rules the vast majority of the Geneva conventions do not apply to them. Also part of the Geneva conventions is for the soldier to specify name, rank and unit. What rank or unit does a terrorist belong to? NONE-because they are not citizens fighting on behalf of a sovereign government therefor there is not confusion of the Geneva Convention here because it OBVIOUSLY does not apply to them....


ALSO, Rabbani of the Northern Alliance was the LAST recognized ELECTED leader of the country of Afghanistan and other than Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and UAE ALL other countries AND THE UN recognized the ousted leader Burhanuddin Rabbani
as the OFFICIAL representative of the government of Afghanistan AND NOT the Taliban government which was NEVER officially recognized as the legitimate government of the Republic of Afghanistan. In fact, the Northern Alliance STILL held the UN seats for the ambassadorship of Afghanistan EVEN WHEN the Talibans held 90% of the country.

 

[PaganZepher]

The rule of law........

In order to be a "POW" there must be a "war". War is defined in legal terms under international law that most nations (including the UK) subscribe to. There are various treaties and conventions that define "war". The terrorist take to Cuba do not meet the definition of a "POW". This is not just a United States determination but one shared by most civilized countries.

Just my opinion.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: The rule of law........

In order to be a "POW" there must be a "war". War is defined in legal terms under international law that most nations (including the UK) subscribe to. There are various treaties and conventions that define "war". The terrorist take to Cuba do not meet the definition of a "POW". This is not just a United States determination but one shared by most civilized countries.

Just my opinion.

Your opinion is off base.

For ease of reference I quote here from Oliver Clozoff's post on the thread that Texan referenced earlier:

"Consider Article 4 of the Geneva Convention which outlines who should and who should not be considered a "Prisoner of War".



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Geneva Convention
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:...

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now read my comments from the same thread:

"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.

ppman

 

[Frimost]

Let's see

"(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."



A. Who commands al-Quida and are they responsible to their subordinates? From what I hear it sounds like no one in al-Quida takes responsibility for the actions of their members.

B. What is the fixed distinctive sign if the al-Quida operatives or the Taliban for that matter? Oh yea, THEY HAVE NONE!

C. Yes, they usually do carry arms openly but those box cutters were most certainly not openly displayed on their way into the airport and during the boarding of the TWA flights.

D. WHAT A JOKE! THEY FOLLOW NO RULES OF CIVILIZED MAN!


Therefor, it is EASY to conclude, the al-Quida prisoners DO NOT QUALIFY FOR POW STATUS.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Let's see

Therefor, it is EASY to conclude, the al-Quida prisoners DO NOT QUALIFY FOR POW STATUS.

This is getting tedious. I can't see why some people are either being deliberately stupid or are so thick that they can't differentiate between al Qaida and Taleban.

So it's easy to conclude is it Frimost?

Well it might be in the mind of an uncomprehending child (or possibly a slavish follower of Bush) who can only see things with limited and much underdeveloped comprehension skills, but just for a second watch my lips...

There is doubt who is actually imprisoned on Cuba and from which group. Until that is determined (now read my lips) THEY MUST BE TREATED AS POWs.

What's the difficulty in understanding that?

Sheesh!

pp

 

[Frimost]

Whose the idiot here?

Ok p_p_man, so you, the brain-washed political sycophant of a dying civilization have all the answers?

Well maybe I did not get through your social programming, the Taliban were NOT the recognized government of Afghanistan by the US OR the UN.

Maybe you should read more news instead of Mao's Little Red book.

Are you a zombie or do you just think like one? I clearly stated before that from what I read all the prisoners that were sent to Cuba WERE hard-core members of AL-QUIDA!

 

[Frimost]

How about this

Here is another way to look at it. The very fact that AS YOU SAY we cannot tell whether they are al-Quida or Taliban proves conclusively that they do not apply for POW status since THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE UNIFORMED MEMBERS OF A ARMED FORCES. The fact that they have no distinguishing patches or signs of rank and unit shows that they are themselves excluded from FULL POW status as their anonymity is a violation of the charter on their part. Here is a tip, use some logic and try and think rationally and this all seems so much simpler. I do not know what you are worried about in the first place though. You Europeans are so damned paranoid about us. They will be treated like a POW despite the fact that they are not one. This is America, not Iraq or Iran, we most likely treat them no differently than any other first World, Western society would.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: How about this

Here is another way to look at it. The very fact that AS YOU SAY we cannot tell whether they are al-Quida or Taliban proves conclusively that they do not apply for POW status since THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE UNIFORMED MEMBERS OF A ARMED FORCES. The fact that they have no distinguishing patches or signs of rank and unit shows that they are themselves excluded from FULL POW status as their anonymity is a violation of the charter on their part. Here is a tip, use some logic and try and think rationally and this all seems so much simpler. I do not know what you are worried about in the first place though. You Europeans are so damned paranoid about us. They will be treated like a POW despite the fact that they are not one. This is America, not Iraq or Iran, we most likely treat them no differently than any other first World, Western society would.

Your a real fucking classic joke aren't you?

Read Article 5.

And you really believe this rubbish? "This is America, not Iraq or Iran, we most likely treat them no differently than any other first World, Western society would."

There's already a lot of international protest about the way they were transported to Cuba, let alone how they're being treated now they're there.

And surely you can't blame the Europeans for being paranoid about America. You've got Bush as your President for chrissake. That's enough to make anyone paranoid. And not only Europeans.

Go and visit some middle east Bulletin Boards, or look at China's newspapers or even, dare I say it, pop into some of Israel's chat rooms. After all they're your big buddies aren't they.

I should cocoa!

pp

 

[Frimost]

What?

China is no friend of mine, nor of the Bush Administrations either. Have you forgotten the downing of our EP-3 surveillance plane and our selling of Kidd-class destroyers to Taiwan? That’s not to mention Bush’s public avowal to defend Taiwan if attacked by the PRC?

I don't care for Israel either.

If you want to cast stones you twit, then why don't we talk about the policy of sleep deprivation during the interrogation of IRA suspects?

It’s real fucking easy to criticize others, isn't it? Why don't you clean up your own back yard before you go around casting stones?

 

[Frimost]

BTW

I thought you should know p-p Man that my favorite online news service is the BBC and just now I ran across something interesting in the caption of an article I am reading right now.

"110 al-Qaeda suspects are being held in Cuba"

Even your own country is describing the unlawful detainees as al-Qaeda prisoners and NOT Taliban members.

If you would climb down your Ivory tower to read the news headlines you would have noticed it long ago. However, since the Taliban have no rank, insignia, recognized government, or command structure, or uniform-they are not an army either. Can any of them say what unit they belong to and who their CO, XO, is much less their colonel or sergeants are? No, they are an unlawful militia that usurped the legitimate government of Afghanistan and thus not afforded the same rights as say...a French or Moroccan soldier that was captured by some other country's military.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: BTW

I thought you should know p-p Man that my favorite online news service is the BBC and just now I ran across something interesting in the caption of an article I am reading right now.

"110 al-Qaeda suspects are being held in Cuba"

Even your own country is describing the unlawful detainees as al-Qaeda prisoners and NOT Taliban members.

Read again...

"Suspects" is the operative word. Whilst they are suspects it's not clear what their status should be. If it's not clear they have to be treated under Article 5 of the Geneva Convention as Prisoners of War.

Keep trying son...

pp

 

[Guest]

fuck the gen conv. the second those spineless cocksuckers flew those planes into the towers they changed the fucking rules. we the usa need to send out the word not to fuck with us.forget human rights if you didnt do anything wrong you got nothing to worry about. let these piece of shit pussies hiding and planning the next attack know that we will go to extremes to hunt them down and find them. they play with no rules why should we. and as far as ppman goes GO FUCK YOURSELF....

 

[p_p_man]

fuck the gen conv. the second those spineless cocksuckers flew those planes into the towers they changed the fucking rules. we the usa need to send out the word not to fuck with us.

Yeah? Talk big don't you...

But America hasn't done a fucking good job up to now has she?

Lots of fucking noise but that's about it...

Piss off and get some training...

ppman

 

[Frimost]

p_p_man

When you get some common sense get back to me.
You and I (at least you SHOULD) know the best way to handle this is to let the various intelligence agencies have a free hand in their endeavor to protect us thus ensuring the safety of our respective countries. I'm not talking about McCarthyism, but they have means of nabbing subjects they KNOW to be al-Quida terrorists. WE can break there cells utilizing their secret intelligence gathering methods but we can't have them ham-strung by a bunch of naive political goody two shoes. These are thousands of lives we are talking about protecting and frankly we probably should not even know when and who these people are when they arrest them. Some things are better kept in the shadows. The whole reason this happened in the first place was because of limp-wristed responses like Clinton's token missile strike, we cannot afford to sacrifice the efficiency and effectiveness of our security apparatus to people undermining us with their own political agendas. That’s said, these prisoners will be interrogated with the standard techniques used by all Western Nations. However, when nabbing known terrorists overseas it should not be made public to debate. There is a reason why all of our countries have Black ops and time does not permit you pie-in-the-sky liberals to drag out a length discussion each time we capture and interrogate one. Out of sight, out of mind, that sounds like a good motto to me to work by. We cannot Western civilization fall because some have unrealistic expectations that do NOT work in the real world. Some people out there will need a bullet to the back of the head in some dark alley in Karachi or Mogadishu with no questions asked, of that I am sure of. Your future obstructiveness can cause future people to die, this war on terrorism is no longer a joke or some problem for only future generations to worry about. People like Bin Laden do not think rationally and only understand the rule of superior firepower. I am afraid western civilization will fall much like the Roman Empire unless we wake up and smell the coffee.