So America is insisting that the Taleban held on Cuba...

[p_p_man]

...are detainees and not Prisoners of War.

Opening a can of worms here aren't we? If this war is extended into other areas, and there's some doubt that will happen, and US and Allied troops are captured by governments "harbouring" terrorists, then will our troops be regarded as detainees as well?

To me it looks like another Bush "leap before you look" policy but the Administration should think very carefully what their next step is going to be, else they're giving carte blanche to future "enemy" governments to treat our people the same way.

Without the Protection of the Geneva Convention.

On the other hand I don't really think Bush knows what he's going to do with these "detainees". He's determined to paint himself into a corner isn't he?

 

[KillerMuffin]

What would you prefer that was done with them?

 

[p_p_man]

What would you prefer that was done with them?

Classify them as prisoners of war...

 

[seXieleXie]

i have to say this... i've been holding it in too long


every time i read a p_p_man thread and see that little face after the end of his inflamatory and extremely biased post, i want to smack him. am i alone on this? anyone?

okay i feel better now. carry on.

 

[p_p_man]

i have to say this... i've been holding it in too long


every time i read a p_p_man thread and see that little face after the end of his inflamatory and extremely biased post, i want to smack him. am i alone on this? anyone?

okay i feel better now. carry on.

Ooooo!

<-------(that better?)

 

[seXieleXie]

you know you want me to hurt you good p_p_man. don't bother trying to hide it

 

[p_p_man]

you know you want me to hurt you good p_p_man. don't bother trying to hide it

I'm not!

But can you use the paddle next time....

 

[WriterDom]

Let them stay in PP's house. He'd love the company. I bet they could give him lots of new anti-American ideas.

 

[lavender]

 

[p_p_man]

Thank god I'm not the only one. That stupid fucking face drives me fucking mad.

There's nothing to laugh about with Bush but I suppose I could just sign the posts...

<-------(for lavender's sake)

ppman

 

[morninggirl5]

Thank god I'm not the only one. That stupid fucking face drives me fucking mad.

Just seeing his name and the face at the end is enough for me to know that reading it isn't worth my time.

But I'll join the task force to slap him into the next century with a smile on my face.

 

[WriterDom]

...are detainees and not Prisoners of War.

Opening a can of worms here aren't we? If this war is extended into other areas, and there's some doubt that will happen,

We're in the Philippines already. Damn, I miss PI.

 

[Azwed]

Normaly I would say that it is a good idea to keep within all the Geneva conventions just so our people will be treated acordinly, but not this time. I mean do you really think terrorists that use suicide bombers to kill women and kids are going to follow the Geneva rules.

 

[p_p_man]

Normaly I would say that it is a good idea to keep within all the Geneva conventions just so our people will be treated acordinly, but not this time. I mean do you really think terrorists that use suicide bombers to kill women and kids are going to follow the Geneva rules.

It's a tangle I know.

But we're talking Taleban here not al Qaida. And despite the Administration's subtle propaganda shift over the past few weeks (or not so subtle in some cases) they were the governing group of Afghanistan.

ppman

 

[BITEME]

What would you prefer that was done with them?

You could always resort to the usual US self righteous bully boy tactics and bomb thier sorry Muslim asses into the hereafter.

 

[girl]

Normaly I would say that it is a good idea to keep within all the Geneva conventions just so our people will be treated acordinly, but not this time. I mean do you really think terrorists that use suicide bombers to kill women and kids are going to follow the Geneva rules.

Unfortunately, that's not the way the world works. What if Iran had used the term 'detainees' instead of hostages? Would that have made holding all those people okay for 444 days?

The problem is that the terrorists are not the only organizations we'll be coming up against in the future. We will be coming up against actual governments and, because of our example, they will have every right to hold Americans as detainees rather than prisoners of war. Therefore, they won't have to afford them the rights of prisoners under the Geneva Convention. It's not about whether they would reciprocate. It's about doing what's right and what we've agreed to do.

This one is going to bite us right in the ass in the future.

My .02,
girl

 

[Texan]

Unfortunately, that's not the way the world works. What if Iran had used the term 'detainees' instead of hostages? Would that have made holding all those people okay for 444 days?

The problem is that the terrorists are not the only organizations we'll be coming up against in the future. We will be coming up against actual governments and, because of our example, they will have every right to hold Americans as detainees rather than prisoners of war. Therefore, they won't have to afford them the rights of prisoners under the Geneva Convention. It's not about whether they would reciprocate. It's about doing what's right and what we've agreed to do.

This one is going to bite us right in the ass in the future.

My .02,
girl

girl, I really understand your doubts about calling the prisoners detainees, but there is more to it than that.

Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, "prisoners of war" may not be held after the war is over, UNLESS they are determined to be "war criminals". If they are determined to be war crimnals, they are then referred to as "criminal detainees" and held for trial and punishment. Also, under the terms of the Geneva Convention, "prisoners of war" may not be tried. They can only be held and questioned until the war is over; then repatriated to their home country.

Part of the trouble with this war are the definitions. While it truely is a war, the enemy is not bound by borders or nationality. One battle may be in one country, while the next battle may be in another country or even in our own country. I'm not sure we will even know for certain when the war is over, since it is not likely that all the terrorists will get together and sign a written surrender.

The Bush administration was very smart when they decided to "make" war (only congress can "declare" war) on terrorism rather than on Afganistan. The Taliban government is no longer functional, but they will never sign a surrender.

I think we are going to learn a whole new vocabulary in this war. I think we should throw out our old definitions and preconceived ideas of "rules of war". This war is different. We need to get used to it...

 

[Azwed]

War never really had any rules anyway. The guy with the bigger gun makes the rules.

 

[p_p_man]

girl, I really understand your doubts about calling the prisoners detainees, but there is more to it than that.

Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, "prisoners of war" may not be held after the war is over, UNLESS they are determined to be "war criminals". If they are determined to be war crimnals, they are then referred to as "criminal detainees" and held for trial and punishment. Also, under the terms of the Geneva Convention, "prisoners of war" may not be tried. They can only be held and questioned until the war is over; then repatriated to their home country.

Part of the trouble with this war are the definitions. While it truely is a war, the enemy is not bound by borders or nationality. One battle may be in one country, while the next battle may be in another country or even in our own country. I'm not sure we will even know for certain when the war is over, since it is not likely that all the terrorists will get together and sign a written surrender.

The Bush administration was very smart when they decided to "make" war (only congress can "declare" war) on terrorism rather than on Afganistan. The Taliban government is no longer functional, but they will never sign a surrender.

I think we are going to learn a whole new vocabulary in this war. I think we should throw out our old definitions and preconceived ideas of "rules of war". This war is different. We need to get used to it...

Texan you're sounding confused.

Firstly the "war" is against three target. Terrorists, terrorism and those Governments which harbour terrorists.

Bush instigated the invasion of a foreign country using the third target as an excuse.

No matter the Taleban Government was abhorrant in most people's eyes, but so was Pohl Pot's regime, and I don't remember America bombing them out of existence.

As a legitimate government, governing a country which was invaded by a foreign power, there are already international laws and "rules of war" in place to cover the situation.

America, and I have to say here, as usual, has decided to ignore these and are treating the Taleban, not as legitmate soldiers fighting for their country but as terrorists fighting for al Qaida.

You seem to think that Bush and his administration are clever.

To me the clever thing is to detain the prisoners as prisoners of war under investigation (suspected war criminals) and if they are found to be active members of al Qaida, change their staus to detainee.

Although I agree that we shall probably see new definitions in the future it is definitely not America's place to make them up and start using them on the hoof.

That sort of thing takes international committees. Not Bush having a temper tantrum.

If he continues with what he's started now, God help our combatants when they fall into the hands of the next country which is perceived to be harbouring terrorists and which Bush decides to invade.

ppman

 

[JaymesBlond007]

Originally posted by p_p_head
If he continues with what he's started now, God help our combatants when they fall into the hands of the next country which is perceived to be harbouring terrorists and which Bush decides to invade.

Where are "your" combatants? When was the last time "your" combatants were in a country perceived to be harbouring terrorists?
Or maybe the fair question is, what would it take for "your" combatants to become involved in anything?

 

[p_p_man]

[/i]

Where are "your" combatants? When was the last time "your" combatants were in a country perceived to be harbouring terrorists?
Or maybe the fair question is, what would it take for "your" combatants to become involved in anything? [/B]

Piss off and don't be an ignorant arsehole...

pp

 

[Mensa]

This is disturbing

I find myself agreeing with something p.p. man posted. The Taleban fighters must be regarded and treated as legitimate "Prisoners Of War" and not as "Illlegal Combatants". Members of al Qaida are terrorists and therefore criminals and can be dealt with separately, but Taleban fighters were part of a "de-facto" government, as repugnant as that government might have been.

If, however, it can be proved that they engaged in "crimes against humanity" then, and only then, can their protection under the Geneva Convention be abrogated. The U.S. could be inviting trouble if they don't consider their decision carefully. There are unforseen ramifications to the course they seem determined to follow.

I wish you wouldn't post things to which I'm in accord. It undermines my confidence in my position.

 

[JaymesBlond007]

Asshole

I see your "America, the World's Raper..." threads every day, and it's obvious that you are trying to inform us that our tactics in global policeing actions aren't exactly to "your" liking. It was obvious to us on September 11th that some other people were also not happy with the way our Government conducts itself in forgien policies.

Now...

Don't you feel that there are much better ways to vocalize your opinions, good or bad, than to crash three airliners into three of Americas most imortiant Government buildings, stealing the lives of thousands upon thousands of unsuspecting people?

Maybe there is a better way for you to voice your opinion than to sit back and just slander the United States and our President. Perhaps you could share some of your devine intellect and make the world safe for the lot of us.

Please p_p_man, tell us what we should do.

Or mabye the ignorance lies elsewhere...

 

[p_p_man]

Re: This is disturbing

I wish you wouldn't post things to which I'm in accord. It undermines my confidence in my position.

I'll try not to in future...

pp

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Asshole

I see your "America, the World's Raper..." threads every day, and it's obvious that you are trying to inform us that our tactics in global policeing actions aren't exactly to "your" liking. It was obvious to us on September 11th that some other people were also not happy with the way our Government conducts itself in forgien policies.

Now...

Don't you feel that there are much better ways to vocalize your opinions, good or bad, than to crash three airliners into three of Americas most imortiant Government buildings, stealing the lives of thousands upon thousands of unsuspecting people?

Maybe there is a better way for you to voice your opinion than to sit back and just slander the United States and our President. Perhaps you could share some of your devine intellect and make the world safe for the lot of us.

Please p_p_man, tell us what we should do.

Or mabye the ignorance lies elsewhere...

That's better.

Now you're not shooting your mouth off with mindless tripe, I can reply to you.

Firstly America is not carrying out a global policing action. America (or Bush, because unfortunatey at the moment the world sees the two as being the one) decided to make war on Afghanistan.

This "war" was entered into without any firm evidence that al Qaida and bin Laden were responsible for the terrorist attacks on the twin towers. Evidence which Bush promised we would all see. Heads of Governments saw, or so they claim, but not us, the people.

The conduct of the "war" by Bush was such that it brought protests from every major government and at one time came close to breaking up the coalition. It was only Blair's constant round of diplomatic meetings that held the whole thing together.

Bush, being the man he is, seems, or seemed as I honestly think he's lost interest now and wants to go onto something else, has now dragged America into the more intricate and complicated facts of life. To wit, the legalilities of the aftermath of the "war". And, as we all know, Bush is not noted for his understanding of complicated issues.

I make my comments on a free speech board. I see something I totally disagree with, I comment.

Slander doesn't come into it.

To throw one back to you.

What would you do about the Taleban prisoners in Guantanamo? How would you classify them?

pp