U.S. soldier kills up to 16 Afghan civilians


MHz
+2
#121
When cleaning up a place you should start at the top, some low level grunt is the least of Afghanistan's problem. The one who are getting away with crimes are the ones who sent trops there in the first place,
 
Colpy
#122
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

You know as well as anyone that it was the Bush administration that devised the "enemy combatant" designation to contravene due process and the Geneva Convention's rules on treatment of prisoners of war...

Ok. Let's make one thing perfectly clear. The 9-11 attacks were an act of war that killed more people than Pearl Harbour.

Have you read the Conventions?

No.

If you had, you would know they are reciprocal. In other words, if one side is not bound by them, neither is the other. And how are US prisoners treated by the enemy??? We don't know, they don't live long enough for any judgement to be made.

As well, the soldiers must wear the uniform of their country, or be insurgents fighting for their country to be recognized. Guys imported from Pakistan to fight in Afghanistan, or from Syria and Iran to fight in Iraq, or from the USA fighting from Yemen, are NOT covered.

Do not mistake this as full approval of the US protocol on prisoners. I do NOT approve of "enhanced interogation techniques" such as water-boarding. They are CLEARLY torture, and there use is a shame to a great democratic nation.

I do NOT approve of the trial of Islamists by military tribunal. The US government should really read the fifth amendment to the US Constitution.

But, like Omar Khadr, foreign insurgents caught in combat should have been shot on the spot.
 
Ocean Breeze
#123
So , is every terrorist attack to be called an ACT of WAR now??? Other nations had major terror attacks and did not label them an act of war. 9-11 was branded an act of war because it suited the bush adminstration at the time......and each US aggression since then has been based on one form of terror or another. How convenient that turned out to be) Bush had Iraq in mind for some time and this event (tragedy) gave him the opening to follow through on his (and Cheney) agenda. Afghansitan was supposed to be about locating OBL and his supporters as he was the accused for 9-11. Yet.......they found OBL many yrs later and not even in Afghanistan. How come the US did not invade Pakistan on the excuse of "harboring OBL??? " This whole period since 9-11 has been a series of lies, misconceptions , more lies and deceptions ...and to the point there is no clarity as to the motives of the USG. There has been nothing sane or rational in all the warring and aggression that has taken place over the past decade. Yet so many simply drank the Kool Aid , waved their flags like good little non questioning citizens. and fully endorsed the wars out of emotional irrational revenge. Except the USG had a different agenda ......over and above basic revenge. One would think that after all this time some objectivity and clarity would have emerged. Seems not. How many has the US slaughtered using 9-11 as an excuse. Of course they don't keep accurate numbers of their own kills. How long is the US Going to act out of control on the basis of the terror attack?? Spain , the UK and others handled their terrorist events so much more effectively . They treated the CRIME for what it was......a Major CRIME. Not an act of war.

*********************
Quote:

-- The U.S. soldier acccused of killing 16 civilians in Afghanistan has been taken out of the country, NATO confirms

source: CNN breaking news mailing. No surprise there. Sad that other international criminals aren't treated with the same legal respect.
 
CDNBear
+2
#124
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

You know as well as anyone that it was the Bush administration that devised the "enemy combatant" designation to contravene due process and the Geneva Convention's rules on treatment of prisoners of war...

No they didn't.

Besides what Colpy already pointed out... It was created because the US faced un-uniformed, foreign national, combatants, on the field of battle. They needed a designation, to specify them. They then had to establish a rule of law that would apply to this new type of soldier.

I know you have so much fun, and find it so easy, to just pull sh!t out of your *** or the Rev's ***. But that does't make it true.
 
Vanni Fucci
#125
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

No they didn't.

Besides what Colpy already pointed out... It was created because the US faced un-uniformed, foreign national, combatants, on the field of battle. They needed a designation, to specify them. They then had to establish a rule of law that would apply to this new type of soldier.

The Fourth Geneva Convention had provisions for unprivaleged combatants (ie mercenaries and insurgents). If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.

If the US has followed the Geneva Convention, which they are bound to do, they would not have been able to get away with torture or indefinite confinement of "enemy combatants". That they devised the "enemy combatant" designation to get around that sticky detail, they are in fact guilty of war crimes and should be held accountable.
 
CDNBear
+1
#126
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

The Fourth Geneva Convention had provisions for unprivaleged combatants (ie mercenaries and insurgents). If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.

If the US has followed the Geneva Convention, which they are bound to do, they would not have been able to get away with torture or indefinite confinement of "enemy combatants". That they devised the "enemy combatant" designation to get around that sticky detail, they are in fact guilty of war crimes and should be held accountable.

What part of the Fourth Convention are you referring to?

Article 4?

You may want to reread it. As I said, Colpy already addressed that.

As for you claims of POW status. The Fourth Convention, Part 1, Article 3(d) clearly states how the passing of sentences shall be done.
 
Vanni Fucci
#127
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

What part of the Fourth Convention are you referring to?

Article 4?

You may want to reread it. As I said, Colpy already addressed that.

As for you claims of POW status. The Fourth Convention, Part 1, Article 3(d) clearly states how the passing of sentences shall be done.

You read it:

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention (external - login to view)

Quote:

Art. 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.

Quote has been trimmed
 
CDNBear
#128
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

You read it:

I have.

The fact that you think I should read it, when I ask you to tell me what Article you are referring to, screams... "I can't answer that Bear, I'm only parroting what I read somewhere else."

You don't think you're the first person I've encountered, that read wikiality and think you're an expert, do you?

There's a reason I ask what part. If you actually read it, you would know what part you were babbling about.
 
Vanni Fucci
+3
#129
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Yes.

You don't think you're the first person I've encountered, that read wikiality and think you're an expert, do you?

Can't read all those big words? That's a shame, maybe one of your trollish coaches can explain it to you...

...and International Committee of Red Cross is not exactly Wikiality...
 
CDNBear
+3
#130
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

Can't read all those big words? That's a shame, maybe one of your trollish coaches can explain it to you...

That must be why you can't answer my question.

I knew you were a fraud.

People like you, intellectually dishonest people, are what's wrong with forums these days.

Quote:

...and International Committee of Red Cross is not exactly Wikiality...

International Red Cross, is hardly the Geneva Convention.

The IRC is well known for re-interpreting the Convention, under the bias that all war is wrong.

I've read the Conventions. I've debated it on this board more times than I can remember.

My guess is, you sense that, and are now looking for a way out.

See ya. Fraud.
 
Vanni Fucci
+1
#131
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

That must be why you can't answer my question.

I knew you were a fraud.

People like you, intellectually dishonest people, are what's wrong with forums these days.

International Red Cross, is hardly the Geneva Convention.

The IRC is well known for re-interpreting the Convention, under the bias that all war is wrong.

I've read the Conventions. I've debated it on this board more times than I can remember.

My guess is, you sense that, and are now looking for a way out.

See ya. Fraud.

The ICRC page I posted just reproduced the Geneva Convention without commentary...there's no bias there...

...and yet you've not come back with anything resembling an informed rebuttal...not surprising.
 
CDNBear
+1
#132
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

...and yet you've not come back with anything resembling an informed rebuttal...not surprising.

I understand your reading comprehension issue impedes your ability to recognize certain things, but your dishonesty is painfully clear...

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

What part of the Fourth Convention are you referring to?

Article 4?

You may want to reread it. As I said, Colpy already addressed that.

As for you claims of POW status. The Fourth Convention, Part 1, Article 3(d) clearly states how the passing of sentences shall be done.

Notice the citing of the pertinent part, done to the line, from memory.

But by all means, keep going. Intellectual frauds like you are very entertaining to play with.
 
Vanni Fucci
#133
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I understand your reading comprehension issue impedes your ability to recognize certain things, but your dishonesty is painfully clear...



Notice the citing of the pertinent part, done to the line, from memory.

But by all means, keep going. Intellectual frauds like you are very entertaining to play with.

That's not what I made reference to at all...

Read Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention...
 
CDNBear
#134
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

Read Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention...

I have.

What do you think it has to do with enemy/unlawful combatants?

Cite the specific part, and why you believe it applies, please.
 
Vanni Fucci
#135
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I have.

What do you think it has to do with enemy/unlawful combatants?

Cite the specific part, and why you believe it applies, please.

Quote:

Art. 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.

This section is for mercenaries and insurgents of a territory that is being invaded, and that they are not subject to the First though Third Conventions while a threat to security of the state exists...

Quote:

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.



This section is for mercenaries and insurgents in an occupied territory and that they are not subject to the First through Third Conventions while a threat to the occupied power exists...

Quote:

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.



They are subject to all of the rules in the Fourth Convention and upon detention, (ie threat to security that they posed has been mitigated) they are to receive the rights specified in the First through Third Conventions, and in either case are entitiled to fair treatment and a trial.

Also I'd like you or Colpy to show me the Article of the Conventions that specifies reciprocity as a determinant for application of the Conventions...
 
CDNBear
#136
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

This section is for mercenaries and insurgents of a territory that is being invaded, and that they are not subject to the First though Third Conventions while a threat to security of the state exists...

This section is for mercenaries and insurgents in an occupied territory and that they are not subject to the First through Third Conventions while a threat to the occupied power exists...

They are subject to all of the rules in the Fourth Convention and upon detention, (ie threat to security that they posed has been mitigated) they are to receive the rights specified in the First through Third Conventions, and in either case are entitiled to fair treatment and a trial.

Those quotes are great, in the future, please add respective Convention, Part, and Article please.

Context is important with regard to documents as complex as the Geneva Convention.

Thankfully I know where it is, lol.

Unfortunately, Article 5 does not do what you think it does. You have posted the very Article that can be invoked, to curtail the rights of a protected person. Who has been determined to not be a POW.

What is not a protected person, is determined in the Fourth Geneva Convention, Part 1, General provisions. Article 4. Last sentence.

But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.

Furthermore, a party to the conflict, in conjunction with the former Article 5, can invoke Article 42, Part 1, General provisions, Fourth Geneva Convention. If the party is found to be a protect person, they can be interned. For the duration of hostilities.

The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.

Quote:

Also I'd like you or Colpy to show me the Article of the Conventions that specifies reciprocity as a determinant for application of the Conventions...

Ummm...

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

You know as well as anyone that it was the Bush administration that devised the "enemy combatant" designation to contravene due process and the Geneva Convention's rules on treatment of prisoners of war...

You have a problem with clarity, or a problem with moving goalposts.

Anyways...

Fourth Geneva Convention, Part 1, General provisions. Article 4. First sentence, details a protected person, the last sentence, details persons excluded from protection. Fourth Geneva Convention, Part 1, General Provisions. Article 42. Which have already been submitted. Details handling protected persons.
Last edited by CDNBear; Mar 14th, 2012 at 06:31 PM..
 
Vanni Fucci
+1 / -1
#137
Still not seeing the part where if a combant is not in uniform you can disregard the Conventions, quite the opposite actually, and still haven't seen any evidence that reciprocity is a condition of adherence to the Conventions.

So please quote the specific Articles that specify that, and tell me what you think they mean.
 
CDNBear
#138
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

Still not seeing the part where if a combant is not in uniform you can disregard the Conventions, quite the opposite actually, and still haven't seen any evidence that reciprocity is a condition of adherence to the Conventions.

So please quote the specific Articles that specify that, and tell me what you think they mean.

Trouble understanding English?

Not only did I cite the Convention, the Part and the Article, and explain how it applies, I even pasted them in my post.
Last edited by CDNBear; Mar 14th, 2012 at 06:31 PM..
 
Vanni Fucci
+2
#139
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Trouble understanding English?

Not only did I cite the Convention, the Part and the Article, and explain how it applies, I even pasted them in my post.

GC4, Pt.1, Art 4 states that:

"Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it."

However, Iraq ratified the Conventions in 1956 and so was bound by it...and so any Iraqi national, whether in uniform or not, was protected by it...any violation of Conventions by Iraq would have had to have gone to ICC to determine guilt and punishment, just as should happen with the US violations...just because both sides were guilty of war crimes does not mean that either side was justified...

For those that were not Iraqi nationals:

GC4, Pt.1, Art 5 specifies that a trial is to be held to determine if they are or are not protected under the 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."

That means no torture or indefinite imprisonment without trial for anyone...

By the way, a little neg rep's really not going to hurt my feelings Bear...
 
CDNBear
+2
#140
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

GC4, Pt.1, Art 4 states that:

"Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it."

However, Iraq ratified the Conventions in 1956 and so was bound by it...and so any Iraqi national, whether in uniform or not, was protected by it...any violation of Conventions by Iraq would have had to have gone to ICC to determine guilt and punishment, just as should happen with the US violations...just because both sides were guilty of war crimes does not mean that either side was justified...

Did the plane ticket to Iraq from Afghanistan cost much?

We are discussing Afghanistan, which is full of foreign national unlawful combatants, and domestic combatants.

And lets not forget your selective cropping of the full sentence, from the Fourth Convention, Part 1, General Provisions, Article 4, last sentence...

But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.

Cropping that, is just further proof of your intellectual dishonesty.

Quote:

GC4, Pt.1, Art 5 specifies that a trial is to be held to determine if they are or are not protected under the 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."

That means no torture or indefinite imprisonment without trial for anyone...

Can you point out where Colpy or I mentioned torture?

Interment, under Article 42, is legal, for protected persons, as I have already proven.

You can keep shuffling the goalposts, but all you're doing is looking stupid.

Although I bet bet you'll soon be claiming to just be troll baiting eh?

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

By the way, a little neg rep's really not going to hurt my feelings Bear...

You got it for being dishonest and stupid.
 
Vanni Fucci
#141
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Did the plane ticket to Iraq from Afghanistan cost much?

We are discussing Afghanistan, which is full of foreign national unlawful combatants, and domestic combatants.

Also ratified in 1956

Quote:

And lets not forget your selective cropping of the full sentence, from the Fourth Convention, Part 1, General Provisions, Article 4, last sentence...

But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.

Cropping that, is just further proof of your intellectual dishonesty.

How is the last part of that sentence in any way pertinent?

Quote:

Can you point out where Colpy or I mentioned torture?

Never said you did...my argument all along has been that the "enemy combatant" designation was devised to allow the US to torture without being in contravention of GC...

Quote:

Interment, under Article 42, is legal, for protected persons, as I have already proven.

Internment under Article 5 is legal for all persons, as I've proven...oh, and just so we're clear, the trial to determine the status of a combatant is to be held by a neutral party...not by the parties to the conflict...

Quote:

You can keep shuffling the goalposts, but all you're doing is looking stupid.

Although I bet bet you'll soon be claiming to just be troll baiting eh?

You got it for being dishonest and stupid.

You can keep up the ad hominem bull****, but it's just weakening your argument, which I've tried to conduct as reasoning adults should...apparently, that's not within your scope...
 
CDNBear
+1
#142
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

Also ratified in 1956

Miss the point much?

Quote:

How is the last part of that sentence in any way pertinent?

Here, I'll highlight the pertinent parts...

But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.

Quote:

Never said you did...

Then why ask me to prove it's allowed?

Quote:

my argument all along has been that the "enemy combatant" designation was devised to allow the US to torture without being in contravention of GC...

No it hasn't. Here, refresh your memory...

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

You know as well as anyone that it was the Bush administration that devised the "enemy combatant" designation to contravene due process and the Geneva Convention's rules on treatment of prisoners of war...

Quote:

Internment under Article 5 is legal for all persons, as I've proven...

Actually i proved it, but thanks for admitting it's legal.

Quote:

oh, and just so we're clear, the trial to determine the status of a combatant is to be held by a neutral party...not by the parties to the conflict...

Fail. You already posted the Fourth convention, Part 1, General Provisions, article 5, which clearly states, "trial By competent tribunal".

Quote:

You can keep up the ad hominem bull****, but it's just weakening your argument, which I've tried to conduct as reasoning adults should...apparently, that's not within your scope...

You blew the ability to claim the high ground with...

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

Still not seeing the part where if a combant is not in uniform you can disregard the Conventions, quite the opposite actually, and still haven't seen any evidence that reciprocity is a condition of adherence to the Conventions.

So please quote the specific Articles that specify that, and tell me what you think they mean.

So please step down off the cross.
 
MHz
#143
[QUOTE=Colpy;1560224
Do not mistake this as full approval of the US protocol on prisoners. I do NOT approve of "enhanced interogation techniques" such as water-boarding. They are CLEARLY torture, and there use is a shame to a great democratic nation.

I do NOT approve of the trial of Islamists by military tribunal. The US government should really read the fifth amendment to the US Constitution.

But, like Omar Khadr, foreign insurgents caught in combat should have been shot on the spot.[/QUOTE]
Actually it means there is no such thing as a great democratic nation, it is a lie today and it always was, like you said a long time ago, the Magna Caerta only covers business owners, consumers can be treated like the pile of **** they have always been treated as. You version of the great US is from a time when company towns were everywhere and it was meant to stay that way and it has except for the post war boom era when things had to be replaced, notice how fast the benefits are being taken back. lol

Perhaps they should do more than read the document, they should then execute themselves, just like what would happen in a real trial. So you apply that to and US person found plotting thing in a foreign nation, Jews would be even more numerous, you sure that wouldn't upset you?
 
gopher
+1
#144
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Except....the guy has a right to a fair trial.....by military tribunal.

Depends on the treaty between the countries. In Korea, any crimes committed by USA troops are handled by military court even if they are not committed in military areas as per treaty. I forgot to check but this will likely be in a military court as well.
 
Ocean Breeze
#145
Quote:

HOW THE U.S. MILITARY SPAWNS MASSACRES AND DAILY ACTS OF DEPRAVITY (external - login to view)


HOW THE U.S. MILITARY SPAWNS MASSACRES AND DAILY ACTS OF DEPRAVITY | Dailycensored.com (external - login to view)

self explanatory.
 
Vanni Fucci
#146
Sorry Colpy, missed this I guess...

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Ok. Let's make one thing perfectly clear. The 9-11 attacks were an act of war that killed more people than Pearl Harbour.

This has nothing to do with how combatants are to be treated under international law.

Quote:

Have you read the Conventions?

No.

Actually, I have...

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

If you had, you would know they are reciprocal. In other words, if one side is not bound by them, neither is the other.

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 140. The Principle of Reciprocity (external - login to view)

Quote:

Practice Relating to Rule 140. The Principle of Reciprocity
Treaties
Geneva Conventions (1949)
Common Article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions requires parties to respect the provisions of the Conventions “in all circumstances”.

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 1; Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 1; Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 1; Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 1.

Geneva Conventions (1949)
Common Article 2(3) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions provides:
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.
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 2(3); Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 2(3); Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 2(3); Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 2(3).

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Article 60(5) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states:
Paragraphs 1 to 3 [laying down the principle of reciprocity] do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such treaties.
Convention on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 23 May 1969, Article 60(5).

Additional Protocol I
Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I requires parties to respect the provisions of the Protocol “in all circumstances”.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 1(1). Article 1 was adopted by 87 votes in favour, one against and 11 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.36, 23 May 1977, p. 41.

That link also lists many countries' military manuals regarding the rules of war and humanitartian issues...

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

And how are US prisoners treated by the enemy??? We don't know, they don't live long enough for any judgement to be made.

That's a separate issue, and those responsible should be apprehended and judged by ICJ...and if found guilty of war crimes then punished for such...or taken out in a fire fight...

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention (external - login to view)

Quote:

Members of resistance movements must fulfil certain stated conditions before they can be regarded as prisoners of war. If members of a resistance movement who have fallen in to enemy hands do not fulfil those conditions, they must be considered to be protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention. That does not mean that they cannot be punished for their acts, but the trial and sentence must take place in accordance with the provisions of Article 64 and the Articles which follow it.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

As well, the soldiers must wear the uniform of their country, or be insurgents fighting for their country to be recognized. Guys imported from Pakistan to fight in Afghanistan, or from Syria and Iran to fight in Iraq, or from the USA fighting from Yemen, are NOT covered.

They are, just not by the Third Convention, at the very least they are under the Fourth Convention entitiled to a fair treatment and trial to determine their status as combatant or not...if they are a combatant, they are treated as POW under the Third Convention, if not they are treated as protected under the Fourth Convention, which affords them less rights than POWs...

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Do not mistake this as full approval of the US protocol on prisoners. I do NOT approve of "enhanced interogation techniques" such as water-boarding. They are CLEARLY torture, and there use is a shame to a great democratic nation.

I do NOT approve of the trial of Islamists by military tribunal. The US government should really read the fifth amendment to the US Constitution.

But, like Omar Khadr, foreign insurgents caught in combat should have been shot on the spot.

I am well aware of your abhorrence of torture Colpy, you and I have discussed this before...and I in no way support the insurgents and their acts of depravity...but I think that the US has set a really bad precedent in that they have chosen to ignore international laws that they have signed onto, just to get a little payback...
 
Praxius
+2
#147
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Here comes more protests against western forces..

Gee, you think? I wonder why they'd try and find yet another excuse to protest against the US and the rest of us??

I mean how dare they.... they should be thankful for our "Protection" from the Taliban and the peace & stability we brought to their country and their loved ones.

Of course there was going to be protests, this nut job just rampaged on innocent people.... it'd be no different here if someone from another country gunned down a pile of people in one of Canada's major cities..... there'd be piles of people on the streets calling for his or her head.

Our troops hand over their area to the US after years of at least "Trying" to not kill innocent people in their homes and treating them like human beings.... and they go and fk it all up just as I expected they would.

I figured eventually one of these guys they bring right over from fighting in Iraq would pull some kind of stunt like this, or a group of them would.... ie: pissing on dead enemies..... and then everything our troops worked for just goes up like a puff of smoke.

Oh, but it was just one guy and you can't brand the whole force because of one guy....

Look back at all of the reported incidences that have occurred since all this crap began over a decade ago and it's not just one guy, or two guys.... it's a crap load of them.... it's bases of soldiers that are all liabilities to everyone around them, and if you ask for the sources, I've got plenty & they're easy to find, so logically there's no point to prove beyond this more recent thread of examples, as well as across the internet and world.

Mass shooting sprees on a regular basis in the US, which are chalked up to isolated incidences & crazy people, Worse things happening in Iraq which get very little coverage outside of the US Government's approval.... but that's the problem right there:

This crap shows up pretty damn quickly and easily in Afghanistan, because many nations have their hands in this mess and many nations have plenty of news reporters and people with cell phones recording and telling everybody what's going on.... and the US Gov / Military doesn't have a monopoly on information or the covering up of said information.

This sort of thing can and most likely will, screw the entire mission and NATO's credibility.... and I bet many in Kandahar who did realize Canadian Troops were there all those years trying to build things and work with the communities..... they will now think of us and our troops as the one's who simply handed us over to the Americans to be slaughtered.... and most likely resent us for it.

And the worst part is that they're just going to see that guy swooped away, put on a show trial and won't believe he's actually dead and will just get more p*ssed off.

If there wasn't a war going on before, it's about to start very soon.

Even though they're humans just like us, trying to live their lives.... there is a different thought process going on, and they're not going to see it like some people in our countries would see it... they're going to take this personal, it's going to escalate, US troops are going to be targeted more, then those troops are going to start pushing back, then 95% of the Afghan population is going to support the Taliban and then sh*t's going to really hit the fan. The Taliban won't need to stay in Pakistan much longer if they keep this crap up.

And if they find this guy mentally fk'd and gets off, you get the same ending.

*Clap clap* Bravo.

But wait, there's more!

If the US tries, convicts and executes this soldier, many of those wing nut mass shooting spree kind of folk in the US, and those religious wing nuts with think he was the 2nd coming of Christ and think the world is going to end, so then they start shooting and blowing things up.

I'm sure someone will think of it as Jesus going on the rampage in the market and then up on the cross he went (The actual story is a bit deeper, but you get the jist)

Eventually someone gets a hold of the nukes, or someone builds a nuke, or someone smuggles in a nuke, or someone farts nukes.... "Somebody set up us the bomb", some country spooks and launches their nukes, then the other guy shows off the ballz he's got and ejaculates all his nukes onto the planet's face and boob (moon) and then every human on the planet dies.....

.... except for coal miners, deep sea divers, Mountain Folk, Labrador & Newfoundland where the Chrysalids live and Mick Jagger.

Mark my words!

I'll just be sitting here with my popcorn watching it all unfold until you guys ask for my help to fix it.

Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

... Time to go; and when the Afghans start whining and bitching about how the world abandoned them and oh their poor people and poor children, tell them they brought this on themselves when their own people would not accept the help offered.

Really?

How dare they whine and bitch about getting carpet bombed and rolled over the a superior military force, oppressed and occupied, then their buddies come along to help occupy and oppress them with a smile for over a decade +, while telling them all "This" is how you should live your lives, whether you like it or not.... and when the majority of them who never asked for any of this in the first place don't show gratitude for having their villages blown up by Drones, Tanks, APCs, Troops and now crazy troops who treat them like beaten mutts..... rage and riot over the help we're giving them.

How dare they... let's leave, they don't want to play. Ungrateful sons o b*tches the lot of em, huh?

Keeping in mind that reports at the time showed Osama was in Pakistan by the time the US crapped all over Afghanistan and destroyed their homes, families, loved ones and way of life.

How ironic is that?

They're living their normal, everyday lives in their own little world, and suddenly their entire country is bombed and blown to absolute crap... then those people who did that bring in other countries to clean up the mess they made, as well as rebuild everything that was destroyed, only for those guys who blew everything up in the first place to blow it all up again for the hell of it.

YEEE HAAWWWWW *Pow pow* *does a little jig with the guns in thar air*

I think there's only so much anybody can take of that before they bite back.

Interesting how those US Iraq soldiers have the magical ability to bring Iraq wherever they go. Funny that.

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

BTW.... This was ONE man ... NOT the whole USA.

Gee we've been hearing that a lot over & throughout the years, haven't we?

Keep saying it.. maybe it'll magically come true someday.... if you close your eyes and click your heels three times.

Yeah, it's just one man..... added to the growing pile of "One Man" Men within the US..... and outside of the US now too.

Refresh my memory.... who are the Terrorists in this whole story line again?

I don't see much of a difference anymore.

Then again, I don't think I ever did.

Now thumb me any way you wish, up, down, either way is good.
Last edited by Praxius; Mar 15th, 2012 at 06:41 AM..
 
captain morgan
#148
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

He was a 15 year old kid whose father dragged him over there. Soldiers had just wiped out all his companions and were approaching to, for all he knew, to finish him off. He was wounded and he threw a grenade at the approaching soldier. I think that anybody in that situation would have done the same thing.

I'm sure that you, at age 15, were fully mature and had all your intellectual capacities fully function and that is why you can't understand how a 15 year old was just obeying his father.

Open your eyes Cliffy... You're making excuses for Khadr and more importantly, you negate the fact that he was there voluntarily - just like the IEDs he was photographed making. He was there, 1/2 way around the world as a Canadian to further the cause - let's not forget that he had an older brother that set an example of NOT participating in this barbarism.

You also place far too much value on the notion that he was 15 (just about 16 from what I understand) - he was not a 'child'. At 15 y/o, he would have had the degree of maturity to understand that the actions he was taking were very serious and grave.
 
earth_as_one
#149
Omar Khadr was a 15 year old child soldier. He was tortured by the Americans with Canada's approval.

CM, you apparently agree with how Khadr was treated. So if 15 years old is old enough for torturing Canadian children, then at what age would you judge is too young for torture? Should Canada also approve torturing 14 year olds? How about 12? Or 6? What about babies? Should Canada approve torturing babies?
 
Blackleaf
+2
#150
Why is it always US soldiers who commit such terrible crimes? I can never remember a British soldier doing something like this in Afghanistan.

Either British soldiers are better able to mentally cope with fighting in a war than American soldiers are and so are less prone to flipping, or the British Army is better at teaching its soldiers what is right and what is wrong when fighting a war.
 
no new posts