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,
U.S. soldier kills up to 16 Afghan civilians
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
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.
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.
*********************
source: CNN breaking news mailing. No surprise there. Sad that other international criminals aren't treated with the same legal respect.
*********************
source: CNN breaking news mailing. No surprise there. Sad that other international criminals aren't treated with the same legal respect.
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 ass or the Rev's ass. But that does't make it true.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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...
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.
Ummm...
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:
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 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:
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...
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.
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?
You got it for being dishonest and stupid.