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,
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...
-- The U.S. soldier acccused of killing 16 civilians in Afghanistan has been taken out of the country, NATO confirms
No they didn't.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.
What part of the Fourth Convention are you referring to?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.
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.
I have.You read it:
Yes.
You don't think you're the first person I've encountered, that read wikiality and think you're an expert, do you?
That must be why you can't answer my question.Can't read all those big words? That's a shame, maybe one of your trollish coaches can explain it to you...
International Red Cross, is hardly the Geneva Convention....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.
...and yet you've not come back with anything resembling an informed rebuttal...not surprising.
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 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.
I have.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.
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.
Those quotes are great, in the future, please add respective Convention, Part, and Article 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.
Ummm...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...
You have a problem with clarity, or a problem with moving goalposts.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...
Trouble understanding English?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.
Did the plane ticket to Iraq from Afghanistan cost much?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...
Can you point out where Colpy or I mentioned torture?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...
You got it for being dishonest and stupid.By the way, a little neg rep's really not going to hurt my feelings Bear...