That's irrelevant to the argument you're having with me, but having said that: that part of the Geneva convention was never intended to refer to local militias, which is basically what we're talking about.M.O.A.B wrote:
Escape from New York, or LA.
Besides, un-uniformed combatants are not covered by the Geneva are they?
They absolutely are (2 qualifiers in bold):M.O.A.B wrote:
Escape from New York, or LA.Bubbalo wrote:
Good point. Why don't we just turn the whole planet into a giant prison camp, just in case anyone has ever or will ever commit a crime.M.O.A.B wrote:
Thing is though they took up arms now, what's to say they wouldn't have before they were imprisoned, better safe than sorry.
Besides, un-uniformed combatants are not covered by the Geneva are they?
The Geneva conventions are very broad in their definitions on purpose. Basically, if you point a gun at an invading army and are captured, you are an enemy combatant and legal POW. If your sole target was an invading or occupying force in your home country, and you are captured, you are a legal combatant.Geneva Convention Article 4 wrote:
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 4 )
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:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
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.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
If you are capturing a criminal or someone involved in a criminal conspiracy, you likewise have an obligation under US law to provide evidence, habeus corpus, a speedy trial, and no "cruel or unusual punishment". All that jazz.
It was all very cut and dry at one time, and still very much should be. Which leads me to believe that this "war on terror" was nothing more than a simple dictatorial power grab. By letting them have extra powers to fight terrorists, while simultaneously expanding the definition of terrorist to include anyone at all, we set ourselves up to become a very nasty police state at the time of the "unitary executive's" choosing. If we leave these powers enshrined in their hands, they WILL excercise them.
The other main issue in interpreting the Geneva conventions is that that Congress was very vague about exactly who or what they declared war on, and that definition was further parsed later. Actually, Congress didn't declare war on a nation or group entity, they simply gave Bush a blank check to attack whoever he wanted.
Not really, those movies were about giant prison camps, and I didn't know I was arguing with you lol.Bubbalo wrote:
That's irrelevant to the argument you're having with me, but having said that: that part of the Geneva convention was never intended to refer to local militias, which is basically what we're talking about.M.O.A.B wrote:
Escape from New York, or LA.
Besides, un-uniformed combatants are not covered by the Geneva are they?
I thought it was about fishing.
"a person who is captured and held by an enemy during war, esp. a member of the armed forces. Abbreviation: POW "Bubbalo wrote:
Wow, you just change the English language to suit yourself, don't you?usmarine2005 wrote:
Prisoner....of...war.....
Sorry, but I equate "prisoner" with "crime."
Now why would they capture you and keep you prisoner?
Gee........I wonder..........could it be so that you don't return to your own armed forces and kill them? Just maybe? Crazy theory, I know. Really out there.usmarine2005 wrote:
"a person who is captured and held by an enemy during war, esp. a member of the armed forces. Abbreviation: POW "
Now why would they capture you and keep you prisoner?
Typically, POWs are taken in a number of ways:usmarine2005 wrote:
"a person who is captured and held by an enemy during war, esp. a member of the armed forces. Abbreviation: POW "Bubbalo wrote:
Wow, you just change the English language to suit yourself, don't you?usmarine2005 wrote:
Prisoner....of...war.....
Sorry, but I equate "prisoner" with "crime."
Now why would they capture you and keep you prisoner?
They could be incapacitated and captured.
They could give up in the face of superior force, before or after an altercation.
They could be captured when subdued and not killed.
They could follow the orders of a superior officer in the above situations.
They could voluntarily submit themselves to detainment.
They could even be captured by a 3rd-party force and then sold or ransomed to the primary force.
C'mon Marine, you should know this. I know our "laws of war" training couldn't have been much different than yours.
And you know what was intended? Now your talking out your ass.Bubbalo wrote:
That's irrelevant to the argument you're having with me, but having said that: that part of the Geneva convention was never intended to refer to local militias, which is basically what we're talking about.M.O.A.B wrote:
Escape from New York, or LA.
Besides, un-uniformed combatants are not covered by the Geneva are they?
Hmmmmm..Bubbalo wrote:
Gee........I wonder..........could it be so that you don't return to your own armed forces and kill them? Just maybe? Crazy theory, I know. Really out there.usmarine2005 wrote:
"a person who is captured and held by an enemy during war, esp. a member of the armed forces. Abbreviation: POW "
Now why would they capture you and keep you prisoner?
Sounds familiar.
So did I!!sergeriver wrote:
I thought it was about fishing.
Damnit
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
Honestly, people are still shaken up over 9/11. You have to admit that was a monumental attack of epic proportions. To think that the reprocussions of such an attack are over is pretty naive. Maybe thats why Americans like me don't care what the opinion of the world is especially those from the ME.Braddock wrote:
NEWSFLASH ...the Nazis truly believed they were right too.rawls2 wrote:
Braddock- What we've been doing for the past sixty years is not new. If it wasn't us it was the USSR or China or France or England. I still believe our intentions are good.
America has always been a fairly iniquitous nation but recently they've seemingly decided they don't really care what anyone thinks anymore because quite frankly they don't have to anymore. This new 'arms for peace' bullshit deal for the Middle East announced in the last few days proves the despicable, double standard nature of US foreign policy. It's not because they're inherently evil, they're just looking out for themselves and don't care about anyone else.
To compare Gitmo to the concentration camps of WW2 is not even funny.
Last edited by rawls2 (2007-08-01 12:09:18)
That's basically isolationaism ain't it?Braddock wrote:
they're just looking out for themselves and don't care about anyone else.
No, I'm talking with reference to the aims of the convention as well as the time at which it was written.rawls2 wrote:
And you know what was intended? Now your talking out your ass.Bubbalo wrote:
That's irrelevant to the argument you're having with me, but having said that: that part of the Geneva convention was never intended to refer to local militias, which is basically what we're talking about.M.O.A.B wrote:
Escape from New York, or LA.
Besides, un-uniformed combatants are not covered by the Geneva are they?
Fine then, let's compare it to the Gulag.rawls2 wrote:
To compare Gitmo to the concentration camps of WW2 is not even funny.
Gee... duhh... maybe thats what the US is doing... lolBubbalo wrote:
Gee........I wonder..........could it be so that you don't return to your own armed forces and kill them? Just maybe? Crazy theory, I know. Really out there.usmarine2005 wrote:
"a person who is captured and held by an enemy during war, esp. a member of the armed forces. Abbreviation: POW "
Now why would they capture you and keep you prisoner?
your arguing against yourself... nice
Love is the answer
Wow. You really can't follow a conversation, can you? This one is about usmarine arguing that POWs are criminals, and be arguing that they aren't.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
Gee... duhh... maybe thats what the US is doing... lol
your arguing against yourself... nice
Think about it carefully before you respond, now, I wouldn't want you to look any more stupid.
Now that was circular wasn't it. And not in a good way.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
Gee... duhh... maybe thats what the US is doing... lolBubbalo wrote:
Gee........I wonder..........could it be so that you don't return to your own armed forces and kill them? Just maybe? Crazy theory, I know. Really out there.usmarine2005 wrote:
"a person who is captured and held by an enemy during war, esp. a member of the armed forces. Abbreviation: POW "
Now why would they capture you and keep you prisoner?
your arguing against yourself... nice
No, it wasn't. Circular logic is logic which relies on itself for proof. Noone here is using circular logic.
Don't believe I said circular 'logic'. Just the point/counterpoint back to where it started. Read it as you like though.Bubbalo wrote:
No, it wasn't. Circular logic is logic which relies on itself for proof. Noone here is using circular logic.
Fine, it wasn't circular either. It isn't back where it started. It's at a whole other place.
No? Then I apologize, I posted in the wrong thread.