I'm aware the U.S. has suffered in world opinion. It really can't be helped if you choose to see things in treaties or laws that simply aren't there. Much the same thing is happening in our court system now. We are moving away from following the law as it is written to a more case by case study based on a perpetrators past experiences rather then a judgment on what he did. We may even end up with a new amendment soon.
Prisoners of war are soldiers. They have a rank and a serial number. They wear uniforms. Because of this affiliation with the military they are awarded rights under the Geneva Conventions. People fighting our military that are not military themselves DO NOT have the rights that are reserved for soldiers. That is a the truth and not just my opinion. If your argument is that this is wrong and we should call everyone a pow regardless of military affiliation then that is fine. I'd accept it if someone wrote a 'declaration of intent' claiming to be a soldier and posted it on the internet and kept a copy on their person and used a red scarf or blue scarf or black scarf or whatever tied around their left arm as a uniform. As long as it is organized with ranks and bases I'd go along with it even if it was ad-hoc. Fine-your a soldier; you get pow status. What these terrorists do is hide behind civilians. Under schools and mosques building bombs that kill civilians. Civilians are their targets as often as not. They set their bomb off or ambush a police station wearing masks and then go home and make BBQ. These aren't soldiers iam. These are terrorists. It saddens me you and many other people don't see the difference. dj On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:41 AM, iam deheretic<[email protected]> wrote: > You do not need to cut me slack because I don't live there anymore.. I am > just not under the sway of the republican propaganda machine. > > and just what amm I supposed to do a google search under .. POW Treaty? > > Gitmo Is A Prisoner of war camp in the eyes of the rest of the world.. and > the people being held there are prisoners of war... buy all but bushes > definition.. Because the weasel bush sez something different,, it is not > his privilege to redefine treaties,, they are still prisoners of war.. they > were combants, they were fighting on the other side of a declared war so > therefore they are prisoners of war by a legally agreed treaty one that was > drawn up by the USA government at the time.. > > even an appointed president does not have the right to break a treaty.. and > Gitmo breaks the POW treaty. which makes all officers in direct violation > of American laws and Bush , Cheney and cronies charged wit treason and high > crimes for which they are accountable for even after they left office. > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> iam. I'm cutting you serious slack because, since you don't live here >> anymore, you obviously don't pay attention to what should be common >> knowledge to a concerned American citizen. I'm not arguing that >> torture is good or even necessary in this post. Nor am I advocating >> humiliation. I might do that in another post(or I might not), but >> this one is about clearing up some misconceptions you have about >> international treaties. >> >> #1) the detainees are NOT prisoners of war. If you can accept this >> fact(any google search should clear this up for you) then it pretty >> much negates most of your objections to U.S. breaking international >> law. >> >> #2)Refer to #1 for all other objections. >> >> 'nuf said >> >> dj >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 3:20 PM, iam deheretic<[email protected]> wrote: >> > SD sometimes you make me laugh, All pirsoners of war are entitled to a >> > certian level of treatment guarenteed by international treaty, Which the >> > USA >> > is a signing member and it has been approved by the US Senate, which >> > must >> > ratify all treaties.. It keeps our soldiers protected in times of war.. >> > Keeps them from being lined up and shoot.. as you put it.. >> > >> > Now in Gitmo's case this very valuable treaty was ignored so they could >> > preform torture physical humiliation and other degrading acts for the >> > benefit of their sadistic egos. >> > >> > The truth is gitmo was a shifting of gears,, away from an agreed >> > treaty,, >> > making the word of the USA worthless and treaties not worth the paper >> > they >> > were written on. Personally I am surprised it is such a small percentage >> > that returned to combat. I personally hate war, but if I was treated the >> > way >> > these POW's were treated by bush and the us military and intelligence I >> > would be sure doing a re-think about my position >> > >> > As for the state of the art hospital well if the picture is showing the >> > good side I have seen better facilities in rural Montana.. I think that >> > is >> > called propaganda,, words are cheap in the bush and us militarys word >> > are >> > very very cheap. to the point of no value. >> > Allan >> > >> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> The recent news about the transfer of the Gitmo detainees had me >> >> thinking. >> >> I was wondering why and how humanity switches gears from killing the >> >> enemy to taking care of the enemy, once captured and imprisoned. >> >> On the battle field we kill the enemy, the enemy that wants to kill >> >> us. >> >> Why do we expend so much energy caring for these people that would see >> >> us dead tomorrow? >> >> >> >> **New Pentagon intelligence asserts that 61 former Guantánamo Bay >> >> detainees, or about 11 percent of those who have been released, appear >> >> to have returned to involvement in terrorism.** >> >> >> >> So why don't we just kill the enemy? Is it political correctness? A >> >> skewed sense of human compassion? What do you think it is? Your >> >> thoughts, ideas, insight and opinion? I mean we do have, in some >> >> places, the dead penalty for criminals, right? >> >> >> >> I think it is ridiculous that we should waste time and money caring >> >> for enemies. >> >> ***In every case, enemy combatants held here receive medical care that >> >> is "as good as or better than anything we would offer our own >> >> soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines," the general in charge of the >> >> U.S. detention facility here said. *** >> >> >> >> I say........... >> >> Line them up for the firing squad and be done with it. We would have >> >> killed them anyway on a battle field. >> >> >> >> >> >> ** >> >> >> >> http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2009/01/13/some-freed-terrorism-detainees-return-to-the-fight.html >> >> >> >> *** http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25852 *** >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > ( >> > ) >> > I_D Allan >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > -- > ( > ) > I_D Allan > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
