"...People fighting our military that are not military themselves DO NOT have the rights that are reserved for soldiers. ..." - dj
Even if one accepted the premise of such a view, it is not applicable because many of those incarcerated were neither military nor fighting our military. To know that for sure requires more attention and adjudication than has occurred. On Jun 14, 3:17 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-d... > > >> >> ***http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25852*** > > >> > -- > >> > ( > >> > ) > >> > I_D Allan > > > -- > > ( > > ) > > I_D Allan- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
