Damn you and your logic and your grasp of knowledge and history Jenkins, damn you I say!
On 18 June, 14:45, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi Lee! > According to the Articles of the Geneva Convention, any combatant who is not > identified by uniform, rank and serial number is an unlawful combatant, and > not subject to the rules of protections of the convention. The French > Resistance, when captured by the Nazis, were typically tortured and > summarily executed. > As unlawful combatants, the Convention returns the specificities of > detention to the detaining state. Regarding the US, the laws that apply to > unlawful combatants would be the Presidential Military Order "Detention, > Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against > Terrorism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention,_Treatment,_and_Trial_of_Certa...>" > of 2001, invoked under the War Powers Resolution, which spelled out long > term detention for those suspected of terrorist activity, and authorized > Gitmo to be the holding ground for said combatants. > > It's not pretty, but it's legal, according to both US and International Law. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM, [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Come in late on this one, but I just had to say this. > > > Hey Don, you said: > > > ' 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.' > > > So civilians fighting soldiers using gurila tactics are not to be > > considered soilders engaged in war? What of the French underground > > during WWII? > > > On 14 June, 23:17, 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
