P.S. I only included sub-section 2 as it referred specifically to resistance fighters and militias. Sub-section 1 refers to regular army types.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>wrote: > Interesting take, Allan, but not in keeping with the Geneva Convention, > Article III, which defines Lawful organized combatants as such: > > 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, fulfill 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. > * > > None of the terrorist groups in question meet these requirements, > especially B, C, and D. > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:40 AM, iam deheretic <[email protected]>wrote: > >> When I see pictures of them -- killed or captured they are all in the same >> type of dress so that must be their uniform.. just because it does not look >> like the western worlds jc penny polyester mass produced uniform.. it is >> recognisable by members of their combat team,, therefore it is only logical >> to assume it is their uniform.. >> Allan >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:45 PM, 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_Certain_Non-Citizens_in_the_War_Against_Terrorism>" >>> 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 - >>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- >> ( >> ) >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
