It's not a stance, Lee. It's the law. The law wouldn't change, no matter who the "Freedom Fighters" are. I fully approve of the work of the French Resistance, but they were just as unprotected according to these laws as Al-Qaeda.
You'll note, if you read back through, that I've never made a single comment implying approval or endorsement of these rules. I've merely delivered the information. Your moral qualms against these laws has led you to assume that I approve of them, 100% across the board, without my ever making a single statement to that effect. In fact, the only statement I've made which gave any kind of personal judgement whatsoever was this: "It's not pretty, but it is legal, under both US and International Law." Hardly a glowing endorsement, yes? I interpreted the actions of the government according to the law, and found that they were compliant according to the letter of the law. Now, regarding your questions, I believe it is very easy to distinguish between a terrorist, and a freedom fighter: A freedom fighter follows the internationally accepted rules of combat, in all ways, at all times. He or she attacks military targets of opportunity, while seeking to minimize civilian collateral damage. His or her stated goal is to defeat and/or demoralize an occupying military force. While utilizing guerilla tactics, a freedom fighter neither targets, nor intentionally places in harm's way, civilians. Freedom fighters are also specific to an occupied homeland. A terrorist's stated goal is to cause terror and demoralize. He or she may attack military targets, but also, and frequently, specifically attacks non-military targets with a likelihood of high civilian casualties, and zero operational benefit above and beyond causing terror. Additionally, he or she may coordinate this effort with propaganda campaigns including video and audio in order to maximize the audience that such brutality reaches. Terrorists may purport to be acting for a specific cause, such as being freedom fighters, but will often move from group to group, or country to country, not having any overwhelming loyalty to a specific group or country. Freedom Fighters may become terrorists during the course of their war. Terrorists may be recruited by Freedom Fighters. It all becomes intermingled, and complex. Some of the IRA were Freedom Fighters. Some were Terrorists. If "they" occupied the US, I would become a Freedom Fighter. I would never become a Terrorist. On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:17 PM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > > Umm I can't help but wonder if this is all a matter of perspective? > > The IRA and the UDA, were they terrorists or freedom fighters? > > What if the boot was on the other foot? > > What if the USA was fighting a war on home soil against a reconised > army of some such, those who took up their arms and formed miltia's or > gurrilua (I''ll get that spelling right one day) forces, would your > stance be the same Chris? > > On 18 June, 16:46, 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_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 > > > > ... > > > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
