Now you are trying to introduce INTERNAL politics in the discussion..... no thanks Gaar.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 2:29 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > The SLA was a force once... Why were they not POW then??? Perhaps it > is because you are seeking to define AQ as a government as a way to > queer the argument... By your logic the Chinese SHOULD give the > Tibetian who protest POW status... Or the Russian should given > Chechynans POW status... Or Spain should give the Basques POW > status... Did the Nigerians give the Ibo nation POW status??? > > The problem of your slippery slope is when and who recognizes a new > state or a government in exile??? So you toss out AQ as a state or a > world government in exile... Frankly you seem a little silly in > that... > > On Apr 24, 3:03 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > I didn't write that document.... the winners in WWII did. Wasn't the US > one > > of them ?? > > > > So AQ is NOT a force ?? Then how is bin Laden a recognizedv leader ?? why > > does the US government report on capturing AQ leaders and commanders ?? > > > > How many different ways and how many hypocrisies do you want to insert ?? > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:38 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Dear Mark > > > > > WHo isn't a POW under this definition.... Your legalism here is AQ > > > really is a government under the Geneva Accords, so all AQ members > > > captured are POW... Even if AQ crossed into a nation-state and > > > beheads and used terror tactics on the local population BECAUSE AQ > > > claims to be the World's government even though it does not recognize > > > the UN or the Geneva Accords... > > > > > A simple reply is AQ is NOT a nation-state or authority in the sense > > > of the verbiage "Members of regular armed forces who profess > > > allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the > > > Detaining Power."... You equate AQ to be a government or authority > > > as therein described... I do not... I suspect a vast majority of > > > folks do not either... > > > > > On Apr 24, 12:09 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Keith, > > > > > > Please see (1) (((AQ is a Party to the Conflict))) and (3) (((even > if > > > AQ > > > > is NOT recognized))) > > > > > > Manner of dress is NOT a condition in these instances. To NOT > recognize > > > > this is to say AQ and its requirements for dress, membership, duty do > not > > > > exist. If that is trye then AQ does not exist. > > > > > > Part I : General provisions > > > > ARTICLE 4[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View > > > > 'COMART']< > > >http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/eca76fa4.. > .> > > > > > > A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are > > > persons > > > > belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into > the > > > power > > > > of the enemy: > > > > > > (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well > as > > > > members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed > > > forces. > > > > > > (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer > corps, > > > > incuding 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, fulfil 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. > > > > > > (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a > > > > government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. > > > > > > (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being > > > members > > > > thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war > > > > correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of > > > services > > > > responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that > they > > > have > > > > received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, > who > > > shall > > > > provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the > > > annexed > > > > model. > > > > > > (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, > of > > > the > > > > merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to > the > > > > conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under > any > > > other > > > > provisions of international law. > > > > > > (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach > of > > > the > > > > enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, > > > without > > > > having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, > provided > > > they > > > > carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. > > > > > > B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war > under > > > the > > > > present Convention: > > > > > > (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of > the > > > > occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by > > > reason of > > > > such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally > > > liberated them > > > > while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, > in > > > > particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to > > > rejoin > > > > the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in > combat, > > > or > > > > where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view > to > > > > internment. > > > > > > (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in > the > > > > present Article, who have been received by neutral or > non-belligerent > > > Powers > > > > on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern > under > > > > international law, without prejudice to any more favourable > treatment > > > which > > > > these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles > > > 8[image: > > > > Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par > > > > Article']< > > >http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/af0617d4.. > .>, > > > > 10[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités > \1.2. > > > Par > > > > Article']< > > >http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/0c498fd6.. > .>, > > > > 15[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités > \1.2. > > > Par > > > > Article']< > > >http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/002de19c.. > .>, > > > > 30, fifth paragraph[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', > View > > > > '1.Traités \1.2. Par > > > > Article']< > > >http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/7c1c1f47.. > .>, > > > > 58[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités > \1.2. > > > Par > > > > Article']< > > >http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/ebdcec6f.. > > > .>-67, > > > > 92[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités > \1.2. > > > Par > > > > Article']< > > >http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/cafb6fc3.. > .>, > > > > 126[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités > \1.2. > > > > Par Article']< > > >http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/7906c83a.. > > > .>and, > > > > where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict > > > > and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles > > > > concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations > > > exist, the > > > > Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be > allowed to > > > > perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as > provided > > > in the > > > > present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these > > > Parties > > > > normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage > and > > > > treaties. > > > > > > C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical > personnel > > > > and chaplains as provided for in Article 33[image: Database 'IHL - > > > > Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par > > > > Article']< > > >http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/00608118.. > > > .>of > > > > the present Convention. > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Keith In Tampa < > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Good Morning Mark! > > > > > > > You just answered your own question. > > > > > > > The twenty eight detainees were not prisoners of war, in the sense > of a > > > > > foot soldier, as the clause you are referencing is referring to. > > > These > > > > > individuals where enhanced interrogation tactics were utilized, > (and > > > no, I > > > > > do not believe that the enhanced interrogation tactics resulted in > > > torture, > > > > > I don't think anyone in good conscience can believe that if they > read > > > the > > > > > Memoranda) were homicidal murderers intent on killing Americans. > > > > > > > Further, out of the over nine hundred that were captured and > detained, > > > > > based on the information that has been released to date, only 28 of > > > them > > > > > were exposed to any coercive interrogation tactics in order to > obtain > > > > > information. The remaining nine hundred plus, were treated no > > > differently > > > > > than any other American prisoner in the federal Bureau of Prisons' > > > system, > > > > > as can be witnessed at both Baghdad Central Prison and Guantanamo. > > > > > > > Folks keep forgetting the era also. At the time that these > enhanced > > > > > interrogation tactics were being utilized, on the twenty eight that > are > > > > > being referenced, our intelligence departments literally did not > know > > > who, > > > > > or what we were dealing with, and especially where or when the next > > > wave of > > > > > attacks were coming. All Americans were fearful of dirty bombs, > > > chemical > > > > > attacks, or planes being flown into our skyscrapers. It wasn't a > > > question > > > > > of "if" but a question of "when". Our federal government by the > > > mandate of > > > > > the United States Constitution, has a duty to "insure domestic > > > tranquilty, > > > > > provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare..." > > > > > > > Had the Bush Administration failed to have done as much as they > did, we > > > > > very well might not be having this converstaion right now. > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:40 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE < > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > >> Keith, > > > > > > >> How is this for Myth ?? > > > > > > >> QUOTE<<<<No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of > > > > >> coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them > > > > >> information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
