Prisoners 'killed' at US Base

What do you mean, "under what terms" do they apply?..Are you looking for conditions of applications, official rules? Couldn't you look them up on the internet? Are you asking me, a humble High school dropout to clarify the whole thing by outlining it for you? Perhaps, if you were less opaque, with your query, I could assist you better. And I will try...I'm here for you.

0 Replies

Booman wrote:

What do you mean, "under what terms" do they apply?..Are you looking for conditions of applications, official rules? Couldn't you look them up on the internet? Are you asking me, a humble High school dropout to clarify the whole thing by outlining it for you? Perhaps, if you were less opaque, with your query, I could assist you better. And I will try...I'm here for you.

I'm at a loss as to how I might write the question any more plainly. Either you understand exactly when and under what conditions the rules of the Geneva Convention apply, or you do not. If you do not, simply admit it. If you do know, please share what you know.

The reason I ask is that your comments suggest to me that you have no idea how to answer my question--that you know virtually nothing about the Geneva Convention, and therefor can't speak to it intelligently--and that if you took the time to find the answer to my question, you would see quite quickly why I asked it.

0 Replies

Tres -- The Geneva Convention should apply in these cases, and doesn't "technically" apply only because the US renamed the category of prisoners. This is a little like the old "what is is" sidestep, only in this case it's not about Congressional prurience, it's about international law and people's lives.

0 Replies

I'm still not sure what you're looking for, but I will try to help you by clarifying my statement. My point was, that no matter how the U.S. was treating P.O.W's, now that some americans had been caught, Bush wants everyone to be aware of the humane treatment of P.O.W.'s, as dictated by the Geneva convention.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Tres -- The Geneva Convention should apply in these cases, and doesn't "technically" apply only because the US renamed the category of prisoners. This is a little like the old "what is is" sidestep, only in this case it's not about Congressional prurience, it's about international law and people's lives.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

Sorry, but thanks for trying. Very Happy

That you feel that it "should" apply means nothing. That it does not technically apply is in fact correct, but the reason it does not has nothing to do with any choice the US made, but has to do with the choices made by those prisoners. They CHOSE to engage the US military while not wearing a UNIFORM.

Laws apply to specific groups of people and under specific conditions. The laws of Maine do not apply in Miami. Likewise, the laws set forth by the Geneva Convention apply in a very specific setting and to very specific people. The Geneva Convention protects combatants captured during war, but it also requires certain things of them in order to be entitled to those protections. Amongst these is the requirement that the combatant be uniformed. This helps protect civilians in the theater from being mistaken for enemy combatants.

But don't take my word for it. Look it up.

0 Replies

Valid point, tres, and core to the US argument. However, "Uniform" is subject to interpretation. Something as simple as a distinctive armband or headdress could qualify as a uniform. Therein lies an argument for those who wore particularly colored turbans. That those turbans were either black or white does little to make the issue black or white.

0 Replies

Tres,
...At least now I see the thoughts behind your posts to me, but I don't see why you attacked my modest intellect. I'm a seneitive guy y' know. You should have seen the tears on my keyboard, after you lashed out at me. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

Booman wrote:

Tres,
...At least now I see the thoughts behind your posts to me, but I don't see why you attacked my modest intellect. I'm a seneitive guy y' know. You should have seen the tears on my keyboard, after you lashed out at me.

mean ole tres.

Razz

0 Replies

Do US-special forces wear uniforms?

0 Replies

Walter

That's a very good question.

0 Replies

not always

0 Replies

I guess you know, Tres, that I find your argument full of holes!

Among the most important combatants to the allies in WWII were the partisans. They didn't wear uniforms. As far as I know, none of them received POW status.

Perhaps some in the US enjoy the fact that we've gotten "tough on crime" and unwilling or unable to make distinctions that deeply affect human lives in a way which reminds some of the Nazis. I'd say the death penalty in Texas fits into that category, and I'd certainly say the convenient label, "enemy combatants," puts the US now in its own category -- having a regime which has decided on its own to slither past those boring, obstructive international laws which, in better days, we had a lot of respect for. Colors of turbans? New labels for combatants? We have seen the enemy and they are us.

0 Replies

YEAH!...That's what I'm talkin' 'bout. That was right on the tip of my tongue. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

the united states military has on more than once occasion engaged in combat activities sans uniforms of any kind.

0 Replies

but did it insist on its soldier being treated as POWs if they were captured during such combat activities?

0 Replies

An argument is made that as sworn members of the military of a soveriegn state they are protected, but that argument gets little acceptance. Very little acceptance is available for any argument which may be made to include ununiformed paramilitaries in the serveice of a stateless entity, either. US troops performing un-uniformed operations are advised of their elevated jeopardy.

0 Replies

Let me just tag onto Timbers reply

US forces do not use human shields, fortrify churches, hospitals, and schools. US forces do not hold hostages, nor execute young men for not volunteering to be suicide bombers either. Even when US forces are "out of uniform" they retain proof that they are soldiers subject to discipline and a chain-of-command. We abide by the rules, even when we are not obligated to under the rules of war.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Let me just tag onto Timbers reply

US forces do not use human shields, fortrify churches, hospitals, and schools. US forces do not hold hostages, nor execute young men for not volunteering to be suicide bombers either. Even when US forces are "out of uniform" they retain proof that they are soldiers subject to discipline and a chain-of-command. We abide by the rules, even when we are not obligated to under the rules of war.

Isn't it a bit ridiculous to pretend that men at war behave with some kind of piousness, American soldiers or otherwise? Geez, I was expecting you to say next that they all say their prayers before beddy-bye.

Just as I've said something when someone ( I think it was Wolf and Frolic) tries to attribute evil to the Americans with a broad brush, the flip side is that men at war commit atrocities, injustices and things against the "rules" even if they wear US colors.

0 Replies

Asherman,
...Does the name LLt. Calley, ring a bell with you? And that's just the vapor from the tip of the iceberg.

0 Replies

Sure, snood. Men in battle are human. Still, part of the principle behind The Colors is the long traditions of American Servicemembers rising above the norm when faced with the challenges of battle, both physical and ethical. All militaries, like any society, have some bad guys. Our forces tend to the low side of the bad guy scale as a whole, not discounting a very few negative indications. Whether or not the same may be said of Our Leaders, Our Military are pretty much Goodguys.

0 Replies

Prisoners 'killed' at US Base

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know