What's happening with those poor devils at Camp Xray ???

Scrat wrote:

blatham wrote:

Does anyone find it a bit unbalanced that Sadaam will be held and tried in conditions completely unlike those fellows above?

Does anyone not get that Saddam falls into a very different category than they?

Apparently you don't understand what you read. Saddam is in a totally different category because he is a big time bad guy but he is treated as a prisoner of war ...

Even in the times of the 30-years-war people got more respect in fights/wars.

Anyone care to tell me what this David Hicks did? Or did the US go over and snatch him out of his bed in Bumwalla Falls?

Scrat wrote:

Anyone care to tell me what this David Hicks did? Or did the US go over and snatch him out of his bed in Bumwalla Falls?

He joined the Taliban and happened to get in the way of an American invasion. According to the law of this country he has not committed any crime. I also think that is true in respect of the laws of your country.

Earlier you expressed concern about prisoners being greeted as heroes when they return.

You seem to be one of those who equates custody with guilt.

Even in the times of the 30-years-war people got more respect in fights/wars.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Could you elaborate, Walter? What respect?

For the lives of captured, Sofia.
In 17th century this was only done by "christian moral" - which wasn't, agreed, very high - 'Hugo Grotius' may be the keyword and the "code of chivalry".- and became even lower during the next decades (n.b. the Napolionic Wars.
Protection by rule of law for the lower orders, however, had to await the acceptance of principles of humanity that took a distinctive form in the 19th century.


And when you look up what Henri Dunant and Francis Liber said, what was written in the 'Declaration ofSt. Petersburg' (1868) and in the two treaties of Den Haag, you surely will find that no opposing army had had the "right" to kill you, just because to the fact that your army/nation lost.


I do know, however, that this happened and will happen. (Not everyone obeys the laws - civilian or soldier.)

but have you read "Simplicus Simplicissimus"? It's a contemporary account of what the 30 year war looked like on the ground level, and it strikes me as strong evidence against your claim.

OK feral

You said:
"No sympathy here.
No uniform = Not a 'regular' soldier = Not covered by Geneva Convention"

Hey they weren't wearing uniforms when they fought the west's war against the Russians. So I must assume you also believe the summary executions carried out by the Russians were legal.

There ain't two sets of rules. It took a long time to get Pinochet but we got him. Let me assure you Bush, Blair, Howard and others will one day face trial for their actions. There are too many of us who are fed up with their hypocrisy to allow them to escape. The only way we will get a better world is to ensure their like are punished. What a list it will make Pinochet, Milosevic, Bush , Blair..................

Come out from behind your flag and look what has been done in its name.

McGentrix,

Only americans think they are guilty of anything. The rest of the world knows they are not. It is not a crime to defend yourself when attacked. If that were the case Roosevelt committed a crime when he retaliated after Pearl Harbour. We both know that is ridiculous. I repeat, it is not a crime to defend yourself. I know you are not stupid but you are obtuse about this. Forget your political affiliations and consider these cases on the merits. There are no charges because there is no evidence because there is no law that prevents soldiers in or out of uniform from defending themselves.

Yes Blatham they were chivalrous then. If the city surrendered everyone should be spared if not everyone was killed. That included women and children. Good simple rules. The sort of thing Sofia would support.

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, 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.