Yes, Dave W = witness, but when you go thru them all, Damned few say W , most say D or d told , a minority say W saw....

You do understand that an un-uniformed combatant can be tried by tribunal and shot dead for no more than have PLANNING to attack? Try this one www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm#anchor641128

Which should we do? Shoot them after conviction? Leave them in jail? Let them run off and bercome terror-murder- bombers to kill is scores?

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:
So far I haven't been able to find squat that anybody with an IQ over 35 would call evidence this story ain't from the Mother Goose anthology.

His mother gets an anonymous call in Yemen that he's died in Iraq and calls the US army so they can get the word out and to let them know so they won't have to worry about her boy anymore.

More work from the Eyi Bin Lyin school of Arabic sounding names?

It's all very clear to me. The FBI is actually an affiliate of Al Qaeda, and is trying to make America look bad. Ray keeps "Proving" this. Peter keeps "proving" this.

Don't you think all these lying dirty Al Qaeda supporting FBI agents should be shipped off to Guantanmo?

Dave

Wow, what a great conspiracy! I can see it now. Obama takes the oath of office, appoints Senator Durbin the head guy at the FBI and Gitmo and the gustapo is out of business on January 21st, 2009. Wonder what all those agents in dark glasses were doing in Pakistan. Now we know, visiting Osama, cutting deals, and plotting against Cheney..

It may not be beyond the realm of possibility that combatant detainees are released for other purposes. The intelligence business can adjust complexity of operations to suit the needs of gathering or potentially gathering data related to movement, contacts, meetings, and other social affairs of the enemy.

The reasoning to release or keep a combatant detainee must always logically address the likely cost or benefit, in either case.

quote:

Originally posted by peter3_1:
Yes, Dave W = witness, but when you go thru them all, Damned few say W , most say D or d told , a minority say W saw....

You do understand that an un-uniformed combatant can be tried by tribunal and shot dead for no more than have PLANNING to attack? Try this one www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm#anchor641128

Which should we do? Shoot them after conviction? Leave them in jail? Let them run off and bercome terror-murder- bombers to kill is scores?

Did you ever bother to read the Geneva Conventions? I don't think so.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by peter3_1:
Yes, Dave W = witness, but when you go thru them all, Damned few say W , most say D or d told , a minority say W saw....

You do understand that an un-uniformed combatant can be tried by tribunal and shot dead for no more than have PLANNING to attack? Try this one www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm#anchor641128

Which should we do? Shoot them after conviction? Leave them in jail? Let them run off and bercome terror-murder- bombers to kill is scores?

Did you ever bother to read the Geneva Conventions? I don't think so.

Dave

Isn't the Geneva Convention a treaty between Nations dealing with the treatment of legitimate soldiers? I don't believe it was meant to cover thugs and terrorist. Iraq's Republican Guard would be covered under that agreement but not a bunch of armed thugs. In that respect they can not even be considered POW's because they represent no nation only their own twisted agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by Raunchy:

Isn't the Geneva Convention a treaty between Nations dealing with the treatment of legitimate soldiers? I don't believe it was meant to cover thugs and terrorist. Iraq's Republican Guard would be covered under that agreement but not a bunch of armed thugs. In that respect they can not even be considered POW's because they represent no nation only their own twisted agenda.

The modern day Geneva Conventions, that went into force in 1950 were largely written by us to protect out soldiers and also to protect Anti-Soviet, and anti Chinese Gurrilla movements.

A nation need not be a signatory to be covered. Open gurrillas are also covered, even if they have no nation.

They automatically cover anyone who was in the Taliban. What about Al Qaeda? That's a far more "iffy question." Since while they are a gurrilla organisation, they often function as the equivalent of spies. Those who fought openly with the Taliban are covered.

However the Geneva Conventions provide for an independent body to determine if this or that combattant is covered.

In any event, criminal acts that have nothing to do with combat - i.e the WTC, means that those individuals can be tried as criminals. In other words, even if you are captured with arms, which means you are a POW, you can be charged independent of that status as a criminal.

Take a look.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Dave

Out of one slammer, and right into another. If they couldn't be convicted by an American tribunal .. maybe the 'new' Afghan legal system can do it.

Interesting that a yemeni who blows himself up in Iraq would be a 'known quantity' and the Afghans in this story .... well ... who knows, eh?

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/worthington.php?articleid=12815

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:
Out of one slammer, and right into another. If they couldn't be convicted by an American tribunal .. maybe the 'new' Afghan legal system can do it.

Interesting that a yemeni who blows himself up in Iraq would be a 'known quantity' and the Afghans in this story .... well ... who knows, eh?

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/worthington.php?articleid=12815

Hopefully they will be convicted and killed. I hate anti-war bull****...they dont' even know what the F they are talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by Raunchy:

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by peter3_1:
Yes, Dave W = witness, but when you go thru them all, Damned few say W , most say D or d told , a minority say W saw....

You do understand that an un-uniformed combatant can be tried by tribunal and shot dead for no more than have PLANNING to attack? Try this one www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm#anchor641128

Which should we do? Shoot them after conviction? Leave them in jail? Let them run off and bercome terror-murder- bombers to kill is scores?

Did you ever bother to read the Geneva Conventions? I don't think so.

Dave

Isn't the Geneva Convention a treaty between Nations dealing with the treatment of legitimate soldiers? I don't believe it was meant to cover thugs and terrorist. Iraq's Republican Guard would be covered under that agreement but not a bunch of armed thugs. In that respect they can not even be considered POW's because they represent no nation only their own twisted agenda.

I'm reading "P.O.W." the definitive work on Vietnam POW's by John Hubbel: "The next day the interrogation was conducted...'You must understand' he (the NVA interrogator) told Larry (an American pilot shot down and imprisoned in Hanoi, 'that your position here is and always will be that of a criminal You are not now or ever going to be treated in accordance with the Geneva agreements, because this is and undeclared war. You have criminally attacked our people...and you will are always to be treated as a criminal.' Thus, by mid-June, 1965, Hanoi had determined to treat its American prisoners as common criminals."(pg. 54).

If that doesn't give you pause to reconsider I don't know what will. We know well of the horrific torture the North Vietnamese inflicted on our POWs. They justified it by saying our men were criminals. That justification was wrong and so is this one because it is clear that anyone can arbitrarily alter their own definition of the Geneva conventions to fit their own designs. That is a bad road to start down.

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:
A nation need not be a signatory to be covered. Open gurrillas are also covered, even if they have no nation.

They automatically cover anyone who was in the Taliban. What about Al Qaeda? That's a far more "iffy question." Since while they are a gurrilla organisation, they often function as the equivalent of spies. Those who fought openly with the Taliban are covered.

However the Geneva Conventions provide for an independent body to determine if this or that combattant is covered.

Dave, you should probably read the GC again.

In order to be a POW per Article 4 a "combatant" must 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.

The Taliban / Al Qaeda does not meet conditions b, c, or d do they?

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:
A nation need not be a signatory to be covered. Open gurrillas are also covered, even if they have no nation.

They automatically cover anyone who was in the Taliban. What about Al Qaeda? That's a far more "iffy question." Since while they are a gurrilla organisation, they often function as the equivalent of spies. Those who fought openly with the Taliban are covered.

However the Geneva Conventions provide for an independent body to determine if this or that combattant is covered.

Dave, you should probably read the GC again.

In order to be a POW per Article 4 a "combatant" must 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.

The Taliban / Al Qaeda does not meet conditions b, c, or d do they?

As I pointed out, the rules cover the Taliban fighters. And as I said, Al Qaeda fighters are "iffy."

Mind you, they don't have to be wearing a uniform.

But if you look through ALL the rules, disputes as to a POW's status are settled by an impartial, independent body. Did you see that happen?

Some of the Al Qaeda fighters no doubt meet the rules, some don't. And even if they ARE legitimate POW's, doesn't mean they can't be tried for War Crimes.

If you have agreed to a treaty, you can't suddenly pick and choose which part to obey and which to disregard. Just as you can't be a little bit pregnent.

Are there Taliban fighters at Guantanamo who are classed as "enemy combatants" simply because they ARE Taliban fighters?

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:
PTSD gitmo-style. Instead of getting a skinful and piling a new Mustang into a bridge abutment, strap on a belt full of plastique and ball bearings and leave a real mark.

Even the guys running places like Gitmo know they're 'creating monsters'.

I think they were monsters before they got there, pop.

quote:

Originally posted by godawgz:
Pops, you just reminded me of another good use for duck tape....