Prison inmates committing suicide now an act of warfare on the US by Khyron

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah, becasue WE are "lawful combatants" (who just happened to unlawfully invade a nation) and therefore deserve GC treatment.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

Yech. Patooey. Somebody's putting words in my mouth again.

The question is just what it says. "Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?"

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:10 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Hell. I can answer that easily, assuming you mean a Marine shooting an unarmed civilian with no justification. The Marine should go to jail. The insurgent is, although on the wrong side, IMHO, performing a legitimate military action. Now, if he set off an IED in a marketplace...that's another matter.

Geezer, I told you I wasn't going to play by your rules, at least not until you play by mine first (hey I got in there first, first in first out):

So why should we expect people who we've decided aren't allowed the protection of the GC to be bound by it?

Why are you surprised they don't respect the rights of our soldiers when we don't respect their rights?

Why's it okay for us to break the GC but not them?

Why's it okay for America to be 'not as bad as the terrorists'?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?"

That's not what's happening. That's why I challenge your scenario. But let's deconstruct your statment by first figuring out who is the "POW". That means we first have to figure out who is the "legal combatant". Once we figure out who the POWs are then we can figure out if "we" let "most of them go" and of "they" kill "most of them".

---------------------------------
I'm with Citizen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:21 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
People had been saying that terrorists would crash planes into the World Trade Center since they upped the security on their basement in response to the bombing.

Ah, there's the rub. I am sure the powers that be have dreamed up all the bad scenarios (and looked to Hollywood for the rest). But how do you prevent the unlimited scenarios from coming about with limited resources? How do you pick and choose where to best utilize your limited resources? Say airline security was tightened up before 9/11. Does that mean instead of what happened, a ship carrying a 'dirty bomb' docks at N.Y. Harbour instead? I do not mean to hijack this thread but it seems to be a little too easy to say this tragedy or others could have been prevented.

Quote:

What amazed me was that that is all that happened. Two planes in New York, one we think was meant for the White House, one at The Pentagon, and possibly one more target unknown that never lifted off that day.

Five planes out of something like 4,000 over the US. It's a blessing really, I wasn't expecting anything less than ten, and really I thought that was such a low estimate.

Some would say, myself included, that one plane was too many.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:09 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?"
That's not what's happening.

Prove me wrong. Provide some evidence that either: 1. The Coalition forces are executing most prisoners they take, or 2. The Iraqi insurgency is letting most of their prisoners go free. You can't. I await your next session of bobbing and weaving.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:31 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Geezer, I told you I wasn't going to play by your rules, at least not until you play by mine first (hey I got in there first, first in first out):

Hey, I answered your question, and only expect you to do the same. But anyway...

Quote:
So why should we expect people who we've decided aren't allowed the protection of the GC to be bound by it?

If the insurgents treated Iraqi forces the same as we treat prisoners at Guantanamo, that would be a valid comparison. They don't. They kill them all.

Quote:
Why are you surprised they don't respect the rights of our soldiers when we don't respect their rights?

I would be surprised if they respectd the rights of our soldiers, or the new Iraqi army soldiers, regardless of what we do to their prisoners. Can you provide any reason for me to think otherwise?

Quote:
Why's it okay for us to break the GC but not them??

That assumes we are breaking the GC. That determination will have to wait until some body decides if Taliban and al-Qieda operatives are lawful combatants or not. In the opinion of our government, they are not. Note that we still treat our prisoners better than they do theirs. Ours are still alive.

Quote:
Why's it okay for America to be 'not as bad as the terrorists'?

More like "...not nearly as bad as the terrorists". I would never claim that US forces havn't committed questionable acts. But even the worst pale in comparison to the everyday operations of the Iraqi insurgency.

So, is there, in your opinion, just as a theoretical excercise, any difference between an organization that releases most of its prisoners, and one that executes most of its prisoners? Although I have answered your questions, I expect that you once again will avoid answering mine.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:35 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
People had been saying that terrorists would crash planes into the World Trade Center since they upped the security on their basement in response to the bombing.
Ah, there's the rub. I am sure the powers that be have dreamed up all the bad scenarios (and looked to Hollywood for the rest).

Well it was the same people who warned the owners of the center ahead of time that there would be a vehicle bomb in the basement, and were ignored then too obviously.

They only ever made two predictions.

First they said there would be a vehicle bomb in the basement, there was, then they said hijacked airplanes would be crashed into the towers, then their leader died saving people on September 11th when hijacked airplanes crashed into the towers.

Quote:
But how do you prevent the unlimited scenarios from coming about with limited resources? How do you pick and choose where to best utilize your limited resources? Say airline security was tightened up before 9/11. Does that mean instead of what happened, a ship carrying a 'dirty bomb' docks at N.Y. Harbour instead? I do not mean to hijack this thread but it seems to be a little too easy to say this tragedy or others could have been prevented.

However the reason it could have been prevented has nothing to do with the fact we knew the Trade Center would be taken out that way ahead of time, that's just why it shouldn't have come as too much of a surprise to anyone who paid attention.

Why it was preventable is that we have, for a long time, known that passenger planes are a very real threat if they end up in the wrong hands, giant firebombs that can rain out of the sky, and we knew that terrorists were training to fly those planes.

So what if airline security was tightened? Well the time and effort that went into training pilots was wasted, they need to come up with a new plan, and they'd need to get weapons if they wanted to park a bomb in the harbor. It would have bought us time if nothing else.

I think your being unrealistic here, if you want to stop an attack from happening then you're lost, you can't do it. If you want to stop this attack from happening you can.

One thing at a time, we knew they were training, we knew where they were, we knew what they were training for (flying planes) that's enough to stop what was being planned then, after that you move onto what's next.

Quote:
Some would say, myself included, that one plane was too many.

I agree that one is too many, but think about it the other way around for a moment.

The Poseidon Adventure with Adam Baldwin was on the other day and at the end everyone was cheering because nine survivors got out just in a nick of time (sorry if I ruined it all for you) and one person in the room where the rescue operation was run from didn't get it.

Nine out of a large number, 1100 I think, she was thinking about the ones that died, and not the ones that lived, and for that reason she didn't understand the celebration. Yet I bet if you put it to her the other way, "Here's nine people, if would it be worth it to save them," no doubt she'd say yes, and if she only knew about the nine people she'd look at it as worthy of celebration when they were saved.

She couldn't see what was right in front of her: life.

You're looking at it through her eyes.

It would have been easy for them to wipe the Pentagon off the map, killed everyone in it in the process. If they knew about buildings at all they could have made the first tower fall as quickly as the second did, think of how much less time there would be to evacuate.

Think about other buildings that could have been hit.

Think about every single life that could have been lost that wasn't. Each one is a gift, a blessing if you're religious and a happy accident if you aren't, but a gift none the less.

-

It could have been worse, and considering how shitily we were looking after this country it probably should have been worse, but it wasn't.

It was four planes too many, five if you count the one that might have been, but it was so much better than it could have been. That was lucky, not for the ones who died obviously, but for the ones who didn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:36 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:

They only ever made two predictions.

First they said there would be a vehicle bomb in the basement, there was, then they said hijacked airplanes would be crashed into the towers, then their leader died saving people on September 11th when hijacked airplanes crashed into the towers.

Well put Chris. They should have covered the two towers in bubble wrap.

I see your point but I was speaking in more general terms. I'm going to guess that most if not all federal buildings have had a bomb threat in their historys. How about the Anthrax campaign or the dirty bomb campaign. I believe a few cities water supplies were threatened with contamination. It was examples like these that I was talking about. Could these things happen, not likely. But they are definently all possible. Perhaps the reason no one can find bin Laden is because he is presently tunneling under the ocean in a bid to dig up underneath the White House in order to give Bush a good tounge lashing. Oh no, I can hear the Pirates already.

Quote:

Think about every single life that could have been lost that wasn't. Each one is a gift, a blessing if you're religious and a happy accident if you aren't, but a gift none the less.

Well put sir.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?

But we haven't figured out who the POW's are yet, so how can I answer your question? More specifically- if "our" guys are captured, are they POWs?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I went looking for the answer. According to Geezer "our guys" are "lawful combatants" altho engaged in an unlawful action.

I wonder how many of "our guys" were captured? The Pentagram doesn't say.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:42 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?
But we haven't figured out who the POW's are yet, so how can I answer your question? More specifically- if "our" guys are captured, are they POWs?

Yep. Here's the bob.

As noted above, we held up to 7,500 Iraqis during the first 30 days of Iraqi Freedom, had released 1000, and were releasing more at a rate of 200-300 a day. Plans are in place to release around 120 Guantanamo detainees as soon as we can find some place that'll take them.

And if "our" guys, Coalition or new Iraqi Army, are captured and then executed, it doesn't really matter much to them whether the Geneve Conventions would define them as POWs, now does it? They're still dead.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:05 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I went looking for the answer. According to Geezer "our guys" are "lawful combatants" altho engaged in an unlawful action.

I wonder how many of "our guys" were captured? The Pentagram doesn't say.

And the weave.

Actually, the American "our guys" are lawful combatants according to the Geneva Conventions. Again, as noted above, this is the same as German soldiers in WWII being lawful combatants. Nine Americans were reported as captured and interned by Saddam's regular forces early in the war. Eight were eventually returned.

The Iraqi "our guys" are uniformed forces of the democratically elected government of Iraq, and so should be considered lawful combatants engaged in quelling insurrection*. I don't have exact numbers, but anyone who watches the news should be familiar with multiple reports of Iraqi soldiers (as well as police and government employees) captured, bound, and executed.

Now back to the original question. Consider it hypothetical, not applying to any particular situation, just in general: "Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?"

*As an aside, the insurrectionists who fight according to the rules of war are also lawful combatants. Mass execution of prisoners would move them into the "unlawful combatants" column.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So according to Geezer, "they" treat our lawful combatants well. End of discussion.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:38 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So according to Geezer, "they" treat our lawful combatants well. End of discussion.

Oh, come on.

But I guess the discussion is over. You can't honestly answer my question without undermining your dogma, so it's pretty obvious that you'll just continue to protest ignorance of facts that have been all over the news, play word games, take statements so far out of context they end up in the next state, and otherwise avoid the real issue. Since you can't actually provide any information that supports your assertions, you retreat to cheap word tricks and intellectual dishonesty. Strange how it always ends this way - me answering your questions to the best of my ability, and you playing dodgeball.

Now, just take a few bits from the above out of context, put a few more words in my mouth, and pretend you're actually making a point.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Now back to the original question. Consider it hypothetical, not applying to any particular situation, just in general: "Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?"

I see a difference. The side letting them go can be considered to be, on the whole, more humane.
Is that what you were looking for, Geezer?
Yeah, we definitly are the 'gooder' guys when you look at our official actions.

But I don't want us to be just 'better' than them, I want us to set the example of nobility, which The U.S. is far from doing right now.

Sorry, I sometimes ask for too much...

Patriot Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:56 AM

AMITON

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yeah, we definitly are the 'gooder' guys when you look at our official actions.

But I don't want us to be just 'better' than them, I want us to set the example of nobility, which The U.S. is far from doing right now.

Sorry, I sometimes ask for too much...

Patriot Chrisisall

I think we would all love to be the model example of nobility, CiA. It's not terribly realistic given the circumstances, though.

There is a litany of reasons no participant state in a war of any scale is going to make that criteria. The most glaring one to me is that if you're playing war and trying to be nice at the same time then you're going to lose, and you're going to lose ugly. Unfortunately, once we make a decision on that either way, we'll never know how taking the other option would have ended up.

Another reason we're not going to come out of this situation pristinely is because laws and policies are confusing. I'll freely admit that the entrance requirements to be in the military don't require an overabundance of schooling. When the "boots on the ground" get confused about something and need an answer right now, as is often the situation in conflicts involving weapons, then they're going to go with whatever sounds best to them at the time. Unfortunately, that's not always the best option.

Beyond that, there are some genuinely bad people involved (on both sides and at all levels), and there are a lot of good people seeing a lot of bad things that cause really nasty emotions. Seeing friends die, wanting vengence, mixed messages in the war for public opinion, good plans gone bad, feeling like the policymakers are tying your hands and setting you up for failure (whether true or not) - all of these very emotional issues and more have a very real impact on every soldier (on both sides) at every level. Emotional issues usually equal blurry decisions, and while just about everyone wants to stay on the moral high road and do good works and stuff - and many, even most, manage to from start to finish - so many break down and succumb to the pressure after a while.

And one last point about it...anybody who has been around the military can summon to mind an image of what happens in the tremendous game of telephone that goes on from the top of the military decision making chain as it goes through the various iterations down to the field commander. How much of that has to do with some general, SES-3, or senior CIA officer saying something like "I wonder what would happen if we just shot anyone driving up to a checkpoint that we didn't recognize" or "I wish we could still use the old methods to get answers out of the prisoners that we have" as an offhand comment that was overheard by a zealot that wanted to make his boss happy.

It's a messy business, this fighting thing. Truth be told, it's always better if we can realistically avoid it, but here we are chest-deep in it.

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:

It's a messy business, this fighting thing. Truth be told, it's always better if we can realistically avoid it, but here we are chest-deep in it.

Nicely put, A.

It's just that , for instance, torture being allowed (OR encouraged) is a decision from the top. The peeps at the bottom can be excused much by the pressures, violent circumstances, etc., but when you start with a mean, near-inhuman attitude high up, well, that just makes it so much worse for the boys ang girls on the ground, not to mention the conflict in general.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:19 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I see a difference. The side letting them go can be considered to be, on the whole, more humane.
Is that what you were looking for, Geezer?
Yeah, we definitly are the 'gooder' guys when you look at our official actions.

But I don't want us to be just 'better' than them, I want us to set the example of nobility, which The U.S. is far from doing right now.

I don't disagree. There's stuff going on I'm not happy with either, both foreign and domestic. So, starting from now, since the past is pretty much fixed, what do you see the US as needing to do to set an example of nobility?

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:21 AM

RHODRI

Hey guys, if our respective leaders can't figure it out even with the expert advisers, what hope do we have.
The war on terror is a vague knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. It is unfocused, unachievable and unwise.
While some terror groups can be targetted and dealt with by conventional methods (i.e. special forces tactics)to declare war on an ideology is insane!
But here's the rub folks, to the Muslim world it looks as if the USA has declared war not just on Al Quaeda, but on Muslims in general. And we Brits have also been dragged into the mire with you.
Anybody remember Vietnam?
The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend! When will we ever learn?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Actually, what I'm getting out of this discussion is that you intend to restrict the topic to how "lawful combatants" are treated. And as far as that goes, the USA and Iraq are about on par in terms of how they treat each other's lawful combatants. The issue - which is what started this whole thread- is how so-called "unlawful" combatants are treated. Since you're avoiding that topic in your scenario, I'm avoiding your scenario.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rhodri:
And we Brits have also been dragged into the mire with you.

On behalf of my country, sorry mate.
Be a bit different were I in charge...

Vote for Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So, starting from now, since the past is pretty much fixed, what do you see the US as needing to do to set an example of nobility?

Nothing we can do in that direction, till the bush is uprooted.

Then I'd say we, as a country, should admit our past government's mistakes, appologize and attempt to make amends. Show the Muslim world that we respect their true religion...I dunno, be nice, y'know?

"They can be a great people, Kal-El, They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way."

Chrisisall from Krypton

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The issue - which is what started this whole thread- is how so-called "unlawful" combatants are treated.

Signy, Maybe Geezer considers your 'combative' arguments 'unlawful', and therefore he has the right to treat them any way he wants, no matter what the Haken Convention says.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The problem is as Citizen put it: Geezer wants unlawful combatants to be bound by the Geneva Convention but not protected by it. And by avoiding the issue of unlawful combatants, Geezer seeks to paint "us good- them bad".

If we DON'T deliberately turn a blind eye to a large part of the picture, we should look at:

how lawful combatants treat each other
how lawful combatants treat unlawful combatants
how unlawful combatants treat lawful combatants

"Asymmetric warfare" indeed!

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:36 AM

Quality post as usual, Amiton. Just one point of contention for me:

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
The most glaring one to me is that if you're playing war and trying to be nice at the same time then you're going to lose, and you're going to lose ugly.

In a conventional war, I agree, unless the 'nice' participant state is also vastly superior (we'll leave aside the question for now of whether the US is vastly superior). However, this isn't a conventional war, it's been made into a war of principles and ideals, at least by the propaganda machine after it turned out there were no WMDs, maybe even a bit before that. It's a war of 'freedom, peace and respect for human life' vs 'terror, evil and disregard for human life'. In this case, one of the sides has to play nice, otherwise it has a real danger of being seen as becoming what it's fighting.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:47 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originaly posted by Geezer:
Hey, I answered your question, and only expect you to do the same. But anyway...

Well not really, but we'll get to that.

Quote:
If the insurgents treated Iraqi forces the same as we treat prisoners at Guantanamo, that would be a valid comparison. They don't. They kill them all.

That doesn't answer my question, that's you wriggling out of answering it.

Maybe the answer would 'undermine' your 'dogma'?

Quote:
I would be surprised if they respectd the rights of our soldiers, or the new Iraqi army soldiers, regardless of what we do to their prisoners. Can you provide any reason for me to think otherwise?

I would be surprised if the current US administration respected their rights regardless of how they treated the coalition soldiers. Can you provide any reason for me to think otherwise?

Quote:
That assumes we are breaking the GC. That determination will have to wait until some body decides if Taliban and al-Qieda operatives are lawful combatants or not. In the opinion of our government, they are not. Note that we still treat our prisoners better than they do theirs. Ours are still alive.

So they aren't breaking the GC either? I'm just not sure, since they aren't protected they are not bound either so for the same reasons it's okay to treat detainees in a way that would brake the GC if the Admin hadn't decided it didn't apply, it's surely okay for the insurgents to do the same? You know strictly speaking brake the GC because they aren't really breaking it?

Maybe the Insurgents have decided they can treat the coalition soldiers how ever they wish, just like Bush has?

Quote:
More like "...not nearly as bad as the terrorists". I would never claim that US forces havn't committed questionable acts. But even the worst pale in comparison to the everyday operations of the Iraqi insurgency.

Yeah the insurgency blow up a car to kill civilians, or a strike Helicopter swoops in to launch a rocket into the middle of them.

Quote:
Although I have answered your questions, I expect that you once again will avoid answering mine.

You haven't answered any of my questions, did a good job of pretending to though.

Quote:
So, is there, in your opinion, just as a theoretical excercise, any difference between an organization that releases most of its prisoners, and one that executes most of its prisoners?

Well it depends doesn't it: Death Row to Kindergarten maybe? Or all American detainees compared to the strict few extreme groups you wish to consider? I mean this question doesn't have all that much to do with the topic so how it could undermine my 'dogma'? I have no idea.

Gitmo compared to any insurgent group, not really much difference to be honest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:18 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, what I'm getting out of this discussion is that you intend to restrict the topic to how "lawful combatants" are treated. And as far as that goes, the USA and Iraq are about on par in terms of how they treat each other's lawful combatants. The issue - which is what started this whole thread- is how so-called "unlawful" combatants are treated. Since you're avoiding that topic in your scenario, I'm avoiding your scenario.

Nah. Discussion over. You're still making unjustified statements and putting words in my mouth which I never said, or even hinted at. No point in me enabling your problem with honest discussion.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:24 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Nothing we can do in that direction, till the bush is uprooted.

2.5 years and he's gone. You working on a replacement more to your liking?

Quote:
Then I'd say we, as a country, should admit our past government's mistakes, appologize and attempt to make amends. Show the Muslim world that we respect their true religion...I dunno, be nice, y'know?

I generally agree, although the Muslims who consider the Burqa and Honor Killings their true religion probably won't get my respect.

Any suggestions about Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghaistan, the war on terror, etc?

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:45 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That doesn't answer my question, that's you wriggling out of answering it...Maybe the answer would 'undermine' your 'dogma'?

Fair enough. Here's your question:

"So why should we expect people who we've decided aren't allowed the protection of the GC to be bound by it?"

I don't expect them to be bound by it. However, that does not make mass executions of bound prisoners any less a crime, if not under the Geneva Conventions, then under other rules of war, and also under civil law. Coalition forces executing Iraqi prisoners would also be a crime, and in the few instances proved, have been treated as such.

You seem to be suggesting that just because the US does not consider some prisoners as covered under the Geneva Conventions, there are no restrictions at all on their treatment. This is, of course, not so, and you probably know that, even if you don't admit it. Rules for treatment of prisoners at Gitmo have been in the media several times.

Quote:
I would be surprised if the current US administration respected their rights regardless of how they treated the coalition soldiers. Can you provide any reason for me to think otherwise?

Now, now. I did, after all, ask first.

Quote:
So they aren't breaking the GC either? I'm just not sure, since they aren't protected they are not bound either so for the same reasons it's okay to treat detainees in a way that would brake the GC if the Admin hadn't decided it didn't apply, it's surely okay for the insurgents to do the same? You know strictly speaking brake the GC because they aren't really breaking it?

Maybe the Insurgents have decided they can treat the coalition soldiers how ever they wish, just like Bush has?

And once again...if the Iraqi insurgents were treating their prisoners like we treat the ones at Gitmo, that would be a fair comparison. They don't. You know this. You seem to have no problem with it. Why is that?

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Any suggestions about Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghaistan, the war on terror, etc?

Iraq is such a mess, I'd honestly need a lot more first-hand knowledge to make that kind of determination on what to do...I'm generally a tidy chap, not good at cleaning up other's spills.

Close Gitmo permanently, get off Cuban soil, & lift embargo, btw.
Put POW's in a real camp on U.S. soil.

Call off so-called 'War on Terror', it's silly and jingoistic and trite. Maintain armoured presence at the request of local leaders, and kill anyone w/a SAM or rocket launcher.

Put money into intel on possible terrorist plots, and take away money from the 'War on Psuedophederine', and other non-issue BS in this country. Who cares if a H.S. student has a buzz from cold medicine, if people are DYING for real because our assets are misplaced?

Fire everybody in government at any level that dismissed the theories on crashing planes into buildings, and make them work at Wendy's!!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:59 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Those committing asymmetric warfare will be dealt with severely !

Damn their cleverness - they escaped punishment.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:04 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Those committing asymmetric warfare will be dealt with severely !

Damn their cleverness - they escaped punishment.

Sigh. So the whole "Nacho Liberal" tag-team is back together again.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:05 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Now I resent this, the administration being constantly misquoted. Don't you know by now - it's "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists!"

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
If you're not for us, you're against us. Bring them on. Mission accomplished.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Should I have put a smiley face just so you would know IT'S A JOKE ! ?

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Those committing asymmetric warfare will be dealt with severely !

Damn their cleverness - they escaped punishment.

Sigh. So the whole "Nacho Liberal" tag-team is back together again.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

Dude, get over yourself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:07 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You seem to be suggesting that just because the US does not consider some prisoners as covered under the Geneva Conventions, there are no restrictions at all on their treatment. This is, of course, not so, and you probably know that, even if you don't admit it. Rules for treatment of prisoners at Gitmo have been in the media several times.

Torture and camps where bad people are 'concentrated' are okay, because we don't chop their heads off or gas them in the showers? Please.

You seem to be suggesting that it's okay because the US isn't as bad as a bunch of Terrorists. This is, of course, not so.

Quote:
Now, now. I did, after all, ask first.

*rolls eyes*
Nope, I'm sure they still would, they just wouldn't be able to say look at what the Americans do. You wouldn't have Muslims around the world looking at America, which on the one hand says "we're your friend" and on the other locks in many cases civilians up without trial or evidence and has a tendency to be a might trigger happy around the same unarmed civilians.

Basically the coalition is the one talking about belief in life freedom and justice, and denying those things on a whim. Yeah the Terrorist are doing the same thing but their talking about killing the infidels. Basically they're living up to what they say are they're goals and ideals, we are not.

Quote:
And once again...if the Iraqi insurgents were treating their prisoners like we treat the ones at Gitmo, that would be a fair comparison. They don't. You know this. You seem to have no problem with it. Why is that?

Please. The difference is they kill their prisoners, Gitmo leaves the prisoners to do it to themselves.

My problem is that the "land of the free" is perfectly happy to deny freedom and justice on a whim. But hey it's okay because it only done to the baddies.

How come you don't have problem with torture (as long as it's Americans doing the torturing)?

Quote:
Sigh. So the whole "Nacho Liberal" tag-team is back together again.

Yeah, dirty Liberals. Anyone would think they were real people who deserve an opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Sigh. So the whole "Nacho Liberal" tag-team is back together again.

"Now you're abusing sarcasm."

Chrisisall Summers

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:49 AM

AMITON

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quality post as usual, Amiton. Just one point of contention for me:
Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
The most glaring one to me is that if you're playing war and trying to be nice at the same time then you're going to lose, and you're going to lose ugly.

In a conventional war, I agree, unless the 'nice' participant state is also vastly superior (we'll leave aside the question for now of whether the US is vastly superior). However, this isn't a conventional war, it's been made into a war of principles and ideals, at least by the propaganda machine after it turned out there were no WMDs, maybe even a bit before that. It's a war of 'freedom, peace and respect for human life' vs 'terror, evil and disregard for human life'. In this case, one of the sides has to play nice, otherwise it has a real danger of being seen as becoming what it's fighting.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

Duly noted. And while the concept behind the war is thoroughly retarded in terms of fighting an ideal, it is still real people using real munitions to inflict harm with malice on another group of people. That's the war I was talking about.

We're in a bigger pile of crap than just throwing money into the appeasement pit of fighting an ideal, however. For one, while we're not actually stepping up on the entire Muslim world, there is an appearance that we are, and until somebody figures out how to fix that then we are truly pissing into the wind so to speak.

There's a parallel problem in that we can't *freaking tell* who our enemy is. That equates to not only having everyone on edge because "the good guys" don't know who we're supposed to be ready to shoot if necessary, but they also easily infiltrate the army and police forces. I'm going to ignore the rehiring of oppositiion forces into those groups on purpose.

There's a lot of grass roots support for the insurgency as well. It can be as small as the talking heads say it is, but that's still big enough to house, hide, misdirect, and offer alibis for the people we're after. Bad business, that.

Oh yeah, and about that grassroots support...we have no way to get a hold of them. Even if we had access to their homes and information networks, it would be propaganda wars. It's like someone that wholeheartedly believes what PirateNews spews...there's a conspiracy in every shadow, and if you're looking for it that hard then it becomes impossible to not see it. We're either never going to get around that little snag, or there *will* be war crimes tribunals over that, because they would have to be summarily put to genocide for that idea to go away entirely. What's that? Circular logic and a self-feeding cycle? Oh yeah.

I just wish I had some way to get a clear picture. Sadly, though, I just don't think that there is a clear picture to see. This whole war on terror business is a cluster, and we're the ones that are going to end up humped at the end of the day.

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Let me get back to the original point of the thread. The Pentagram considers suicide an act of asymmetric warfare. After that kind of statement, can you believe ANYTHING they say???

I mean, that's worthy of Kafka and "Memoirs Found in a Bathtub". But not to worry!

I'm sure Geezer will find a way to defend-misdirect-trivialize-ignore the whole issue!

---------------------------------
Oh, wait.... he already did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

That kind of Pentagram statement just drives the insurgents into more of a frenzy. That's not surprising since it drives me into a frenzy too. Here we have a group of people who have been held for years with no charges. Many of them (as documented by the FBI) were tied in stress positions for 18 hours at a time, and according to some of the released detainees were water-boarded. No wonder we can't release them! The stories they might tell!

When some of them tried a hunger strike, they were forced-fed with (roughly inserted and removed) naso-gastric tubes. Talk about feeling like you have no way out. Suicide starts to look like a reasonable alternative.

So- how do you fight a "War on Terror"? Not by using terrorist tactics, that's for damn sure. And not by invading a nation of essentially uninvolved people either. Think about it- Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and no WMD. Iraqis had no reason to hate us... then. But now... well, that's a different story.

Do we really think we're going to win a "War on Terror" by setting up permanent military bases in Iraq, deconstructing and "privatizing" their economy, and creating a theocracy? Not bloody likely!

We need to separate insurgents from terrorists. Right now, they have a common enemy- us. Split Iraq in three. Let the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites take care of their own security. That way nobody feels that they're at the mercy of anyone. Give them each their own elections. Throw the Sunnis a bone- pay them off with lots of international aid; it's a lot cheaper than war. Give them something to work for instead of fighting against.

Once Iraq is split in three it becomes less of a tempting target. Give each section a different external security guarantor that's NOT US. Iran can handle southern Iraq, Russia might want northern Iraq, and Saudi Arabia can take care of central Iraq.

STOP funding permanent USA military bases in Iraq. Let the Iraqis decide on their own business models- not just a carbon-copy of Bremmer's pillaging. Give them the reins to their own government for crying out loud. They'll be so busy trying to make things work they won't have time to get involved with foreign meddlers!

Once we stop making Iraq a point of contention then we can REALLY focus on the "War on Terror" which in point of fact has nothing to do with Iraq.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:23 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I just have to get into the possible puns here.

For example:

Gitmo Prisoners Dying for Media Attention
Gitmo Prisoners Just Hanging Around
Gitmo Prisoners Have a Swinging Time

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonF:
It's also a "good PR move to draw attention" according to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I did a little more reading of Slick's answers.

What he doesn't tell you is that ALL prisoners are to be treated humanely. There are just two specific differences between 'protected' prisoners and those who are not : 1) free access to outside communication (but international agencies allowed), and 2) legal representation (equivocal reading).

However, torture, humiliation, threats against family members etc are not allowed whether protected or not. Also, medical personnel are forbidden to participate in torture for all prisoners.

There is a misconception - which Slick is only to happy to foster - that if a prisoner is not protected by the Geneva Convention then anything goes. Or at least, it's vague and ill-defined territory. Nothing could be less true.

to quote from SignyM:

I'm sure Geezer will find a way to defend-misdirect-trivialize-ignore the whole issue!

---------------------------------
Oh, wait.... he already did.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:38 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah, becasue WE are "lawful combatants" (who just happened to unlawfully invade a nation) and therefore deserve GC treatment.
---------------------------------
According to Geezer "our guys" are "lawful combatants" altho engaged in an unlawful action.
---------------------------------
So according to Geezer, "they" treat our lawful combatants well. End of discussion.
---------------------------------
Actually, what I'm getting out of this discussion is that you intend to restrict the topic to how "lawful combatants" are treated.
---------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Chrisisall:
Signy, Maybe Geezer considers your 'combative' arguments 'unlawful', and therefore he has the right to treat them any way he wants, no matter what the Haken Convention says.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The problem is as Citizen put it: Geezer wants unlawful combatants to be bound by the Geneva Convention but not protected by it. And by avoiding the issue of unlawful combatants, Geezer seeks to paint "us good- them bad".
----------------------------------------
But not to worry! I'm sure Geezer will find a way to defend-misdirect-trivialize-ignore the whole issue!

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
There is a misconception - which Slick is only to happy to foster - that if a prisoner is not protected by the Geneva Convention then anything goes. Or at least, it's vague and ill-defined territory. Nothing could be less true.

This is so cool! I don't even have to spend any time actually participating in the discussion to be part of it. Of course, what I actually say or think doesn't get accurately reflected in these little attempts at mind reading, but that would just interfere with your rants anyway.

Here's some stuff to keep you raving. I'll check back in a while to see if you need more.

"America is not perfect, but is far from evil"
"The economy is doing pretty good"
"Iraq will turn out all right"

And one to really hack you off:

Suicide is forbidden by Islam, but not martyrdom. The recent world has plenty of examples of Muslims killing themselves in attacks against their enemies. Suicude belts - Suicide car bombs - Suicide planes into buildings...then off to paradise and your virgins. With no other resources to fight with, dedicated Jihadists might consider coordinated suicide a propaganda strike against the infidels, hence a martyrdom. Asymmetric warfare, if you please.

Enjoy.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"The economy is doing pretty good"

I can't believe you just said this!! That is really pissing me off now!! How can you say that!?!? Slick, it's "The economy is doing pretty WELL", not "good"! You surely must be the anti-Christ! This is war, Slick!!

Seriously though, Geezer, let's assume for argument's sake that it was nothing more than a propaganda move by the inmates.
i) Do you really think propaganda moves are an act of warfare? Propaganda is often associated with warfare, but that doesn't make it an act of war. Otherwise pretty much anything can be seen by the administration as an act of warfare, which is probably what it wants so that it can invade countries "in retaliation" as it pleases.
ii) If the suicides are seen as an anti-American PR move, what do you think that comment that they're an act of asymmetric warfare is? Of course it wasn't intended to be, but it's pissing a lot of Americans off, so you can imagine how pissed the rest of the world is at this. This will just be fuel for the fire, and so if that dude who said it thinks propaganda is an act of warfare, then, well, he just unintentionally committed treason.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

"America is not perfect, but is far from evil"

Geezer, I was just goofing on ya back there, but seriously, this is my entire problem right here.

ONE MAN gets tortured (or neglected- take your pick) to the point that death seems like a good idea, and we've touched that evil.
The more it happens and is not CRUSHED where it is, the more we are embracing evil.

We put these things into place for reasons, reasons that would not sit too well with Christ or Buddha.
We are NOT that far from evil, and your inability to either see or admit it is the real bone of contention for me with you on this thread.

That said, you are a decent fellow, don't take this a a big slam, I have my blind spots as well.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
With no other resources to fight with, dedicated Jihadists might consider coordinated suicide a propaganda strike against the infidels, hence a martyrdom. Asymmetric warfare, if you please.

Oh YEAH??? I'll show YOU! (stabs self in eye) SEE? How do you like THIS??? (cuts off own finger) Take THAT! (shoots self in knee) And now - I'll REALLY get you! (stabs self in heart)

---------------------------------
Geezer, the defender of evil, applauds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:18 AM

Looks like SignyM just committed an act of genocide on himself. Take THAT, America!

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

Ahh, you'll just have them kill themselves in your asymmetrical war against France.

Vive, oui, morte, NO!!! Tan pis...Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:51 AM

Well, I do hate the French...

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:36 AM