This is not a dictatorship

[_JS]

You're referring to American criminals, NOT foreign soldiers Js.  Apples & Oranges

You're wrong. Some of those I mentioned were foreigners, executed in the United States.

The uniform was a big help

In other words your comparison with World War II POW's was a load of shit.

And these SOLDIERS who've been rounded & taken off the battlefield up are still provided 3 meals a day AND their own Korans AND multiple times to pray AND many other perks I'm not sure I'd have provided those who've sworn an oath to kill the great satan.

You mean these SOLDIERS who were sworn to kill Americans...where the MAJORITY have been realeased because they DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG?

Let's be honest here, this is NOTHING like what we were doing with Asian-looking people during WWII

I never brought that up.

[sirs]

You're referring to American criminals, NOT foreign soldiers Js.  Apples & Oranges

You're wrong. Some of those I mentioned were foreigners, executed in the United States.

For what??  You saying they were working for some international terrorist organization, analogous to AlQeada?

The uniform was a big help

In other words your comparison with World War II POW's was a load of shit.

What the frell?  You keep brining up how so many have been released now compared to WWII detainees, and I give a perfectly rational reason why, and that translates in some mutation of your above sentence??

And these SOLDIERS who've been rounded & taken off the battlefield up are still provided 3 meals a day AND their own Korans AND multiple times to pray AND many other perks I'm not sure I'd have provided those who've sworn an oath to kill the great satan.

You mean these SOLDIERS who were sworn to kill Americans...where the MAJORITY have been realeased because they DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG?

No, I mean the soldiers that are still being detained, not the ones they determined not to have or at least no longer a threat to our soldiers.  It is a whole hell of a lot more difficult when our current enemy disguises themselves to look just like the civilians.  Pretty cowardly act, yet Tee calls our soldiers the cowards.  Go figure

Let's be honest here, this is NOTHING like what we were doing with Asian-looking people during WWII

I never brought that up.

Then why the reference to internment camps ala the Japaneses in WWII??

[Richpo64]

Actually under the rules of war, these folks should be shot as spies where and when they are found. It certainly would alleviate all the whining from the "Rights for Terrorists" crowd.

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually under the rules of war, these folks should be shot as spies where and when they are found. It certainly would alleviate all the whining from the "Rights for Terrorists" crowd.>>

At least it would be more humane than torturing them. 

And they could return the favour to captured Americans, too.

Might start a whole new trend in urban guerrilla warfare:  Take No Prisoners!  The Geneva Convention for the 21st Century!

[Plane]

To apply the Geneva convention as it stands would indeed have us executeing a lot of these guys for fighting out of uniform.


Is that really a good idea?

And they could return the favour to captured Americans, too.

Why is that an issue?
Don't we expect them to treat their captives very badly ,with few exceptions, no matter what we do?

[sirs]

And they could return the favour to captured Americans, too.

Why is that an issue?  Don't we expect them to treat their captives very badly ,with few exceptions, no matter what we do?

Precisely

[Universe Prince]

To apply the Geneva convention as it stands would indeed have us executeing a lot of these guys for fighting out of uniform.

Does it? Can you show me where?

And they could return the favour to captured Americans, too.

Why is that an issue?
Don't we expect them to treat their captives very badly ,with few exceptions, no matter what we do?

Why is that an issue? Well, speaking from my own perspective, seems to me the issue is that we're supposed to be better than they are. Aren't we supposed to be in a war against terrorism? Seems kinda odd to be at war with them over their actions and yet act in a similar manner. Is a bloodthirsty kill-'em-all plan of action what you really want to see? You think they're mad at us now, just wait till we start shooting them without trials. If you want to go that route, then we need to abandon the notion of a "war on terror" and send in some General Sherman type to raze their cities to the ground. If we're going to maintain a "war on terror" then we really ought to try to have higher standards than the terrorists, don't you think?

And please don't anyone tell me shooting them is okay because they're chopping off heads or some such. If you're at the slightly shallower end of the hole, and they're at the deeper end of the hole, both of you are still in the hole and claiming the high ground isn't going to mean squat, diddly-squat or even diddly-doo.

[_JS]

For what??  You saying they were working for some international terrorist organization, analogous to AlQeada?

I don't recall saying that. I believe they were tried for murder.

What the frell?  You keep brining up how so many have been released now compared to WWII detainees, and I give a perfectly rational reason why, and that translates in some mutation of your above sentence??

No. You compared the prisoners in Guantanamo to the POW's of World War II and how some must have been taken by accident (an assertion for which you never provided evidence). Clearly the comparison is based on a false premise. Just saying, "uniforms helped" does not make your initial comparison worthy.

No, I mean the soldiers that are still being detained, not the ones they determined not to have or at least no longer a threat to our soldiers.  It is a whole hell of a lot more difficult when our current enemy disguises themselves to look just like the civilians.  Pretty cowardly act, yet Tee calls our soldiers the cowards.  Go figure

Get off your high horse. We had people do the exact same thing in the American Revolution. We had people bully civilian populations and execute those who did not agree (they were called loyalists). Funny how it was acceptable then and we make our "patriots" out to be heroes, but today it is "cowardly" and "evil."

Then why the reference to internment camps ala the Japaneses in WWII??

Internment, as in Operation Demetrius. I was not referencing the Japanese internment of World War II.

[Richpo64]

For reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatants

These insurgents/terrorists do no obey the rules of war, therefore we are not bound to do so. However, we do go far beyond anything a country at war ought to do for these criminals.

The article states:

"Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope."

[Universe Prince]

These insurgents/terrorists do no obey the rules of war, therefore we are not bound to do so. However, we do go far beyond anything a country at war ought to do for these criminals.

I disagree on both counts. As I understand this, if they are not prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention, then they are civilians under the Fourth Geneva Convention and should therefore be tried as civilians, not held indefinitely.

But again, are we or are we not supposedly involved in a "war on terror"? If we are, then it hardly behooves us to blur the line between our actions and theirs. If the people we have captured are genuinely terrorists and/or terrorist supporters, then we ought to be lining them up for trials to provide the evidence that convicts them so that the whole world will know who these people are and what they have done.

[sirs]

For what??  You saying they were working for some international terrorist organization, analogous to AlQeada?

I don't recall saying that. I believe they were tried for murder.

Then I have no idea the relevence of why you threw their names up here then.   

You compared the prisoners in Guantanamo to the POW's of World War II and how some must have been taken by accident. Clearly the comparison is based on a false premise. Just saying, "uniforms helped" does not make your initial comparison worthy.

It makes an absolutely valid and logical point in that an enemy in uniform provides a pretty darn good indication that they are indeed the enemy, thus very few of them detained were released.  The fact that many more detained at gitmo during our current war on terror and on Islamofascism, can be directly tied to the fact that this enemy doesn't wear a uniform, and specfically hides amongst the civilian population.  Why this concept is so hard for you to grasp, si beyond me.

No, I mean the soldiers that are still being detained, not the ones they determined not to have or at least no longer a threat to our soldiers.  It is a whole hell of a lot more difficult when our current enemy disguises themselves to look just like the civilians.  Pretty cowardly act, yet Tee calls our soldiers the cowards.  Go figure

Get off your high horse. We had people do the exact same thing in the American Revolution. We had people bully civilian populations and execute those who did not agree (they were called loyalists). Funny how it was acceptable then and we make our "patriots" out to be heroes, but today it is "cowardly" and "evil."

Umm last time I checked, those "Loyalists" you referred to neither targeted innocent women & children, nor used them as human shields.  and those that did were absolutely being cowardly and no patriot in my book.  Thus your "cowardly" comparison is up a creek without the preverbial paddle

Then why the reference to internment camps ala the Japaneses in WWII??

Internment, as in Operation Demetrius. I was not referencing the Japanese internment of World War II.

Once again......relevence??  Were soliders detained, or were whole hordes of people rounded up and detained?  If the latter, how were they rounded up and why?

[Plane]

To apply the Geneva convention as it stands would indeed have us executeing a lot of these guys for fighting out of uniform.

Does it? Can you show me where?

And they could return the favour to captured Americans, too.

Why is that an issue?
Don't we expect them to treat their captives very badly ,with few exceptions, no matter what we do?

Why is that an issue? Well, speaking from my own perspective, seems to me the issue is that we're supposed to be better than they are. Aren't we supposed to be in a war against terrorism? Seems kinda odd to be at war with them over their actions and yet act in a similar manner. Is a bloodthirsty kill-'em-all plan of action what you really want to see? You think they're mad at us now, just wait till we start shooting them without trials. If you want to go that route, then we need to abandon the notion of a "war on terror" and send in some General Sherman type to raze their cities to the ground. If we're going to maintain a "war on terror" then we really ought to try to have higher standards than the terrorists, don't you think?

And please don't anyone tell me shooting them is okay because they're chopping off heads or some such. If you're at the slightly shallower end of the hole, and they're at the deeper end of the hole, both of you are still in the hole and claiming the high ground isn't going to mean squat, diddly-squat or even diddly-doo.

We are behaveing better without much effort.
If some of our guys get out of line they are liable to be caught and punished , who expects any such thing from them?

[Plane]

To apply the Geneva convention as it stands would indeed have us executeing a lot of these guys for fighting out of uniform.

Does it? Can you show me where?



Original document of the first Geneva Convention, 1864.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/EUgeneva.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/geneva-convention-rules.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war

Qualifications

To be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner of war status.

Specifically, Chapter II of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention covered the treatment of prisoners of war in detail. These were further expanded in the Third Geneva Convention of 1929, and its revision of 1949.

Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his or her name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).

[Michael Tee]

<<Get off your high horse. We had people do the exact same thing in the American Revolution. We had people bully civilian populations and execute those who did not agree (they were called loyalists). Funny how it was acceptable then and we make our "patriots" out to be heroes, but today it is "cowardly" and "evil.">>

EXCELLENT point.  sirs knows next to nothing of the history of our Province of Ontario.  (Not that I blame him - - compared to U.S. or British history, it's boring as hell and relatively unimportant.) 

The Province of Ontario was formerly just the vast western uninhabited forest  constituting "Canada," which was then what are now Ontario and Quebec.  The only inhabitants of "Canada" were the French who lived in what is now Quebec.  In the wake of the American Revolution, thousands of Loyalist refugees fled for their lives to Ontario, which in I think 1792 received its first British governor and finally had enough English inhabitants to be split off from "Canada" as a colony in its own right.  "Canada" became "Upper Canada" and "Lower Canada" (now Ontario and Quebec) named for their positions relative to the flow of the St. Lawrence River.

The Loyalists who stayed behind suffered torture and murder at the hands of lynch mobs and vigilantes.  The tortures included tarring and feathering (which sounds funny, until you realize that some of the victims actually died from the burns inflicted by the hot tar) and being "ridden out of town on a rail," again a fairly innocent-sounding procedure until you realize it was often done in a way that ensured the victim's testicles would be pounded by his own body weight onto the rail with every jolt that occurred as the rail was run out of town.

Loyalist culture isn't very strong in Toronto, which is reallly a city of much more recent immigrants, but in small-town Ontario, it's still an important element.  Sorta like the Orange Lodge, only older.  They have Loyalist Days and U.E.L. (United Empire Loyalists) events.  And they know a lot about the American Revolution and what happened to those who didn't choose to join in.

[Plane]

<<Get off your high horse. We had people do the exact same thing in the American Revolution. We had people bully civilian populations and execute those who did not agree (they were called loyalists). Funny how it was acceptable then and we make our "patriots" out to be heroes, but today it is "cowardly" and "evil.">>

EXCELLENT point.  sirs knows next to nothing of the history of our Province of Ontario.  (Not that I blame him - - compared to U.S. or British history, it's boring as hell and relatively unimportant.) 

The Province of Ontario was formerly just the vast western uninhabited forest  constituting "Canada," which was then what are now Ontario and Quebec.  The only inhabitants of "Canada" were the French who lived in what is now Quebec.  In the wake of the American Revolution, thousands of Loyalist refugees fled for their lives to Ontario, which in I think 1792 received its first British governor and finally had enough English inhabitants to be split off from "Canada" as a colony in its own right.  "Canada" became "Upper Canada" and "Lower Canada" (now Ontario and Quebec) named for their positions relative to the flow of the St. Lawrence River.

The Loyalists who stayed behind suffered torture and murder at the hands of lynch mobs and vigilantes.  The tortures included tarring and feathering (which sounds funny, until you realize that some of the victims actually died from the burns inflicted by the hot tar) and being "ridden out of town on a rail," again a fairly innocent-sounding procedure until you realize it was often done in a way that ensured the victim's testicles would be pounded by his own body weight onto the rail with every jolt that occurred as the rail was run out of town.

Loyalist culture isn't very strong in Toronto, which is reallly a city of much more recent immigrants, but in small-town Ontario, it's still an important element.  Sorta like the Orange Lodge, only older.  They have Loyalist Days and U.E.L. (United Empire Loyalists) events.  And they know a lot about the American Revolution and what happened to those who didn't choose to join in.

Yes , we picked up a lot of French (Acadian , Cajun) the same way.