- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
*ignoring pathetic rant*
:lol: but are you with that post?
Note you still ignore my points on Gitmo!
*ignoring pathetic rant*
:lol: but are you with that post?
Note you still ignore my points on Gitmo!
People captured by your troops who were fighting said troops -never- receive trials.And for that they deserve no Geneva convention and no trials?
Legally you aren't even in Iraq..
As for the Afghan war, people whom are unlawful combatants in Afghanistan should be brought to justice in Afghanistan simply as criminals, thats what they are..
I don't believe torture for instance is allowed under the Geneva convention, nor was it created for "an endless" war where no one will see trial. Aside from that the kidnapped foreigners you have in Guantanamo aren't combatants under the Geneva convention.
Why do you misunderstand everything I said? I never said that.. I just say you silly people with your Guantanamo and renditions and such don't even recognize the ICC, a legitimate version of bringing international criminals to justice, far more legitimate than kidnapping them and throwing them in jail indefinitely with no trials and no legal protection.
Never mind that our presence in Iraq is in accordance with an agreement with the Iraqi government, which, in and of itself, nullifies the claim.I just love this fetish with everything international. Yeah, the US ain't legally in Iraq... :roll: BFD!
People captured by your troops who were fighting said troops -never- receive trials.
:lol: but are you with that post?
Note you still ignore my points on Gitmo!
People captured by your troops who were fighting said troops -never- receive trials.
Which troops? What war? Which nations?
Dont play stupid.Which troops? What war? Which nations?
None of the troops captured in WW2 received these trials.Not civlians trials anyway. However, combatants detainedduring hostilities were and are still granted military tribunals to contest their detainee status.
None of the troops captured in WW2 received these trials.
I just love this fetish with everything international. Yeah, the US ain't legally in Iraq... :roll: BFD! This inanity from you presupposes that wars cannot be fought unless they're recognized by some group of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in the UN or the Hague or some such nonsense. No wonder the Euros are perceived as having lost thier stomach for war. You people seem to think that war doesn't exist unless it's approved of by representatives of dictators from Libya, Sudan, North Korea, et al. You're a laughingstock.
That's a fair point and one that is argued well by the left here in America. But a question for you...well, a few:
a) Would you accept their brand of justice if it didn't include the same due process rights our western nations recognize and grant?
b) How do you propose to successfully prosecute those cases in an Afghan court when you're relying on American, for example, military personnel for testimony?
c) How do you avoid, via prosecution, revealing your abilities to collect and use intelligence in conducting such prosecutions?
d) Are these not important considerations in determining how to handle these combatants that are not eligible for POW status?
Then you have no idea what you're talking about.
Geneva doesn't require nations at war to conduct civilian trials. Geneva does provide for indefinite detention until the cessation of hostilities. It's all right there in Geneva Three.
As for "kidnapped foreigners." What the heck are these?
There do have trials and they do have legal protections. These trials and proections are granted and conferred via US law. For example, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which was preceded by executive order controlling the conduct of military tribunals.
Your ignorance is astounding given the force with which you present your comments.
Rendition is something wholly different from detaining lawful and unlawful combatants.
I'd argue that it is relevant to anyone cought fighting our troops.I was referring to those "insurgent" types that violated the rules of war. I was responding, unknowingly to a comment about yours which was relevant only to ordinary soldiers.
I believe they were captured and treated as spies.Remember that Ex Qurin case from 48 when those Germans were captured shortly after arriving on-shore here in America? Weren't they German military personnel? They received civilian trials, right?
Dont play stupid.
Many of the people at Gtimo were captured as they fought our troops.
People captured by your troops who were fighting said troops -never- receive trials.
Hmm.Which troops are you talking about? Norwegian troops? French troops? European troops in general?
I assume you are talking about European troops in Afghanistan? They follow the very strictest guidelines in the world when it comes to human rights.
Alright, I'm seeing a problem here...what's happening is that we're discussing individuals that have a different status, if you will. Ordinary soldiers detained during hostilities don't generally receive combatant trials. However, these individuals are different from those, say, "insurgents" who are not affiliated with a regular army but who are fighting against a regular army and who do not conform to the laws of war as described in Geneva. And these individuals are still different from those who commit acts of terrorism.
The problem is that we're discussing them without distinguishing their status and actions.
I was referring to those "insurgent" types that violated the rules of war. I was responding, unknowingly to a comment about yours which was relevant only to ordinary soldiers.
I have opinions on the things you said, but I am not going to utter them because of that attack there at the end.. Is it SOOO difficult to be polite and debate in a proper way?
I will ask a question though.; What makes the US different than Nazi Germany then if it wages war without international approval?
Ps. none of the nations you mentioned are in the security council, nor respected inside the UN.
Their opinions doesn't matter to say it frankly and straight forward. No one ever said that just because everyone agree except Sudan then it cannot happen, thats not how the UN functions.
a) Yes, I do not get mixed up in individual countries justice systems, although if its too far out I will utter an opinion. Like for example stoning and such I can stomach. But it wouldn't be my business.
b) It would be no problem as long as the American soldiers were under oath.
c) Dont quite understand the question. But I guess it would work like any normal trial in Afghanistan. I dont think they are as technical as trials in the US or Europe, dont think it would be a problem if I understood your question correct.
d) If a person breaks a law in one country he should be tried in that country, if he escape the country he should be sent back by the nation they find him in to stand trial as a criminal in the country where he committed the crime, which is all normal procedure. Prisoners of war are defined in the Geneva convention, and if they arent POWs they should be treated as criminals in my opinion.
The problem here is the "war on terror", its not really a war, just an agenda. You dont suggest we arrest people in the "war on drugs" and treat them like POWs do you?
I never said that.. But "the war on terror" isnt really a war and the fact it has no possible "end scenario" makes it impossible to justify with the Geneva convention.
The people I talk of above who don't really have POW status nor are US criminals.. They are foreign criminals "kidnapped" and imprisoned in the US, we actually don't know if they are actual criminals either, they haven't stood trial.
This does not justify Guantanamo nor does it justify the methods or international conduct of it all.
What if Germans just started arresting and trying Americans under some bizarre German law that they create for the purpose?
Say Germany is fed up and decide to arrest and trial all US soldiers in Germany as trespassers under a new bizarre law, that doesnt justify the act, does it, even if the law justify the action under the law.
Second time with your personal attacks/general attacks.. Why do you do this? Is it too difficult for you to debate in a proper way? Do you understand why people get angry and less unwilling to debate with you when you continue like this?
A few more times of this and I will resort to the same methods and most likely end up ignoring you and just annoy you as best I can, like I did reverend_hellhound.. Ok?
The post-nationalist refuses to understand that sovereign states have an innate, inherent right to act in their own self-defense, regardless of any international consensus, with the conditions regarding same set by the state itself.Sickening. Are you serious? And you expect me to be polite when such nonsense is posted?I will ask a question though.; What makes the US different than Nazi Germany then if it wages war without international approval?
The post-nationalist refuses to understand that sovereign states have an innate, inherent right to act in their own self-defense, regardless of any international consensus, with the conditions regarding same set by the state itself.
This post-nationalist illness derives from generations of living under the protection of others.
I'd describe this post-nationalist disease as one of the downsides of the US having emerged from WW2 as the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.Thank you for that concise diagnosis. Couldn't have said it better myself.
And this post-nationalism comes from a poster clearly supportive of the current Euro-elite attempts to coerce ordinary Euros into abandoning their national identities and sovereignty by submiting to this supr-national Euro organization not through populat elections but by sneaking it through via treaty, i.e., Lisbon Treaty.
Amazingly, though, while he's supportive of such undemocratic behavior, he demands the US submit herself to unelected and unaccountable democratic processes at the UN.
Certainly one of the Euro elite or, perhaps, a mere poseur.
I was being polite by limiting my criticism to simply calling such views a laughingstock. And it is a laughingstock. Your presumptions are completely absurd and reflect a certain fetish with international law.
The post-nationalist refuses to understand that sovereign states have an innate, inherent right to act in their own self-defense, regardless of any international consensus, with the conditions regarding same set by the state itself.
This post-nationalist illness derives from generations of living under the protection of others.
The post-nationalist refuses to understand that sovereign states have an innate, inherent right to act in their own self-defense, regardless of any international consensus, with the conditions regarding same set by the state itself.
This post-nationalist illness derives from generations of living under the protection of others.