Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

This is great Deccan. It's much like hearing about the Iraq war on television and radio (CNN, BBC, and a coiuple of others) and then reading about it in that one guy's blog. Thanks.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whoa.... tangent. Revive the Iraq thread and post this there and I will be happy to respond.

[ July 10, 2003, 11:15: Message edited by: Loser ]

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Geneva convention was getting lip service long before the 'war on terrorism' started. Rule regarding munitions, engagement of paratroopers, manipulation of the weather, and a few others have been violated with only a modest attempt at cover-up.

I think we should have rules of war and treatment of participant of such. But war is war and few countries that participate in more than a few are going to follow all the rules.

You want to talk about inhumane? Let's compare prison systems. I'll give you the point on capital punishment (more to get past it than because I think it is inhumane), and let's talk about treatment of prisoners who have not been so sentenced. But let's do that in another thread. You start it, and I will reply.

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

Q,

Which parts do we (USofA) not follow? If you mean the treatment of Afgan POW’s, then you need to go back and actually read the sections again. Especially the areas that deal with the requirements that soldiers must meet to gain the protection of the conventions. And it is more than one convention.

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

Ooo... Good Point.

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

Bad point.

If they are not acceptable as POWs, then they should be treated as criminals and been given the basic rights criminals are given (right to a lawyer and so on)

There is absolutely no excuse to keep anybody outside of any law and deprive them of their basic human rights.

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah.........Now we are on track. They do not fit the requirements of solders, not even if we use a very loose description. So they are civilians? No, they meet the criteria that forbid them from being treated as such. They fall into a Category that holds bandits, renegades and deserters. Along with saboteurs and spies. They were subject to summery execution except that there was no documented state of war, and no invocation of the conventions. So now they must fall under the authority of civilian law. But which Version? American law? I doubt that case would hold water. Afgan law? That would sure suck for them. The war on terrorism was not foreseen by the statesmen of years gone by. Back then if terrorists were caught, they were killed and everyone went home happy. But there were also not organized nations of terrorist that needed to be dealt with. Well there were a few small kingdoms that were spanked from time to time. But all and all, nations were not controlled by terrorists. So what do we do with the Gitmo-Afgans? Send them home to a long lingering death? That would suck for them. Send them to Iran to be rearmed and retrained? That would suck for most of the world. Bring them to the states and turn them loose? I'll get my equipment out of storage and kill the SOB’s my self if they do that. Perhaps we should send them to the EU. Would they take them? There is a good chance that they will still be at Gitmo when the lease runs out, and then the Cubanos can decide what to do with them. I would think that re-education would be the first step. Then they could be used to spread Marxism across the Islamic world.

Now most of my solutions have been in jest, but that is because there is no good solution. There are a lot of people crying out about the rights of these people, but very few good solutions being offered. Personally, I would like to see them prosecuted (persecuted) under their own Islamic laws.

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

I am talking e.g. about the prisoners that are held captive since months without trial and without beeing accepted as prisoners of war at Guantanamo.
This is against the constitution of the US (at least as far as I know). And as I said if you start to make exceptions of the constituation and the basic human rights that are declared in it for certain people you are on the road to tyranny and police state.
Are you in the US not concerned about the plans to survey every e-mail, every credit card transaction?? Where will this end?

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The situation of the Gitmo_Afgans is not clear. In the end I think they will be returned to the Afgan government. But it will have to work it's way across the many court dockets that pave the way to the high courts.

As to the tracking of email and electronic fund transfers, I'm all for it. I abide by the law and have no fears on this point. Lets get real, you will have to trip a filter to get looked at. If you do drug sales or contract murder by email, then it sucks. For me it makes no differance what so ever.

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Constitution itself is not all that big on Civil Rights. You'll find that material in the Bill of Rights, the first handful of amendments. And those only apply to U.S. citizens. To find the laws governing treatment of non-citizens you'd need to look more into U.S. Law itself (messy) or into our treaties with other nations: Geneva Convention, etc.

Re: OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I see your point...I really do. In fact, a big part of me still feels that way. But when I close my eyes and see a car bomb exploding and killing my family, the rights of terrorists pale in comparison.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the US didn't stir up this hornet's nest by themselves. However, if we are fighting an enemy who targets obviously innocent civilians and who's only purpose is to destroy as many of my people as possible, then how can I give pause or quarter to them in return? If a man were to break into my house and try to harm my family, I would kill him, or die trying. Unfortunately for me, I can't see the distinction in this case, except my government is doing the figting for me.

In response to this quote:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All that I can say is that I believe that the policy my government is following is the one that they believe to be the most effective. If there were an alternative to the fighting, I believe that they would persue it. I know the US isn't popular with many people, but our government isn't out to take over the world. Nor do we revel in the deaths of foreign nationals. But we will protect ourselves, and that's where things get ugly. I am an American, and I want my children to grow up and be safe. Whatever it takes.