OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands

[Q]

Originally posted by sachmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Q:
May be not all western governments (I believe I live in a country that still puts human rights first before combat against terrorism) but I must agree that some activities of the US government really frighten me more than any terrorist activities. And if deccan is right (I know too little about the political situation in that part of the world) I am worried about that too.

Well, if that's true, then it's a good thing you didn't have any relatives working in a certain New York building on a certain day in 2001.
Once something like that happens in your country, the matter becomes a lot more complicated.

---

I am a citizen of the country the Geneva convention comes from, which the US government not longer obeys when it comes to the war against terrorism.
But my compassion for the victims of the terrorism is absolutely independent of their passport and I sincerely hope that my reason would still govern my emotions when a relative would be under the victims.
But no matter how much I share the cry for justice, no matter how much I understand your concern for safety: the basic human rights must never never never be canceled for a human beeing, even if this human has commited the most horrible crimes. If you go over this line you will end up in tyranny and become inhuman yourself.

[Loser]

Originally posted by Q:
I am a citizen of the country the Geneva convention comes from, which the US government not longer obeys when it comes to the war against terrorism.

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.

[Thermodyne]

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.

[Loser]

Ooo... Good Point.

[primitive]

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.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by primitive:
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.

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.

[Q]

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?