Prison inmates committing suicide now an act of warfare on the US
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Friday, June 23, 2006 10:01
VIEWED: 9568
PAGE 7 of 11
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote: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?
Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I see a difference. The side letting them go can be considered to be, on the whole, more humane.
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?"
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nicely put, A.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME