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 8 of 11
Actually, what I'm getting out of this discussion is that you intend to restrict the topic to how "lawful combatants" are treated. And as far as that goes, the USA and Iraq are about on par in terms of how they treat each other's lawful combatants. The issue - which is what started this whole thread- is how so-called "unlawful" combatants are treated. Since you're avoiding that topic in your scenario, I'm avoiding your scenario.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:On behalf of my country, sorry mate.
Originally posted by Rhodri:
And we Brits have also been dragged into the mire with you.
Be a bit different were I in charge...
Vote for Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nothing we can do in that direction, till the bush is uprooted.
Originally posted by Geezer:
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?
Then I'd say we, as a country, should admit our past government's mistakes, appologize and attempt to make amends. Show the Muslim world that we respect their true religion...I dunno, be nice, y'know?
"They can be a great people, Kal-El, They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way."
Chrisisall from Krypton
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signy, Maybe Geezer considers your 'combative' arguments 'unlawful', and therefore he has the right to treat them any way he wants, no matter what the Haken Convention says.
Originally posted by SignyM:
The issue - which is what started this whole thread- is how so-called "unlawful" combatants are treated.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem is as Citizen put it: Geezer wants unlawful combatants to be bound by the Geneva Convention but not protected by it. And by avoiding the issue of unlawful combatants, Geezer seeks to paint "us good- them bad".
If we DON'T deliberately turn a blind eye to a large part of the picture, we should look at:
how lawful combatants treat each other
how lawful combatants treat unlawful combatants
how unlawful combatants treat lawful combatants
"Asymmetric warfare" indeed!
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quality post as usual, Amiton. Just one point of contention for me:
Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
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.
In a conventional war, I agree, unless the 'nice' participant state is also vastly superior (we'll leave aside the question for now of whether the US is vastly superior). However, this isn't a conventional war, it's been made into a war of principles and ideals, at least by the propaganda machine after it turned out there were no WMDs, maybe even a bit before that. It's a war of 'freedom, peace and respect for human life' vs 'terror, evil and disregard for human life'. In this case, one of the sides has to play nice, otherwise it has a real danger of being seen as becoming what it's fighting.
Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well not really, but we'll get to that.
Originaly posted by Geezer:
Hey, I answered your question, and only expect you to do the same. But anyway...
Quote:That doesn't answer my question, that's you wriggling out of answering it.
If the insurgents treated Iraqi forces the same as we treat prisoners at Guantanamo, that would be a valid comparison. They don't. They kill them all.
Maybe the answer would 'undermine' your 'dogma'?
Quote:I would be surprised if the current US administration respected their rights regardless of how they treated the coalition soldiers. Can you provide any reason for me to think otherwise?
I would be surprised if they respectd the rights of our soldiers, or the new Iraqi army soldiers, regardless of what we do to their prisoners. Can you provide any reason for me to think otherwise?
Quote:So they aren't breaking the GC either? I'm just not sure, since they aren't protected they are not bound either so for the same reasons it's okay to treat detainees in a way that would brake the GC if the Admin hadn't decided it didn't apply, it's surely okay for the insurgents to do the same? You know strictly speaking brake the GC because they aren't really breaking it?
That assumes we are breaking the GC. That determination will have to wait until some body decides if Taliban and al-Qieda operatives are lawful combatants or not. In the opinion of our government, they are not. Note that we still treat our prisoners better than they do theirs. Ours are still alive.
Maybe the Insurgents have decided they can treat the coalition soldiers how ever they wish, just like Bush has?
Quote:Yeah the insurgency blow up a car to kill civilians, or a strike Helicopter swoops in to launch a rocket into the middle of them.
More like "...not nearly as bad as the terrorists". I would never claim that US forces havn't committed questionable acts. But even the worst pale in comparison to the everyday operations of the Iraqi insurgency.
Quote:You haven't answered any of my questions, did a good job of pretending to though.
Although I have answered your questions, I expect that you once again will avoid answering mine.
Quote:Well it depends doesn't it: Death Row to Kindergarten maybe? Or all American detainees compared to the strict few extreme groups you wish to consider? I mean this question doesn't have all that much to do with the topic so how it could undermine my 'dogma'? I have no idea.
So, is there, in your opinion, just as a theoretical excercise, any difference between an organization that releases most of its prisoners, and one that executes most of its prisoners?
Gitmo compared to any insurgent group, not really much difference to be honest.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, what I'm getting out of this discussion is that you intend to restrict the topic to how "lawful combatants" are treated. And as far as that goes, the USA and Iraq are about on par in terms of how they treat each other's lawful combatants. The issue - which is what started this whole thread- is how so-called "unlawful" combatants are treated. Since you're avoiding that topic in your scenario, I'm avoiding your scenario.
Nah. Discussion over. You're still making unjustified statements and putting words in my mouth which I never said, or even hinted at. No point in me enabling your problem with honest discussion.
"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Nothing we can do in that direction, till the bush is uprooted.
2.5 years and he's gone. You working on a replacement more to your liking?
Quote:
Then I'd say we, as a country, should admit our past government's mistakes, appologize and attempt to make amends. Show the Muslim world that we respect their true religion...I dunno, be nice, y'know?
I generally agree, although the Muslims who consider the Burqa and Honor Killings their true religion probably won't get my respect.
Any suggestions about Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghaistan, the war on terror, etc?
"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That doesn't answer my question, that's you wriggling out of answering it...Maybe the answer would 'undermine' your 'dogma'?
Fair enough. Here's your question:
"So why should we expect people who we've decided aren't allowed the protection of the GC to be bound by it?"
I don't expect them to be bound by it. However, that does not make mass executions of bound prisoners any less a crime, if not under the Geneva Conventions, then under other rules of war, and also under civil law. Coalition forces executing Iraqi prisoners would also be a crime, and in the few instances proved, have been treated as such.
You seem to be suggesting that just because the US does not consider some prisoners as covered under the Geneva Conventions, there are no restrictions at all on their treatment. This is, of course, not so, and you probably know that, even if you don't admit it. Rules for treatment of prisoners at Gitmo have been in the media several times.
Quote:
I would be surprised if the current US administration respected their rights regardless of how they treated the coalition soldiers. Can you provide any reason for me to think otherwise?
Now, now. I did, after all, ask first.
Quote:
So they aren't breaking the GC either? I'm just not sure, since they aren't protected they are not bound either so for the same reasons it's okay to treat detainees in a way that would brake the GC if the Admin hadn't decided it didn't apply, it's surely okay for the insurgents to do the same? You know strictly speaking brake the GC because they aren't really breaking it?
Maybe the Insurgents have decided they can treat the coalition soldiers how ever they wish, just like Bush has?
And once again...if the Iraqi insurgents were treating their prisoners like we treat the ones at Gitmo, that would be a fair comparison. They don't. You know this. You seem to have no problem with it. Why is that?
"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME