..
And: If these prisoners are POWs why are they not granted the rights that
POWs have according to the Geneva Convention?


Which rights would they be?


Stan, Stan! POW's have more rights than you can shake a stick at. They have
the right ot be treated like pure-bred poodles -- you aren't even allowed to
*insult* them, let alone, abuse them in any physical manner whatsoever.
You have to feed 'em, cloth 'em, give 'em a place to sleep that's as good as,
if not better than, your Marines tent. When you think about it, it's really
just not worth the trouble of taking 'em alive, you know. No siree Bob.
Now, in the old days, you could do whatever you wanted to prisoners, and it
was understood that they were lucky you didn't just kill 'em! Not anymore....

..
One of the main reasons I like and respect my Commander In Chief so much is
because -- although he doesn't always come off as the smartest guy in
speeches -- he does what's right, is a man of action and not words, and told
the bleeding heart, pussified countries of the world who were against us
going into Iraq to go **** themselves.

My two cents.

Regards,

Matt


Nominated for a brewski!

[...]
This is why I can't stand many liberals. They don't think any other country
out there should cow-tow to any others with regards to religion, their
military, or their adherence to the Geneva Conventions in a time of conflict
except the United States.

The Geneva Convention contains nothing that civilized people wouldn't
do of their own accord, regardless of what other people might think or
do.

What part of this Convention do you think is unreasonable?

Jürgen

[...]
I hope that none of my friends in the military, including Mr. Nemmers,
ever gets into a situation like that.

That's one of the more obvious practical reasons to treat others
humanely. You need no more subtle precept than the Categorical
Imperative to make you realize how outrageous the behavior of the U.S.
has been. Apart from any ethical question - yes, I know, ethics is for
sissified furriners - the world is not being made safer with these
methods.

Jürgen


Bruce Leverett

Jürgen, I dont think mr. Nemmers and his friends ever read one line of
Kant's works. He is my favourite philosopher, by the way.
Hans J.


"Jürgen R." skrev i en meddelelse
...

[...]
I hope that none of my friends in the military, including Mr. Nemmers,
ever gets into a situation like that.

That's one of the more obvious practical reasons to treat others
humanely. You need no more subtle precept than the Categorical
Imperative to make you realize how outrageous the behavior of the U.S.
has been. Apart from any ethical question - yes, I know, ethics is for
sissified furriners - the world is not being made safer with these
methods.

Jürgen


Bruce Leverett

..
The Geneva Convention contains nothing that civilized people wouldn't
do of their own accord, regardless of what other people might think or
do.

What part of this Convention do you think is unreasonable?


Good question. One part I think is "unreasonable" is where the G.C. insists
that POWs be treated like, well, like pedigreed poodles.

You can't do anything whatsoever to them, except feed them, clothe them,
house them, see to their medical needs, politely ask their names, ranks, and
serial numbers, and generally cater to their every need.

This is all well and good -- except that it seems to overlook that said
prisoners were captured in a war, and in wars people try to kill each other and
stuff.

Now, if someone was trying to kill you and you lucked-out, say his gun
jammed, and you grabbed him and wrestled him to the ground, and after a fierce
struggle managed to take his gun away and subdue him, are you not at least
entitled to call him a no-good, dirty scoundrel, for trying to kill you? :-)

Not according to the Geneva Convention! According to the G.C., you must
thank him for a pleasant afternoon's "diversion," gently escort him to his posh
quarters (which you erect, not him), and bring him a tray loaded with grapes,
apples, peaches, and bananas, and ask which type of wine he prefers --
chardonnay, merlot, or maybe some champaigne and caviar? :-)

This is what I find "unreasonable" about the wording of the Geneva
Convention, with regard to POWs.




Not that this in any way justifies what the U.S. is doing in Guantanamo and
elsewhere. But these two positions can be seen as opposite extremes. The GC
has gone so far that it is nearly impossible to expect any country at war to
observe their conditions to the letter -- unless it is not a real war at all,
but a Bambi vs. Godzilla sort of conflict, where Godzilla might be able to meet
specifications, if so inclined. Bambi, of course, would not be in any position
to meet such demands, as he would be too busy running from Godzilla....

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:BkNNc.185209$JR4.33458@attbi_s54...
"Hans Jørgen Lassen" wrote in message
. ..
I was not aware that any of the guests of the US government at
Guantanamo
were caught in the US. Neither was I aware that any of them had been
involved in terrorist activities in the US. If there is proof that these
guys are terrorists, why are they not put on trial?
If the prisoners are being held for no legal reason (and that seems to
be
the case, as they are not being prosecuted), then Guantanomo is a
concentration camp.
Hans J.

Negative, ghost-writer. They are POWs.

Not actually POWs under the Geneva convention, Matt. What war was declared?
The US Consitution says that only the Congress can declare a war. How many
internees are at Guantanamo as the result of a declared war? How many are
there otherwise? Is Fischer a war criminal? Or didn't he pay his tax bill?
I'm confused. Phil

Regards,

Matt

In article Yg5Oc.5207$NV3.4009@trndny01, Chess One
writes

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:BkNNc.185209$JR4.33458@attbi_s54...
"Hans Jørgen Lassen" wrote in message
. ..
I was not aware that any of the guests of the US government at
Guantanamo
were caught in the US. Neither was I aware that any of them had been
involved in terrorist activities in the US. If there is proof that these
guys are terrorists, why are they not put on trial?
If the prisoners are being held for no legal reason (and that seems to
be
the case, as they are not being prosecuted), then Guantanomo is a
concentration camp.
Hans J.

Negative, ghost-writer. They are POWs.

Not actually POWs under the Geneva convention, Matt. What war was declared?

It is completely irrelevant whether or not war has been declared.

The US Consitution says that only the Congress can declare a war. How many
internees are at Guantanamo as the result of a declared war? How many are
there otherwise? Is Fischer a war criminal? Or didn't he pay his tax bill?
I'm confused. Phil

POW rights do not depend on what the US Congress has or hasn't done.

The term "unlawful combatant", or similar, has been used by Israeli and
US States to denote captives they have taken in territory they have
invaded (notably in Lebanon and Afghanistan).

It's on of those 'irregular verbs': 'I capture unlawful combatants',
'you take hostages', 'he interrogates prisoners in order to prevent
terrorist attacks', 'she's being prosecuted for war crimes'.

Denial of POW rights is a very clear breach of the Geneva Convention.
The US invaded Afghanistan against the resistance of the Afghan
government. If that's not a war, what is? Congress and the US media
could call it a vicar's tea party, or a vermin eradication operation. It
doesn't matter a damn what those m*****f***ers call it - it's still a
war under international law.

--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
.
One of the main reasons I like and respect my Commander In Chief so much is
because -- although he doesn't always come off as the smartest guy in
speeches -- he does what's right, is a man of action and not words, and told
the bleeding heart, pussified countries of the world who were against us
going into Iraq to go **** themselves.

My two cents.

Regards,

Matt


Nominated for a brewski!

Those of us who are civilians don't have a Commander in Chief. We
don't have to take military orders or stand up for orders we don't
respect. Trying to run someone else's country when you can't run your
own is foolish. If you think ****ing ourselves is such a good idea,
why don't *you* set the good example?

David Ames

"Hans Jørgen Lassen" wrote in message ...
I have never been to Guantanamo, not yet, that is. Is it some kind of
university where people unacquanted with american ways can study american
and international law, the bill of rights, the christian/american concept of
freedom as opposed to the islamic? Or is it, as some maintain, a
concentration camp just like the ones they had in Nazi-Germany and in
stalinist Soviet Union?
Hans J. Lassen

It is a military base. My sister's husband has been there. Military
law is different from civil law.

David Ames