Karbin
Member
+42|6579
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b28 … 1e004a9e68
13rin
Member
+977|6763
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Karbin
Member
+42|6579
So Common Article 3, according to USSC was violated but, not Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6390|eXtreme to the maX
I don't see the point of the US/Cuba prosecuting a handful of footsoldiers for what happened during a war of the US's choosing.

If the average jihadi is ready and willing to die a few years in prison and a slap on the wrist is going to deter exactly nothing.
Fuck Israel
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5870

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't see the point of the US/Cuba prosecuting a handful of footsoldiers for what happened during a war of the US's choosing.
+1 Pretty much.

-1 for being Dilbert.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5642|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't see the point of the US/Cuba prosecuting a handful of footsoldiers for what happened during a war of the US's choosing.

If the average jihadi is ready and willing to die a few years in prison and a slap on the wrist is going to deter exactly nothing.
Now Iraq I'll somewhat agree was a 'bad war'... Afghanistan is not a war we chose. Who in their right mind would point at a globe and pick Afghanistan to invade? We will reap zero future benefits from being there. Was it somewhat kneejerk in response to 9/11? Sure. But it was hardly unjustified.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6390|eXtreme to the maX
The US had no reason to go to war with Afghanistan, it was a war of choice.
AQ Could and should have been dealt with very differently.

The average 15 year old had no clue about any of this, just another round of invaders who needed grenades thrown at them.
Fuck Israel
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5870

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't see the point of the US/Cuba prosecuting a handful of footsoldiers for what happened during a war of the US's choosing.

If the average jihadi is ready and willing to die a few years in prison and a slap on the wrist is going to deter exactly nothing.
Now Iraq I'll somewhat agree was a 'bad war'... Afghanistan is not a war we chose. Who in their right mind would point at a globe and pick Afghanistan to invade? We will reap zero future benefits from being there. Was it somewhat kneejerk in response to 9/11? Sure. But it was hardly unjustified.
If I had to choose were to spend lives/money i would have preferred to continue to rebuild Iraq then Afghanistan.

Still though. Invade a country and then prosecute the people there for fighting you.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5642|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

The US had no reason to go to war with Afghanistan, it was a war of choice.
AQ Could and should have been dealt with very differently.

The average 15 year old had no clue about any of this, just another round of invaders who needed grenades thrown at them.
I'm not going to rise to the bait. Aside from sending assassins and creating an international crisis, there wasn't any other choice left to the US. The Taliban weren't going to hand them over to us.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5642|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't see the point of the US/Cuba prosecuting a handful of footsoldiers for what happened during a war of the US's choosing.

If the average jihadi is ready and willing to die a few years in prison and a slap on the wrist is going to deter exactly nothing.
Now Iraq I'll somewhat agree was a 'bad war'... Afghanistan is not a war we chose. Who in their right mind would point at a globe and pick Afghanistan to invade? We will reap zero future benefits from being there. Was it somewhat kneejerk in response to 9/11? Sure. But it was hardly unjustified.
If I had to choose were to spend lives/money i would have preferred to continue to rebuild Iraq then Afghanistan.

Still though. Invade a country and then prosecute the people there for fighting you.
We've been in Afghanistan for a few years longer than Iraq you know...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5870

JohnG@lt wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Now Iraq I'll somewhat agree was a 'bad war'... Afghanistan is not a war we chose. Who in their right mind would point at a globe and pick Afghanistan to invade? We will reap zero future benefits from being there. Was it somewhat kneejerk in response to 9/11? Sure. But it was hardly unjustified.
If I had to choose were to spend lives/money i would have preferred to continue to rebuild Iraq then Afghanistan.

Still though. Invade a country and then prosecute the people there for fighting you.
We've been in Afghanistan for a few years longer than Iraq you know...
I know. Point?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5642|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

If I had to choose were to spend lives/money i would have preferred to continue to rebuild Iraq then Afghanistan.

Still though. Invade a country and then prosecute the people there for fighting you.
We've been in Afghanistan for a few years longer than Iraq you know...
I know. Point?
We're done in Iraq. We're pulling out. Flags are waving etc.

Your statement makes no sense "If I had to choose where to spend live/money..." the wars have been fought concurrently. There is no either/or. One was the focus while the other took the back burner for a while. Now that one is done and we're back to focusing on the original problem. And we're not wasting money or lives. We leave, the Taliban and AQ come back to power and we're back to square one. That money is being spent to prevent a repeat of Wahhabist control and future terrorist attacks. We're keeping them busy in their own back yard so they leave ours alone.

The only added burden incurred by keeping our military there is expenditures on ammunition. The food, pay and shelter costs would all be incurred if the troops were stateside anyway. Bullets are cheap.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-10-21 18:57:45)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5642|London, England
Unless you're wearing a recognized uniform you are a non-combatant. If you are a non-combatant and you take up arms against uniformed soldiers, and manage to kill one, you get charged with murder. Simple really. Don't want to get charged with murder? Wear a uniform. Then the killing is sanctioned.

Is it a stupid rule? Somewhat, but the Geneva Convention only applies to combatants. Everyone else is governed by civil laws.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-10-21 19:01:50)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
13rin
Member
+977|6763

Karbin wrote:

So Common Article 3, according to USSC was violated but, not Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War?
Pretty sure that's what you were looking for.  I'd close it and adopt a no prisoners from now on motto.  They don't take prisoners and give em' back -neither should we.


JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't see the point of the US/Cuba prosecuting a handful of footsoldiers for what happened during a war of the US's choosing.

If the average jihadi is ready and willing to die a few years in prison and a slap on the wrist is going to deter exactly nothing.
Now Iraq I'll somewhat agree was a 'bad war'... Afghanistan is not a war we chose. Who in their right mind would point at a globe and pick Afghanistan to invade? We will reap zero future benefits from being there. Was it somewhat kneejerk in response to 9/11? Sure. But it was hardly unjustified.
I saw it as a go get bin laden -dislodge the Taliban approach.  America does things all the time that reaps zero benefits from her presence (like the UN).

JohnG@lt wrote:

Unless you're wearing a recognized uniform you are a non-combatant. If you are a non-combatant and you take up arms against uniformed soldiers, and manage to kill one, you get charged with murder. Simple really. Don't want to get charged with murder? Wear a uniform. Then the killing is sanctioned.

Is it a stupid rule? Somewhat, but the Geneva Convention only applies to combatants. Everyone else is governed by civil laws.
Civil law tried where though? I'm fine with Texas...

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-10-21 19:10:56)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6390|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

The only added burden incurred by keeping our military there is expenditures on ammunition. The food, pay and shelter costs would all be incurred if the troops were stateside anyway. Bullets are cheap.
The cost of shipping in their food and fuel is colossal.
Fuck Israel
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6390|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The US had no reason to go to war with Afghanistan, it was a war of choice.
AQ Could and should have been dealt with very differently.

The average 15 year old had no clue about any of this, just another round of invaders who needed grenades thrown at them.
I'm not going to rise to the bait. Aside from sending assassins and creating an international crisis, there wasn't any other choice left to the US. The Taliban weren't going to hand them over to us.
The Taliban didn't have them to hand over so your point is moot, handled differently AQ could have been neutralised and Bin Laden captured without mobilising half of Pakistan against the US.
Fuck Israel
13rin
Member
+977|6763

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The only added burden incurred by keeping our military there is expenditures on ammunition. The food, pay and shelter costs would all be incurred if the troops were stateside anyway. Bullets are cheap.
The cost of shipping in their food and fuel is colossal.
According to you, we've got a short pipeline -right?  Food?  Fuck it.  Our guys are so hard they'll eat the bodies as they mow through any opposition.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6390|eXtreme to the maX

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The only added burden incurred by keeping our military there is expenditures on ammunition. The food, pay and shelter costs would all be incurred if the troops were stateside anyway. Bullets are cheap.
The cost of shipping in their food and fuel is colossal.
According to you, we've got a short pipeline -right?  Food?  Fuck it.  Our guys are so hard they'll eat the bodies as they mow through any opposition.
We're talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq.

If the annual cost of each US soldier in Afghanistan is $1m you're going to need to steal a lot of Iraqi oil to cover that.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126075201256889955.html

Maybe thats why Iran is next?
Fuck Israel
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5642|London, England
https://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/454/dbe/454dbe4b-6a87-4e0d-8c0d-5ff7b6ca9569
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6390|eXtreme to the maX
Aah insults, a sure sign an American has lost an argument.

JG wrote:

The only added burden incurred by keeping our military there is expenditures on ammunition. The food, pay and shelter costs would all be incurred if the troops were stateside anyway. Bullets are cheap.
You're wildly wrong, seriously.
Fuck Israel
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7000

Dilbert_X wrote:

The US had no reason to go to war with Afghanistan, it was a war of choice.
AQ Could and should have been dealt with very differently.

The average 15 year old had no clue about any of this, just another round of invaders who needed grenades thrown at them.
Fine charge the kid in a Canadian court for terrorism charges since the kid was fucking canadian and all. I thought US and Canada had some shared jurisdiction or some shit.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6905|London, England

FEOS wrote:

I would wonder what else did he do or has he done, other than the grenade incident to exacerbate the situation? If he were merely a child soldier captured on the battlefield, it would seem to be a lesser issue than this.
The fact that his dad had close links to AQ's top brass is what they said. I dunno, I just see the people at Guantanamo as POW's but the US uses their dubious nature to make them not-so-POW's. AQ/Taliban and militants like that are in a world where they're the minority, in the sense that they don't follow the Western-dominated systems that the world abides by. It's a double edged sword for them that they don't have to follow all these rules and there's some advantages in it, but they're also in for some crazy shit when they do get caught out. It's just how it is.

People say there's alot of innocent people being held in Guantanamo but it seems like a lot of effort shipping people from Afghanistan to Cuba instead of throwing them in some Afghan jail/camp or whatever. I think there's more innocents being held in Afghanistan then there is in Gitmo, there's much more scope for that then for Gitmo.

Either way this kid was captured by the enemy so life is never going to be easy when that happens to anyone when they're in a war or conflict or gang turf OG killa brawl.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7000

Mekstizzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I would wonder what else did he do or has he done, other than the grenade incident to exacerbate the situation? If he were merely a child soldier captured on the battlefield, it would seem to be a lesser issue than this.
I just see the people at Guantanamo as POW's but the US uses their dubious nature to make them not-so-POW's.
GC doesn't protect them as POW's since they do not wear a recognizable uniform.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6905|London, England
Yeah I know that, I never said anything about how I don't agree with the US using their dubious-nature to make them not-so-POW. I even talked about how entities like AQ/Taliban and groups like them don't even follow Western-dominated global policies like the GC and how that helps and hurts them.

It's just how it is. They know it. Obviously there's a reason the US ships certain people to Cuba instead of just doing whatever they do with most of the people they capture in Afghanistan.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7000

Mekstizzle wrote:

Yeah I know that, I never said anything about how I don't agree with the US using their dubious-nature to make them not-so-POW. I even talked about how entities like AQ/Taliban and groups like them don't even follow Western-dominated global policies like the GC and how that helps and hurts them.

It's just how it is. They know it. Obviously there's a reason the US ships certain people to Cuba instead of just doing whatever they do with most of the people they capture in Afghanistan.
its just higher value assets are shipped to gitmo. no real way of escaping from a USN base.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard