Where's the interest? A kid killed an army medic. Try him and fry him. Where's the problem? His family is full of durkas trying to kill Gi's. The fact he's 15? If you're old enough to kill, you're old enough to die.
Interesting because this is the first time I ever heard of teenagers this young being caught fighting US troops . I never heard of this before . Only times I hear of kids this young and younger fighting is in Rawanda and places like that .
So what even if he killed an American medic? These things happen in war, but you don't execute the PoWs for it, you hold them until the end of the conflict then hand them back to be reintegrated into civilian life. Being a soldier is a job, not a crime. Two words: Double Standards.Erkut.hv wrote:
Where's the interest? A kid killed an army medic. Try him and fry him. Where's the problem? His family is full of durkas trying to kill Gi's. The fact he's 15? If you're old enough to kill, you're old enough to die.
The problem here UnOriginalNuttah is that these 'PoW's' are not fighting for a country to which they can be reintegrated to. They are not soldiers, they are terrorists. If they or you want them to be considered such, then they should put on uniforms. Then and only then can they be treated with your standards.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
So what even if he killed an American medic? These things happen in war, but you don't execute the PoWs for it, you hold them until the end of the conflict then hand them back to be reintegrated into civilian life. Being a soldier is a job, not a crime. Two words: Double Standards.Erkut.hv wrote:
Where's the interest? A kid killed an army medic. Try him and fry him. Where's the problem? His family is full of durkas trying to kill Gi's. The fact he's 15? If you're old enough to kill, you're old enough to die.
Which is exactly why you can't win a war on terrorism...Darth_Fleder wrote:
The problem here UnOriginalNuttah is that these 'PoW's' are not fighting for a country to which they can be reintegrated to. They are not soldiers, they are terrorists. If they or you want them to be considered such, then they should put on uniforms. Then and only then can they be treated with your standards.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
So what even if he killed an American medic? These things happen in war, but you don't execute the PoWs for it, you hold them until the end of the conflict then hand them back to be reintegrated into civilian life. Being a soldier is a job, not a crime. Two words: Double Standards.Erkut.hv wrote:
Where's the interest? A kid killed an army medic. Try him and fry him. Where's the problem? His family is full of durkas trying to kill Gi's. The fact he's 15? If you're old enough to kill, you're old enough to die.
He is not a POW he is a captured enemy combatant which is different. Membership in or "affiliation" with Al-Queda makes a detainee eligible for "enemy combatant" status, and obviates the privileges of the Geneva Conventions. The first statement you made contradicts the argument you try to make after that. Why should he be detained according to the Geneva conventions, when his killing of a battlefield medic violates the same treaty rules you would have him detained and protected under??? Seems like a double standard to me... This guy should be treated like what he is... a murderer.. not a soldier/POW at least not in the traditional sense.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
So what even if he killed an American medic? These things happen in war, but you don't execute the PoWs for it, you hold them until the end of the conflict then hand them back to be reintegrated into civilian life. Being a soldier is a job, not a crime. Two words: Double Standards.Erkut.hv wrote:
Where's the interest? A kid killed an army medic. Try him and fry him. Where's the problem? His family is full of durkas trying to kill Gi's. The fact he's 15? If you're old enough to kill, you're old enough to die.
Well, if guerrilla tactics aren't allowed in wars then America shouldn't support them to fulfil their aims. The word Contra mean anything to you?Darth_Fleder wrote:
The problem here UnOriginalNuttah is that these 'PoW's' are not fighting for a country to which they can be reintegrated to. They are not soldiers, they are terrorists. If they or you want them to be considered such, then they should put on uniforms. Then and only then can they be treated with your standards.
HOW THE FUCK can you justify executing PoWs captured while fighting in Afghanistan just because you say they can't be integrated back in to the so-called government the war was fought to install?
If the medic had shot him instead, should the medic be treated as a murderer?
EDIT:
And if he were to be treated as a murderer that means he should get a civilian trial. DOUBLE STANDARDS.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-04-05 10:25:02)
I have no objection to guerilla tactics per se, but you still seem to have it your mind that your boy there was fighting for a country and thus is a PoW. He committed his act against the U.S. military on foreign soil not as a soldier, but as a terrorist planting bombs. If the medic had seen him planting the bomb, IMNSHO, he would have perfectly within his rights to shoot him.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Well, if guerrilla tactics aren't allowed in wars then America shouldn't support them to fulfil their aims. The word Contra mean anything to you?Darth_Fleder wrote:
The problem here UnOriginalNuttah is that these 'PoW's' are not fighting for a country to which they can be reintegrated to. They are not soldiers, they are terrorists. If they or you want them to be considered such, then they should put on uniforms. Then and only then can they be treated with your standards.
HOW THE FUCK can you justify executing PoWs captured while fighting in Afghanistan just because you say they can't be integrated back in to the so-called government the war was fought to install?
If the medic had shot him instead, should the medic be treated as a murderer?
EDIT:
And if he were to be treated as a murderer that means he should get a civilian trial. DOUBLE STANDARDS.
My question to you is HOW ON EARTH can you justify defending a terrorist who does not fight in defense of a country but for Al-Queda, a terrorist organization that also has no problem killing civilians?
You know what they should of done..Put a damn bullet in his head...then all these damn people wouldn't have anything to bitch about and he would be just another dead terrorist....
On that note, I wonder how many times that has happened..
On that note, I wonder how many times that has happened..
Planting bombs designed for military targets is guerrilla combat. Planting bombs aimed at civilians is a murderous crime. I don't defend any crime, merely the right to a fair trial and a timely opportunity to answer the charges so that they don't execute the wrong person.Darth_Fleder wrote:
I have no objection to guerilla tactics per se, but you still seem to have it your mind that your boy there was fighting for a country and thus is a PoW. He committed his act against the U.S. military on foreign soil not as a soldier, but as a terrorist planting bombs. If the medic had seen him planting the bomb, IMNSHO, he would have perfectly within his rights to shoot him.
My question to you is HOW ON EARTH can you justify defending a terrorist who does not fight in defense of a country but for Al-Queda, a terrorist organization that also has no problem killing civilians?
I believe that if he has killed civilians then the charges should be brought against him and he should stand trial. If he has not killed civilians but has killed soldiers whilst fighting as part of a resistance to an occupation, then he should be treated as a regular PoW.
I also don't think that if an American soldier goes loco and shoots a whole family dead they should lose their human right of a fair trial. Sorry, just don't see it like that. Human rights are just that; a right, not a privilege that can be taken away on a whim. Doesn't matter which side you are on.
These are my beliefs. I don't care if you don't understand or don't share them. I've got my answer on how you think it is justified: You don't think they count as proper prisoners of war.
He was picked up within a year of the American intervention to topple the Taliban, and caught attacking military targets. Correct me if you see anything that says he was planting bombs on civilian targets, I missed that if it's there. I see attacks on military targets when there is resistance to an occupying force as a certainty, but alone that doesn't make the people attacking the occupation forces criminals. Proof of attacks on civilians does, and they deserve an open trial and a fair chance to defend themselves before they are executed. And I firmly believe you can't execute someone because they were part of a resistance force, if you could shouldn't all the Nazi resistance fighters in WW2 be found and executed also?
I think that if the medic would not have committed a crime by shooting him in the act of setting a booby trap, then he would not have committed a crime if the medic walked into that trap. It's horrible, cruel and unfair but that is what war is.
Let me ask you something. Did you first hear the phrase "captured enemy combatant" used, and how old are you now (if that isn't too personal)?
I agree at 26 I'm a fairly young, but I only started to hear it since the 911 incident, and I'm still not 100% sure why it means anything different from the normal definition of PoW.
Google defines:
Captured:
A person is in a missing (captured) status if he has been seized as the result of action of an unfriendly military
or paramilitary force in a foreign country.
Combatant:
A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war.
So, a "captured enemy combatant" to the best of my understanding means a soldier or guerrilla fighter who has been captured whilst waging war. Or, to put it slightly differently a Prisoner of War.
Prisoner of War:
A person captured in war, especially a member of the armed forces of a nation who is taken by the enemy during combat. Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2003
Anyway, read through this http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=16996 thread for an interesting and lengthy discussion on the subject, everyone makes the same basic points but about a different detainee. Anyway, I've said my piece on the subject, answer my questions if you like and I'll respond. And don't take this as some kind of anti-American attack, it is the policies of one administration and one incompetent president which I am commenting on, not the whole county.
UnOriginal, first let me start by complimenting your last post, it was well put together and you make some valid points. However, the gentleman in question cannot have it both ways, either he is a soldier and is subject to the rules set up for soldiers or he is a civilian and should be treated as such. I have taken the time to read portions of the Geneva conventions and have found some things as relevant to our discussion.
As far as I can tell from my research:
a. He is not covered under the Geneva conventions by his actions.
b. The U.S. is being gracious enough to afford him his forfeited ‘rights’.
Now, what these terrorists are doing is not guerilla warfare as defined by the Geneva Conventions. They operate using the civilian population as cover and put them at risk. This to me is completely unacceptable.
Geneva Convention IV, art. 5 wrote:
…Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
www.genevaconventions.org wrote:
The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians. The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians. Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.
For example, a civilian who shoots a soldier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.
In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.
Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
In relation to your first question, I personally heard about it about the same time as you, however after doing some research on the claims of our current government I found this. Also you will note that it is also in the Geneva conventions.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Let me ask you something. Did you first hear the phrase "captured enemy combatant" used, and how old are you now (if that isn't too personal)?
U.S. Supreme Court EX PARTE QUIRIN 317 U.S. 1 (1942) wrote:
…By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals…
As to your second question, my age is under my name Darth_Fleder, near the from section. See From: Orlando, FL Age 41wikipedia.org wrote:
An Enemy combatant has historically referred to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1]
In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin the court clearly uses the terms with their traditional meanings to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:
Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant
As far as I can tell from my research:
a. He is not covered under the Geneva conventions by his actions.
b. The U.S. is being gracious enough to afford him his forfeited ‘rights’.
Now, what these terrorists are doing is not guerilla warfare as defined by the Geneva Conventions. They operate using the civilian population as cover and put them at risk. This to me is completely unacceptable.
Now, I can see by your previous post that your heart is in the right place but perhaps your sympathies are not. It is THEY who are breaking the rules and they deserve no sympathy. Perhaps it you who are holding the U.S. to a double standard?Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, art. 4, sect. 2 wrote:
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, fulfill 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.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
lol I ain't reading all that shit . Make a fucking video lol .
Darth well wriiten. Your point comes across cystal clear.