WTF? Why is the US being so hyprocritical?

[Martin]

First they say they are at war so they can quickly, easily and secretly punish those suspected of terrorism, and now, after they went to afganistan and captured some fighters, they say that they are not prisoners of war, but "illegal combatants".

to that I say, WTF!


I also wonder why they won't designate them as PoWs.

 

[Ns1]

just fyi we never officially declared war

but seriously, what do you want us to do? put them in the ritz?

 

[Queasy]

I don't know about the illegal combatant/POW stuff but I think they are there to be interrogated. The U.S. definitely wants any information they can get from the prisoners concerning terrorist operations.

I doubt the prisoners will be tortured and killed however because the press is swarming all over this story. There was one reporter who had the audacity to complain that the prisoners were outside where there were a lot of mosquitos but weren't given any mosquito spray..

HUH!?!

 

[Pr0Hawk]

<< just fyi we never officially declared war >>



umm...yes we did?

 

[pulse8]

When did Congress or the President actually use the term war in reference to what we're doing in Afghanistan?


And how can we declare war if there is no country?

 

[gopunk]

<<

<< just fyi we never officially declared war >>



umm...yes we did? >>



no we didn't, congress used the 73 war powers act, different from a formal declaration of war.

and do i really care what they call the prisoners? not really.

 

[Martin]

<<

<< just fyi we never officially declared war >>



umm...yes we did? >>



That's what bothers me. If you didnt declare war, then why are suspects denied normal trials and treated as spies in a time of war? And if ARE at war, then why not treat captured combatants as PoWs?

 

[jaybittle]

How do you declare war on a government you don' t officially recognize? Only three states recognized the Taliban, now none do.. Everyone else recognized the Northern Alliance at the offical government of Afghanistan...

We did declare "war" on the Taliban, but in the same sense we have declared "war" on drugs, alcohol, battered wifes, etc...

cheers,
--jb

 

[Hammer]

they're 'detainees'

 

There are rules to war.

 

[narzy]

we are playing politics, if we call them POW's we inact the geniva convention and have to take care of them differently, and WTF should we spend money on people who are our right trying to kill us? why are you so critical of US?

 

[Martin]

<<

<<

<< just fyi we never officially declared war >>



umm...yes we did? >>



no we didn't, congress used the 73 war powers act, different from a formal declaration of war.

and do i really care what they call the prisoners? not really. >>




its not what you call them, its how you treat them. Under the Geneva convention (ratified by the US), PoWs are protected and given certain rights.


Why if then would the US not designate them as POWs, unless they sought to deny those rights to them?

 

[narzy]

thats the point smarty, the illegal combatants don't deserve the rights the geneva convention gives them and since we arnt officially at war we can't exactly call them Prisoners of WAR and since we are not at war officially we don't have to go by the guidelines set forth in the geneva convention... I swear sometimes I feel with certain people "Knock over my building(s)?!?! I MAKE YOU KING!!!!"

 

[gopunk]

Why if then would the US not designate them as POWs, unless they sought to deny those rights to them?

maybe you should change your thread title then. sounds like the U.S. is being *smart*, not hypocritical.

 

[Martin]

<< thats the point smarty, the illegal combatants don't deserve the rights the geneva convention gives them and since we arnt officially at war... >>



That's not what people were saying when they compared the current detainees (those arrested in the US) when they compared them to German spies during WWII.



In any case, the Geneva Convention is mainly about treating prisoners humainly. Unless the US wants to torture, maim and kill them, why would they not designate them as POWs?

 

[iamwiz82]

OK, do you people realize what those terrorists receive? They are getting the same food and sleeping arrangements that the special forces are getting in Afghanistan. Also, how do you think Al Queda would treat americans they captured, would they feed them, give them clothes, medical attention? The Afghani's should be happy that they are still alive. I'm suprised a soldier hasnt "forgotten" to leave the safety on his weapon.

 

[narzy]

as I edited later

to be a POW, we have to be at war, since we did not / do not recognize the taliban as a government, we cannot declare war on them. in all truth, we can't call them POW's.

 

[gopunk]

In any case, the Geneva Convention is mainly about treating prisoners humainly. Unless the US wants to torture, maim and kill them, why would they not designate them as POWs?

DUH. we all agree, the u.s. probably does want to torture, maim, and kill them. nobody is disagreeing with you!

 

[narzy]

I don know, I'd like to leave the option availible

 

[CanOWorms]

<< In any case, the Geneva Convention is mainly about treating prisoners humainly. Unless the US wants to torture, maim and kill them, why would they not designate them as POWs? >>



You also forgot that we're gonna eat 'em!

 

[Czar]

<< First they say they are at war so they can quickly, easily and secretly punish those suspected of terrorism, and now, after they went to afganistan and captured some fighters, they say that they are not prisoners of war, but "illegal combatants".

to that I say, WTF!


I also wonder why they won't designate them as PoWs. They probably want to kill and torture them....who knows... >>



If they are declared POW's by the US then they must be treated according to the geneva convention and that states "no secret military tribunals".

 

[rahvin]

<<In any case, the Geneva Convention is mainly about treating prisoners humainly. Unless the US wants to torture, maim and kill them, why would they not designate them as POWs? >>

Because under the geneva convention if they are declared POW's we have to let them go. You cannot detain battlefield combatants after the war has ended (and then off they run causing trouble and starting new terrorist camps). The intention of the US Government is for these people to rot in prison for the rest of their lives.

 

[Ns1]

<< Unless the US wants to torture, maim and kill them, why would they not designate them as POWs? >>




And when exactly have we been known to tortue, maim, or kill detainees?

 

[Martin]

<< In any case, the Geneva Convention is mainly about treating prisoners humainly. Unless the US wants to torture, maim and kill them, why would they not designate them as POWs?

DUH. we all agree, the u.s. probably does want to torture, maim, and kill them. nobody is disagreeing with you! >>




remind me to quote you next time anybody in the US claims a moral high ground or claims they are more civilized.


I just read through the convention, and it doesnt matter if the US declared war or not.



<< Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
>>



I'd call this an "armed conflict", don't agree?

straight from the source

 

[Jzero]

<< I'd call this an "armed conflict", don't agree? >>


Sure....if by "armed" you mean camel-launchers