The taliban weren't a government (they weren't recognized), as such they aren't recognized as a nation-state under the geneva convention. In fact we were supporting the recognized government of a nation in a civil war against a second party that associated with terrorists. The terrorists are the ones they are detaining. This is the designation of unlawfull combatants, they weren't members of the nation-state the combat activities were taking place in. They were foriegners disrupting a recognized government.
<<
<< 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? >>
I'm sure I can find some, if I looked a bit. In any case, Mai Lai quickly comes to mind.
<< The taliban weren't a government (they weren't recognized), >>
Lol, right. And if the EU didn't recognize the Bush administration, you'd listen to them, right?
Let's face it, even though they weren't liked, the Taliban ruled Afganistan and were its government.
al Qaeda declared war on us !
They started it by attacking us in our own country. I think there is a huge distinction between declaring war, and defending ourselves.
Bottom line.
They started it by attacking us in our own country. I think there is a huge distinction between declaring war, and defending ourselves.
Bottom line.
<<
<<
<< 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? >>
I'm sure I can find some, if I looked a bit. In any case, Mai Lai quickly comes to mind. >>
I'm thinking it was a joke, his question.
<< Lol, right. And if the EU didn't recognize the Bush administration, you'd listen to them, right? >>
If the EU invaded the US and wiped out the govenrment, I'd say we'd have little choice. To the victors go the spoils. Terrorists aren't worth protection under the geneva convention. They should have thought of this before they started lobbing planes at skyscrapers.
remind me to quote you next time anybody in the US claims a moral high ground or claims they are more civilized.
marty - you will never see me claim that the u.s. has any sort of moral ground or they are more civilized.
furthermore, i don't consider the torture/maiming/killing of enemies as immoral or uncivilized.
I'd call this an "armed conflict", don't agree?
are the taliban considered a "high contracting party"?
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
marty - you will never see me claim that the u.s. has any sort of moral ground or they are more civilized.
furthermore, i don't consider the torture/maiming/killing of enemies as immoral or uncivilized.
I'd call this an "armed conflict", don't agree?
are the taliban considered a "high contracting party"?
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
Ns1
No Lifer
- Jun 17, 2001
- 55,420
- 1,600
- 126
let's see, what happens when american soldiers get caught...
somalia, they get decapitated and get their heads dragged around town behind cars
japan, they get sent to work in factories for years
vietnam, the hanoi hilton
but when we capture the enemy, we put them in a base with food and medical care and whatnot and we get our asses reamed for it
yeah, spiffy
somalia, they get decapitated and get their heads dragged around town behind cars
japan, they get sent to work in factories for years
vietnam, the hanoi hilton
but when we capture the enemy, we put them in a base with food and medical care and whatnot and we get our asses reamed for it
yeah, spiffy
<< are the taliban considered a "high contracting party"?
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 >>
I'm not aware of any coutry that hasn't signed the Geneva convention, so yes, they would be a High Contracting Party.
Jzero, my question had nothing to do with invading.
In 96, the taliban took power, but some countries didnt like them, and didn't recognize them.
Now, Bush won in nov'00, and IF the EU or any other collection of countries, didnt like bush, would you really give a sh*t? No you wouldnt.
<< Now, Bush won in nov'00, and IF the EU or any other collection of countries, didnt like bush, would you really give a sh*t? No you wouldnt. >>
It doesn't matter what I think--I'm not a political entity. But yes, if a majority of the nations of the world suddenly decided not to recognize the US government, there wouldn't be a whole heck of a lot I could do if they wandered in and took me a prisoner.
But what does that even have to do with anything?
Mani
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2001
- 4,808
- 1
- 0
The reason is simple: the Geneva convention guidelines were intended for handling prisoners of war that weren't suicidal, fanatical, and bloodthirsty. Many of the detainees are willing to give their lives just to take the life of others, like a prison guard or an interrogator. By not designating them as POWs the US can take more precautions with them, like shackling them to prevent violent outbreaks. If we were dealing with ordinary POWs, people that are prisoners of war but will cooperate in exchange for passage home we could designate them as such. But many of these guys have every intention of doing whatever it takes to inflict the maximum amout of damage possible.
That said, we are still probably treating them humanely enough to feed and not torture them. When we feel like starving or torturing them, that's when you'll see the northern alliance come back into play.
That said, we are still probably treating them humanely enough to feed and not torture them. When we feel like starving or torturing them, that's when you'll see the northern alliance come back into play.
Marty,
The geneva convention is NOT signed by all nations. 2. The Geneva convention requires that the signatories of the treaty obey it's provisions when dealing with the recognized governments of nation states. If we for example decide to interfere in the civil war in say Grenada or Haiti we are not bound to the geneva convention when dealing with rouge entities who may be in control of a state because the international comunity does not recognize that entity as the rightfull government of said country. The recognized government of Afgahnistan was the NA, they held the UN seat and they still controlled upto 10% of the country. Sure they were the underdogs but they weren't declared the losers of the civil war because no one had recognized them.
The distinction is important for the simple reason that when the geneva convention was signed the world dealt with nation-states at war, there were no rouge organizations engaged in an active war against a nation-state. The world has changed, the US has no intention of torturing of subjecting the prisoners to duress. Under the Geneva convention, if the US declares them POW's they MUST be set free at the end of hostilties. You CANNOT detain soldiers after a war is over, that is a key article of the geneva convention. These individuals operate outside the nation-state system, releasing them would be tantamount to the US attacking itself because the individuals involved will attack the US again given the opportunity.
As such the US government has declared them unlawfull combats (ie foreigners interfereing with the legitimate government of AF). They intend to detain the individuals until such time that their network has been dismantled and in the case of some of the harder cases until they can be microchiped, bugged and fingerprinted and put under lock and key in their nation state of origin.
The geneva convention is NOT signed by all nations. 2. The Geneva convention requires that the signatories of the treaty obey it's provisions when dealing with the recognized governments of nation states. If we for example decide to interfere in the civil war in say Grenada or Haiti we are not bound to the geneva convention when dealing with rouge entities who may be in control of a state because the international comunity does not recognize that entity as the rightfull government of said country. The recognized government of Afgahnistan was the NA, they held the UN seat and they still controlled upto 10% of the country. Sure they were the underdogs but they weren't declared the losers of the civil war because no one had recognized them.
The distinction is important for the simple reason that when the geneva convention was signed the world dealt with nation-states at war, there were no rouge organizations engaged in an active war against a nation-state. The world has changed, the US has no intention of torturing of subjecting the prisoners to duress. Under the Geneva convention, if the US declares them POW's they MUST be set free at the end of hostilties. You CANNOT detain soldiers after a war is over, that is a key article of the geneva convention. These individuals operate outside the nation-state system, releasing them would be tantamount to the US attacking itself because the individuals involved will attack the US again given the opportunity.
As such the US government has declared them unlawfull combats (ie foreigners interfereing with the legitimate government of AF). They intend to detain the individuals until such time that their network has been dismantled and in the case of some of the harder cases until they can be microchiped, bugged and fingerprinted and put under lock and key in their nation state of origin.
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
I love it how the U.N. overlooks egregious human rights violations around the world and instead focuses on criticizing the United States.
Let's see... the prisoners were questioned while being blindfolded, which is considered torture in the civilized world. They have to sleep outside for the most part, with only a rubber mat placed on a concrete floor as bed.
Good thing Amnesty doesn't have any power, and the US didn't sign any human rights acts, otherwise it might actually be bad eh?
If you claim the other side is so bad, don't show the world you are as bad. (Unless you just don't give a damn)
Good thing Amnesty doesn't have any power, and the US didn't sign any human rights acts, otherwise it might actually be bad eh?
If you claim the other side is so bad, don't show the world you are as bad. (Unless you just don't give a damn)
<< Let's see... the prisoners were questioned while being blindfolded, which is considered torture in the civilized world. They have to sleep outside for the most part, with only a rubber mat placed on a concrete floor as bed. >>
Riiight....we should get them penthouse suites at the Waldorff-Astoria and politely ask them to answer questions.
Let's see... the prisoners were questioned while being blindfolded, which is considered torture in the civilized world. They have to sleep outside for the most part, with only a rubber mat placed on a concrete floor as bed.
you have to be kidding me, you consider that torture?
If you claim the other side is so bad, don't show the world you are as bad. (Unless you just don't give a damn)
damn straight. killing thousands of innocent civilians, questioning blindfolded prisoners, same thing.
you have to be kidding me, you consider that torture?
If you claim the other side is so bad, don't show the world you are as bad. (Unless you just don't give a damn)
damn straight. killing thousands of innocent civilians, questioning blindfolded prisoners, same thing.
they must be prisoners of war,the US was at war with al qaeda and the UN human rights commissioner says they are pows,if the tables were turned i can imagine George Bushs' reaction,they have less rights being classiffied as terrorists as against pows
<< they must be prisoners of war,the US was at war with al qaeda and the UN human rights commissioner says they are pows,if the tables were turned i can imagine George Bushs' reaction,they have less rights being classiffied as terrorists as against pows >>
if the tables were turned, i guarantee you american POWs would be treated worse.
<< 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". >>
When did anyone use the language "quickly, easily and secretly punish"? It kind of defeats the purpose of doing it "secretly" when you're dropping Daisy Cutters and cluster bombs in front of CNN cameras, wouldn't you say?
These reason we have designated them illegal combatants is because members of al Qaeda ARE illegal combatants according to international rules. They do not wear insignia or uniforms, they operate covertly and in violation of all established international law that would give them the protections of lawful combatants captured in an armed conflict.
<< I also wonder why they won't designate them as PoWs. They probably want to kill and torture them....who knows... >>
According to the Geneva convention we signed, we cannot prosecute prisoners of war or detain them indefinitely. You MUST repatriate them after the conflict is over, which is suicide in this case since these people have an ideological hatred for the western world and will pose a threat to the United States if they're ever released. We are either going to execute a bunch of them, or let them rot in some prison for the rest of their life, two things we could NOT do if they were POW.
Geneva convention rules of war makes explicit exceptions FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE.
50 nations are party to the Geneva convention, while 130 nations are not. Additionally, there is a clause citing reciprocity, which means that whether a country is or is not a member of Geneva, we are obligated to reciprocate Geneva standards only to the same extent that the opposing military/government/combatant adheres to Geneva. If they are summarily executing our POWs, we can lawfully do the same to theirs; but our own human rights standards generally prevent such behavior.
So I guess the food that they are eating is terrible, right? Guess what, it's the same damn food our soldiers and Marines are eating down there and everywhere else in the world right now. Oh, it must be "inhumane" food because it's not stolen from their own starving population, that's right.
The medical attention they're receiving must be inhumane also. Boy, those Navy surgeons are some real cut-ups, I tell ya. Oh yeah, wait, these are some of the same guys who were holed up on their own hospitals strapped with bombs threatening to blow the entire hospital up, that's right. Damn our inhumane military doctors!
The living conditions they're in are pretty damn bad too I guess. Meanwhile, my brother who happens to be Army Infantry is out at this very moment sleeping in the dirt on a training exercise. Oh yeah, wait, a warm, breezy, tend to your needs cage is much less humane than a cold cave high in the Afghan mountainside, living in fear of "bunker buster" bombs dropping in for a "friendly" visit. Damn, how am I forgetting all these accoutrements that these guys left behind in their beautiful, native land? Oh wait, you mean to say that their own country's people are better off without them too? Damn we for being humanitarian to the majority populous of the country these guys raped, plundered, pillaged and destroyed.
<Charlton Heston>DAMN US! DAMN US ALL TO HELL!!!</Charlton Heston>
The medical attention they're receiving must be inhumane also. Boy, those Navy surgeons are some real cut-ups, I tell ya. Oh yeah, wait, these are some of the same guys who were holed up on their own hospitals strapped with bombs threatening to blow the entire hospital up, that's right. Damn our inhumane military doctors!
The living conditions they're in are pretty damn bad too I guess. Meanwhile, my brother who happens to be Army Infantry is out at this very moment sleeping in the dirt on a training exercise. Oh yeah, wait, a warm, breezy, tend to your needs cage is much less humane than a cold cave high in the Afghan mountainside, living in fear of "bunker buster" bombs dropping in for a "friendly" visit. Damn, how am I forgetting all these accoutrements that these guys left behind in their beautiful, native land? Oh wait, you mean to say that their own country's people are better off without them too? Damn we for being humanitarian to the majority populous of the country these guys raped, plundered, pillaged and destroyed.
<Charlton Heston>DAMN US! DAMN US ALL TO HELL!!!</Charlton Heston>
Ns1
No Lifer
- Jun 17, 2001
- 55,420
- 1,600
- 126
<< So I guess the food that they are eating is terrible, right? Guess what, it's the same damn food our soldiers and Marines are eating down there and everywhere else in the world right now. Oh, it must be "inhumane" food because it's not stolen from their own starving population, that's right.
The medical attention they're receiving must be inhumane also. Boy, those Navy surgeons are some real cut-ups, I tell ya. Oh yeah, wait, these are some of the same guys who were holed up on their own hospitals strapped with bombs threatening to blow the entire hospital up, that's right. Damn our inhumane military doctors!
The living conditions they're in are pretty damn bad too I guess. Meanwhile, my brother who happens to be Army Infantry is out at this very moment sleeping in the dirt on a training exercise. Oh yeah, wait, a warm, breezy, tend to your needs cage is much less humane than a cold cave high in the Afghan mountainside, living in fear of "bunker buster" bombs dropping in for a "friendly" visit. Damn, how am I forgetting all these accoutrements that these guys left behind in their beautiful, native land? Oh wait, you mean to say that their own country's people are better off without them too? Damn we for being humanitarian to the majority populous of the country these guys raped, plundered, pillaged and destroyed.
<Charlton Heston>DAMN US! DAMN US ALL TO HELL!!!</Charlton Heston> >>
nicely said ^_^
"Terrorists aren't worth protection under the geneva convention. They should have thought of this before they started lobbing planes at skyscrapers."
right but we are not detaining only terrorists. We are also detaining taliban officials and soldiers, some from combat. They may not have supported the terrorism, but only fought in the mountains against the US.
right but we are not detaining only terrorists. We are also detaining taliban officials and soldiers, some from combat. They may not have supported the terrorism, but only fought in the mountains against the US.
Can we rename this:
WTF? Why is a Canandian questioning what the U.S. is doing
Those prisoners are probably in better living conditions than a cold dirty cave. These people are NOMADS! It's not like we removed them from plush mansions where they ate caviar and drank fine wines at every meal.
WTF? Why is a Canandian questioning what the U.S. is doing
Those prisoners are probably in better living conditions than a cold dirty cave. These people are NOMADS! It's not like we removed them from plush mansions where they ate caviar and drank fine wines at every meal.
Looks like it's you and me again Aceman. WTF is wrong with some of these people? I see them on the news. I hear them on the radio. I read them on the internet and in the newspapers. Let's start an "Adopt and Al Qaeda" or a "Take in a Taliban" program for all these bleeding hearts and see how long they last. Better yet, let's put these whiners in the turret of an M2A3 in the desert with hostiles nearby and watch the piss dribble down into their "inhumane" Army issue combat boots.
Whoa! I didn't see this:
<< right but we are not detaining only terrorists. We are also detaining taliban officials and soldiers, some from combat. They may not have supported the terrorism, but only fought in the mountains against the US. >>
Riiiiiighht! At least share if you're going to take that good of drugs!
<< right but we are not detaining only terrorists. We are also detaining taliban officials and soldiers, some from combat. They may not have supported the terrorism, but only fought in the mountains against the US. >>
Riiiiiighht! At least share if you're going to take that good of drugs!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter