06-13-2003, 07:44 AM | #31 |
Hathor
Join Date: February 18, 2002
Location: Vienna
Age: 42
Posts: 2,248
|
yeah! commando raid Guantanamo Bay and prepare to have your whole country bombed to the ground, TERRORIST!
__________________
\"I am forever spellbound by the frailty of life\"<br /><br /> Faceman |
06-13-2003, 08:47 AM | #32 |
Drizzt Do'Urden
Join Date: May 8, 2002
Location: chocolate land
Age: 49
Posts: 696
|
Maybe someone can explain this to me. Are military bases regarded in the same manner as embassies ? An embassy is part of that nation. No embassy is located in that embassies nation but is considered a part of it. If military bases aren't considered like that, then the cubans could come in and have their own justice implemented there because it is on their soil. If they are, then the prisoners their fall under the US law and should be tried accordingly.
[ 06-13-2003, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: the new JR Jansen ]
__________________
JR<br /><br /><br /><br />It\'s me. The guy with the cloak big enough for a fire giant and the long nose.<br />Owner of the most visited woodshed in Ironworks\' history. |
06-13-2003, 09:13 AM | #33 |
Zartan
Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: North Carolina USA
Age: 57
Posts: 5,177
|
I think military bases are considered the sovereign soil of a nation just as embassies are.
__________________
[img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> |
06-13-2003, 09:16 AM | #34 | |
Drizzt Do'Urden
Join Date: May 8, 2002
Location: chocolate land
Age: 49
Posts: 696
|
Quote:
__________________
JR<br /><br /><br /><br />It\'s me. The guy with the cloak big enough for a fire giant and the long nose.<br />Owner of the most visited woodshed in Ironworks\' history. |
|
06-13-2003, 09:58 AM | #35 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
IF they didn't want to treat prisoners as prisoners of war they shouldn't have packaged and sold the "War on Terror" as a WAR. They called it WAR because that allows certain perk -- such as running your tanks all over the map chasing a few unwashed radicals. But, those perks also come with responsibilities. Those they want to shirk. Sorry, Bushie-boy, but there is only so long you can have your cake and eat it too. |
|
06-13-2003, 10:02 AM | #36 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
And, the Cubans, like Donut, are scared of us, too. Castro came a hair's breadth from losing that country, and it was only a JFK betrayal of Cubans that saved him. Which is why Miami will never, ever, ever, ever vote Democratic. [ 06-13-2003, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ] |
|
06-13-2003, 10:06 AM | #37 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
P.S. I have the texts at home if you just want to cite the section or area of the treaty. [ 06-13-2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ] |
|
06-13-2003, 10:27 AM | #38 |
Zartan
Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: North Carolina USA
Age: 57
Posts: 5,177
|
TL, as to whether or not the prisoners at Camp X-Ray qualify as POWs under the GC, I think Article 4 Section 2, especially as backed up by Section 6, cover the argument against them.
Now regarding my statement that not all prisoners taken during a conflict/war are POWs per the GC, Article 4 Section A actually begins the process of setting up the qualifications for being considered POWs "in the sense of the present Convention", so it stands to reason that those who don't qualify, in that sense, are not POWs. [img]smile.gif[/img] Article 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. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. 4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. 5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 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. [ 06-13-2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]
__________________
[img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> |
06-13-2003, 10:31 AM | #39 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
I'd have to see the definition of "party" under that part (since it is capitalized, it's a defined term), but I think # 1 applies. If you don't want Al Queda members and Taliban to be a "party to the conflict" then don't declare a war on terror.
I also think # 3 would arguably apply, and one could even argue that the entity you "owe allegience to" under # 3 could in fact be Allah. |
06-13-2003, 10:41 AM | #40 |
Zartan
Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: North Carolina USA
Age: 57
Posts: 5,177
|
Well, I'm more than happy to agree that waaaaaaaaaaay too many things in the GC can go both ways. Ryanamor and I had this debate at length at the beginning of the internments at X-Ray and finally agreed that the GC can actually be used to support both arguments.
__________________
[img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Does anyone have a solution? | E.Bill | Icewind Dale | Heart of Winter | Icewind Dale II Forum | 5 | 05-27-2004 05:15 PM |
Looking for a solution..... | Rayne | Baldurs Gate II Archives | 4 | 09-04-2001 06:00 PM |
SOLUTION!!!! | 250 | Baldurs Gate II Archives | 26 | 03-28-2001 09:08 PM |
The two keys to the final room in the final dungeon - one is missing (spoiler?) | Lathander | Wizards & Warriors Archives | 4 | 11-29-2000 01:28 PM |
The two keys to the final room in the final dungeon (spoiler?) | Lathander | Wizards & Warriors Archives | 0 | 11-26-2000 06:30 PM |