Treatment of prisoners (yep, those ones...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donut:


But they may be dead then!

---

Yeah they may be slightly used by then...but thats what happens when a person decides to go to war (wether its Jihad or any other kind of war) you roll the dice and you take your chances and in the end, the rules are made by the winners and NOT the loosers.

All I can say is, you will get them back...If your government decides they want them that is...Im pretty sure if briton made an apeal to the US it would be heard.

Where I grew up, (it was a rural part of Pennsylvania USA) we had a saying....Don't piss on the big dog unless you want your dick bit off.

Crude but apropos here, the Taliban and Mr. Bin Laden pee'd all over the biggest dog out there. Now they are missing sensitive parts. Pacifist would just roll over and turn the other cheek, but we as a nation decided we have had enough, so like the man said, you're either with us or against us. I sincerely hope the G.W.B. remembers his statement about that because I think it is about time some few rather ungrateful recipients of largess from the USA be given the chance to reject our greedy capitalistic ways to prove their point...and save me a few tax dollars in the process....oh by the way..how many nations out there have been skipping payments on their debts to the US....time to pay them back maybe?

well guess I went off topic there didnt I? ahh well

[fable]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:
I sincerely hope the G.W.B. remembers his statement about that because I think it is about time some few rather ungrateful recipients of largess from the USA be given the chance to reject our greedy capitalistic ways to prove their point...and save me a few tax dollars in the process....oh by the way..how many nations out there have been skipping payments on their debts to the US....time to pay them back maybe?

---

:cough: I wouldn't push that last point. For many years, following the years of the enormous Reagan defense expenditures, the US went from being the world's #1 creditor nation to being the #1 debtor, and defaulted repeatedly on its debts. Arrangements were quietly made to pay off a small portion of the interest, instead.

And now that we finally got out of the hole, it looks like we're going to dive right back into it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fable:


:cough: I wouldn't push that last point. For many years, following the years of the enormous Reagan defense expenditures, the US went from being the world's #1 creditor nation to being the #1 debtor, and defaulted repeatedly on its debts. Arrangements were quietly made to pay off a small portion of the interest, instead.

And now that we finally got out of the hole, it looks like we're going to dive right back into it.

---

Id push it a lot Fable [img]smile.gif[/img] Want to compare numbers after adjusting for compound interest and inflation?? just how much does it cost to virtually rebuild an entire continent after a World War? bet its more than we spent during the Reagan years..and lets not forget that Reagans tax cuts caused the largest increase in income for the government that has ever been seen, it was only congress' refusal to contain costs and not spend a dollar eighty three in new spending (I saw this number published somewhere) for every new dollar Reagans (actually it was a JFK plan) economic plan brought in..and which party had controll of both seats of congreess during the Reagan years?? hmmm shall we say it??? it wasnt the Republicans kids.

Reagan used a Democratic economic plan that was used successfully by JFK, it worked very well again in the 80's. Unfortunately people point ot Reagan spending on defense and totaly ignore the wildfire growth of social programs which accounted for far more end dollars than defense did...Defense spending increase for the Reagan era was 17 percent (Bush is asking for a 13 or 14 percent increase now) the 17% increase in defense spending is NOT what caused a trillion dollar deficit, especially when Defense spending is measured in Billions not trillions. When criticising Reagans economic and defense policies you ignore the fact that he was right in what he did, his ploicy is what ended the cold war.

[fable]

Id push it a lot Fable Want to compare numbers after adjusting for compound interest and inflation?? just how much does it cost to virtually rebuild an entire continent after a World War? bet its more than we spent during the Reagan years..and lets not forget that Reagans tax cuts caused the largest increase in income for the government that has ever been seen, it was only congress' refusal to contain costs and not spend a dollar eighty three in new spending (I saw this number published somewhere) for every new dollar Reagans (actually it was a JFK plan) economic plan brought in..and which party had controll of both seats of congreess during the Reagan years?? hmmm shall we say it??? it wasnt the Republicans kids.

Huh? When Reagan took the White House, the Republicans recaptured the Congress for the first time in more than fifty years. Don't take my word for it: look it up. They held it through both terms, and had a landslide majority in both cases. They voted in all the spending bills.

Edit: And for the record, I didn't vote for Carter.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: fable ]

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:



The Taliban being an unrecongnized governement to the US (and most nations) have nothing to do with this. The Convention protects any fighter captured by a foreing state during the course of a war.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]

---

But as you stated earlier, it does not apply to civil war fighters, and since these guys were captured by their own countrymen during a fight for control of their country it doesn't apply, does it?

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:


According to who and what are the precedent cases cited?

---

According to the UN. See the inclusion of all former republics after the fall of the soviet union. You can also check out the laying of war charges in the Ex-Yougoslavia (even though none of those nations actually signed to join the UN. They are already in and must abide by the rules!

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:



But as you stated earlier, it does not apply to civil war fighters, and since these guys were captured by their own countrymen during a fight for control of their country it doesn't apply, does it?

---

Good point. But it's grey.

Then, if they were captured by the NA and remained in the custody of the NA, the GC wouldn't apply. However, if one foreign soldier was present at the time of capture or they are handed over to the US, the US would be obligated to follow the GC.

Another point, even though the Red Cross agreed that the prisonners were not badly treated and they were treated humanly, that doesn't mean that the US is free of it duty to the world (sorry but that's what the GC is). It's a stupid and outdated concept, but we have to live with it or change it (again, the changes shouldn't be retroactive).

Some of the basic rights guaranteed by the GC are the protection against torture and questionning. The only questions the US are allowed to ask them is their name, their unit and their service number. That's all. Nothing about movements of troops or where Biny might be (even if it has nothing to do with the Talibans!)

My views on this is that this whole mess could have been averted if these Al-Quedan terrorist being also Taliban fighters would have remained in the custody of the NA to be questionned by American agents and then be executed by the NA!

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:


Good point. But it's grey.

Then, if they were captured by the NA and remained in the custody of the NA, the GC wouldn't apply. However, if one foreign soldier was present at the time of capture or they are handed over to the US, the US would be obligated to follow the GC.

---

It's all grey.

Does the GC actually say that or is it your interpretation? There hasn't been a civil war or revolution in history that didn't have foreign soldiers present.

These guys weren't training to defend Afganistan, they were training to make "America fall down". They weren't fighting to defend Afghanistan either, they were fighting to save their asses because their jihad brought steel rain.

These terrorists were not fighting for a nation, but instead, for a cause and this isn't covered under the Geneva Convention.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:
The only questions the US are allowed to ask them is their name, their unit and their service number. That's all. Nothing about movements of troops or where Biny might be (even if it has nothing to do with the Talibans!)

---

This may be the letter of the law, but it has never be treated as the rule of law by anyone. During WWII we know the Axis not only asked questions outside the GC, but also routinely encouraged the answering of these questions with torture. Does anyone believe that all of the Allies didn't at least ask questions beyond the scope of the GC?

Sometimes outdated laws lose their legitimacy because they aren't enforced or because they aren't enforced equitably. Did you know that in North Carolina it's illegal for a married couple to have anything other than "missionary" style sex? It's illegal for non-married couples to have sex at all. These laws been on the books for around 200 years, but haven't been enforced for generations, and if someone tried to charge or convict someone with these "crimes" they couldn't do it because they couldn't be applied fairly. Laws have to be enforced against everyone, not a select few or they are not enforcable. I can't remember the legal term (and I'm sure I bungled the definition), but maybe one of our resident lawyers can help.