Bush Refuses to Sign Global Landmine Treaty..

[pajarito 0]

I had several cops on my team and they carry hydro-shock loaded mags at work. That is in Alabama, though.

[pajarito 0]

What's the Geneva Convention got to do with illegal combatants? That's what I heard Camp X-ray was full of.

[LouDiamond 1]

I stand corrected. Apparently several police agencies have adopted and authorize the use of hollow points as a duty round use in duty weapons.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[Kennedy 0]

[edit]I'm a dumbass.

Nothin to see here folks, show's over. Move along, move along. [/edit]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mikkey 0]

Quote

What's the Geneva Convention got to do with illegal combatants? That's what I heard Camp X-ray was full of.

You are just proofing my point. The phrase/definition was invented by the administration in order to avoid applying the Geneva Convention, International Law, US Law etc.

Current international law / conventions (as well as your own constitution) did not "suit" the administrations purpose so they ignored it by inventing a new "status" and ship the prisoners to "no mans land" in Cuba.
No one has a problem with fighting terrorism – but a lot of people have a problem with applying international laws like the Geneva Convention selectively when it suits your purpose.
It will be interesting to see what happens if there is a regional conflict in Asia, the US sends Marines to help a local ally – some get captured by the other party and treated as “illegal combatants” not covered by the Geneva Convention (claiming the precedent set by the US) because they were from a third country.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Kennedy 0]

IIRC, Geneva applied mostly to regualr armies and militia. It specifically did not cover guerilla fighters. There is some requirement about unifoms, unit patches, etc. Anyone remeber/able to find the particulars?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mikkey 0]

Depends. Taliban fighters were the official Army of Afghanistan.. Like it or not. The US invented the "status" to be able to keep the perisoners in limbo. If not the Geneva Convention, other International or US laws should have applied in regard to their status and rights. Again - no problem you going after these guys, big problem making up new "rules" as you go along. It will backfire...

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Kennedy 0]

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm***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. irrelevant

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. irrelevant

4. irrelevant

5. irrelevant

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. ***

My understanding is that the Taliban fighters failed under two or more sections of (2) and did not fall under (6). Just because they were the government's armed forces does not mean they qualify as POWs.

But someone refresh my memory. How exactly are they being treated worse than true POWs are required to be treated?

[edit for format snafu]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mikkey 0]

Quote

My understanding is that the Taliban fighters failed under two or more sections of (2) and did not fall under (6). Just because they were the government's armed forces does not mean they qualify as POWs.

But someone refresh my memory. How exactly are they being treated worse than true POWs are required to be treated?

A couple of points:

According to what I read (some time ago) – in the opinion of legal experts the prisoner had to be treated according to either:
a) Afghani law (the country they were captured in)
b) US law (the country of their capturers / territory held in)
c) Geneva Convention (if seen to be POW and for some you could interpret point 2 as being reasonably applicable)
d) International Law for treatment of war criminals (the Hague tribunal)

What the administration did was to ignore all of that (except for a prisoner from the US who was treated differently and according to US law – by this making the situation even more messy).
Instead they invented a new status and kept people in a legal limbo with no rights for years. (BTW note that a number of prisoners have been released after 2 years detention without any charges).

The only legal status applicable in this situation (if the US did not want to charge and treat the prisoners under either Afghani or US law) is as POW under the Geneva Convention. Inventing a new status that suits the purpose and leaves the prisoners with no rights what soever for years is a breach of about every international law and convention.

In regard to the second question: AFAIK Detaining people indefinitely without legal rights/representation, without access/contact to family and (AFAIK) only very limited access to the Red Cross is in breach of the Geneva rules for starters. While some of the physical conditions and treatments have improved, they were at least at the start not in compliance with POW rules. I am sure there is a whole laundry list.

Key point still remains – you can’t choose/disregard the laws and conventions that suit you, even if the objective is honourable. The US has opened up a Pandora's box with this.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[mr2mk1g 10]

RE: hollow points vs ball,

You have to remember that most of the west’s military was set up to deal with the soviets in a large-scale conventional war. Most of our equipment is still designed to deal with that threat and like it or not, a lot of the planners have taken a long time to come around to the concept that the Soviets are no longer the primary threat.

In dealing with the soviets, ball ammunition was considered way better than hollow point BECAUSE it was less lethal. I’m surprised this has not come up yet. The point was, in a conventional war, you don’t want to just want to kill the one guy you shoot, you want to take him down, and have his two mates carry him out of the lines, then have 3 doctors work on him, 4 nurses look after him, 5 orderlies feed him, then 6 seamen take him home etc etc. That’s a lot of resources eaten up by one bullet.

A hollow point would have killed him. You just took one guy out of the line; his mates buried him in like 5 minutes. One guy per bullet and that’s all.

Therefore in conventional warfare, less lethal, wounding ammunition was judged to be king (mostly based on theory). Now to meet today’s threats of mostly rogue states, and irregular armies, hollow points may well become more useful and western states may wish they hadn’t agreed to that restriction because all you want to do is take down that one guy with the AK. If he’s wounded he has no government or support echelon to care for him and take up resources, he just wants to kill westerners and every westerner he kills on his way down means the war becomes that bit untenable for the western democracy.

Perhaps the US rues tying its hands the way it has done. I do not believe the refusal to sign up is just about Claymores; I’m convinced the US could justify retaining them even if it did sign up. (the treaty defines a landmine as a munition "designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person…." Now a Claymore can do that, but so can a grenade taped to a tree…. Claymores are primarily command dettonated and as such I think the gov would simply say they don’t apply. Semantics maybe, but do you seriously think the US gov is scared of relying on semantics?) Their reasoning lies with conventional landmines

[pajarito 0]

Maybe not all. We use PDM (Pursuit Deterent Munitions) anti-personel landmines for small team defense which are not command detonated. They're thrown, they set up their own trip wires, and blow themselves up after a specified period of time if not previously activated (if they work properly). I'm not discrediting you. I'm just adding one more example besides the very familiar claymore.

[pajarito 0]

Bush didn't write what's in the Geneva Convention. Just like Gore didn't invent the freakin internet. The Taliban, members of Al-Qaida, and other affiliated terrorist groups we had to deal with didn't fit into a protected category. That doesn’t mean we don’t treat them humanly. Just because what the administration is doing doesn't fit into the mold of what liberals “feel” aught to be done with them is of no consequence. This is an ongoing war. Most of the public, however, has forgotten what this is all about. All their concerned about is their comfortable style of living that they enjoy here in the US because of the sacrifices of others. They’ve gotten complacent. Those prisoners are combatants picked up during the fight, possess valuable intelligence, and should be used for our purpose. I lived with those people. They’re not living any worse a lifestyle at Camp X-ray than they were back home other than they’re separated from their families. People need to get behind “the cause” instead of being the “toads in the road” in front of it.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

they set up their own trip wires

Cool!

On one hand, I'd like to see a get out clause in the treaty where you can have land mines so long as they self detonate after a while. That would allow those nations who wanted to be responsible, to sign up whilst still maintain their army's ability to protect itself.

The problem with this is that many mines will fail - even western made ones, and you can imagine the failure rate on munitions from the less developed world? As such, this clause would probably do little to protect civilians and would most likely simply enable unscrupuless sign ups to abuse the treaty.

[pajarito 0]

At camp X-ray, the prisoners get 3 hots, a cot, get to pray, get to play basketball, etc. One prisoner didn't want to leave when they said he was free to go. Go figure! I'll give you an example of how other countries treat their POW's. One of the warlords who's army was part of the Northern Alliance took back a town from the Taliban and captured a whole bunch of prisoners. He loaded them up in a Connex truck container and, in the dead of summer, trucked them several days to his headquarters. Many of them burned to death from exposure. Cooked like crabs in a boiling pot. We're freakin saints compared to most.

[pajarito 0]

I agree. With our technology, we should be able to produce all of our mines with a self destruct mechanism. Although, all are man made and have the potential to fail. There's also no way other countries will be able to keep up with that standard. Costs too much money plus a lot just don't care. There will always be civilian losses in war. It's sad but just a fact of life.

[pajarito 0]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pdm.htm

[Kennedy 0]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pdm.htm

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

What's the Geneva Convention got to do with illegal combatants? That's what I heard Camp X-ray was full of.

How do you know that, when they haven't been given a hearing and they are not allowed representation?

Just because GWB SAYS they are illegals, does that make it a fact? After all, he SAID he knew where Iraq's WMDs were and he SAID the deficit would be small and short-term.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

I say again. Bush didn't write what's in the Geneva Convention documentation. Reference to WMD and the deficit is irrelevant to the topic at hand and you're trying to change the subject based on your liberal hatred of GWB. The enemy combatants didn't fit into a protected category and certainly should not be privilaged to representation or a hearing. These are not US citizens. They are members and supporters of the terrorist group that killed thousands of our own people on 9-11.

[pajarito 0]

Did you lose anybody in the 9-11 attack? I didn't but several of my friends were shot, maimed, or killed during the war that followed. I admit I've got a personal grudge against members or supporters of Al-Qaida. That includes supportive groups or countries. What if your mother was killed in one of the towers on 9-11? Would you be so adamantly searching out of thin air for legal protection for the lives of the murderers?

[crzjp20 0]

pajarito- i am assuming you are in the servie are were i the servce due to your knowledge and a few of your statments. Well so am i, but anywyas. The thing we have to remeber is that we are to freaking nice!!! As americans we are blessed to haev the rights that we have, aka speech, representation, and a right to a freaking trian and we have become acoustome to those things. So the the average joe american they assume that we are going to give those rights to all people, even our enemys. Generaly speaking of course i think that they should all be locked up and have the key thrown away. But that is my opinion.... so just wantedto throw my .02 out there.

Blue Skys

--------------------------------------------------
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.

[pajarito 0]

I caught the .02 cents. Right on brother!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Did you lose anybody in the 9-11 attack? I didn't but several of my friends were shot, maimed, or killed during the war that followed. I admit I've got a personal grudge against members or supporters of Al-Qaida. That includes supportive groups or countries. What if your mother was killed in one of the towers on 9-11? Would you be so adamantly searching out of thin air for legal protection for the lives of the murderers?

I did lose 2 friends and a co-worker. The company I worked for at the time had an office on the 120th floor of Tower 1. That doesn't change the fact that I believe we shouldn't be holding people indefinitely without charging them with a crime or giving them access to legal counsel.

Are some of them murderers? Probably. Are all of them? Who knows? That's why we have the rules we do, so that innocent people aren't wrongly punished.

[crzjp20 0]

i hate to say it like this and i know i am goign to get majorly flamed, but it is guilt by association. They were associated with 911 and inreturn they are guilty. Did the prisionors plan it, probly not, did they do it, no, but did they support the people who did it, yes, and did they help them, yes. The fact is that they were all involved, and those who are guilty of the direct crimes, or war crimes will be punished appropratly. Also you have to concider if this person was to be released would they present a clear and present danger to the United States? These people are not americans, they hate the US and they want to destroy it. They are extremist and if they can not change then then need to be caged. My opinion.....

--------------------------------------------------
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.

[goose491 0]

Quote

My opinion.....

Dude, taking "My Opinion" to a tyrannical statment like that does not make it any less tyrannical. Guilty by association? Take your life because you hang with bad guys? wtf?

I guess I can't flame you because you already posted that you would get flammed? laughable.

So long as we are on the Gitmo topic, MY 2 cents is that that camp is more of a display of terrorism that the 9-11 attack was... My opinion.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!