jcd11235 0 #76 December 22, 2004 All I know is that when I went through basic training (OSUT FT. Sill) they made it abundantly clear that it didn't matter who gave the order, Sergeant or CIC, if it violated G.C. I was responsible. We signed the treaty; we gotta follow the rules we agreed to play by. They are there for the benefit of the pawns.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #77 December 22, 2004 QuoteAll I know is that when I went through basic training (OSUT FT. Sill) they made it abundantly clear that it didn't matter who gave the order, Sergeant or CIC, if it violated G.C. I was responsible. We signed the treaty; we gotta follow the rules we agreed to play by. They are there for the benefit of the pawns. does not apply to them because they do not fill the definition of enemy combatant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
78RATS 0 #78 December 22, 2004 Quote Did you know white prisoners are repeatedly raped by black and hispanic prisoners because they consider it a "birth right"? What you talking about Willis? Rat for Life - Fly till I die When them stupid ass bitches ask why Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #79 December 22, 2004 QuoteQuote Did you know white prisoners are repeatedly raped by black and hispanic prisoners because they consider it a "birth right"? What you talking about Willis? See attached. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #80 December 22, 2004 So its okay to be cruel and inhumane, so long as we have a loophole to fall back on?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #81 December 22, 2004 QuoteSo its okay to be cruel and inhumane, so long as we have a loophole to fall back on? not a loophole it just does not apply to them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #82 December 22, 2004 Quotenot a loophole it just does not apply to them. That is much like saying that the tax code was not written for corporations.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #83 December 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo its okay to be cruel and inhumane, so long as we have a loophole to fall back on? not a loophole it just does not apply to them. Ummm....that's kind of the definition of loophole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #84 December 22, 2004 then you would want GC applied to a spy? Or do you think that is a loophole as well? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #85 December 22, 2004 Quote then you would want GC applied to a spy? Yeah, yes, affirmative, yep, absolutely, Si. Do I need to go on?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #86 December 22, 2004 Quotethen you would want GC applied to a spy? Or do you think that is a loophole as well? I believe that is specifically addressed by the GC, so it's not a loophole. The current situation is not. The definition of loophole is (A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.) Seems to me the point of holding them off US soil is to avoid US law, and declaring them enemy combatants is to avoid GC rules. In other words, using ambiguity or ommissions of those rules in order to avoid complying with either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #87 December 22, 2004 sorry but it NEVER has applied to spies and is spelled out in the GC as such. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #88 December 22, 2004 Quotesorry but it NEVER has applied to spies and is spelled out in the GC as such. Exactly why it's not a loophole in that case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #89 December 22, 2004 the GC needs to be revisited, the world is a far different place than it was when voted on. Do you agree? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #90 December 22, 2004 Quotethe GC needs to be revisited, the world is a far different place than it was when voted on. Do you agree? 100% We definitely need to close the loopholes that allow torture of other human beings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #91 December 22, 2004 Quote100% We definitely need to close the loopholes that allow torture of other human beings. we need to address how to treat nonuniform combatants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #92 December 22, 2004 QuoteQuote100% We definitely need to close the loopholes that allow torture of other human beings. we need to address how to treat nonuniform combatants Agreed. How do you see them? I view them as poorly equipped militia, who should be afforded the same basic levels of humane treatment granted to POWs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #93 December 23, 2004 Quotewe need to address how to treat nonuniform combatants Now you are starting to sound like a 18th century Brit.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #94 December 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote100% We definitely need to close the loopholes that allow torture of other human beings. we need to address how to treat nonuniform combatants Agreed. How do you see them? I view them as poorly equipped militia, who should be afforded the same basic levels of humane treatment granted to POWs. How do you view an enemy who violates every part of the GC and actually uses the fact we are complying with it to kill US Troops? Should this enemy be afforded the protections it refuses to abide by? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #95 December 23, 2004 QuoteHow do you view an enemy who violates every part of the GC and actually uses the fact we are complying with it to kill US Troops? Despicable. QuoteShould this enemy be afforded the protections it refuses to abide by? Yes, otherwise we are despicable as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #96 December 23, 2004 QuoteHow do you see them? Well, if we are not going to charge them with anything, we should repatriate them to where there were captured, Afganistan, and let that government do what they want with them. If we have something on them, charge them and move on... we need to quit playing word games and stop trying to circumvent our constitution. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #97 December 23, 2004 Consider that the war in Iraq was completely optional. If we are so concerned with the human rights of the Iraqi Shiites and Kurds, why didn't we step in twelve years ago when the atrocities were taking place against the Kurds? Sorry. We pick a fight and then complain about the manner in which retaliation is made? Maybe we should just stop picking fights. That would go a long way to the safety of our troops and the security of our state.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #98 December 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteHow do you view an enemy who violates every part of the GC and actually uses the fact we are complying with it to kill US Troops? Despicable. QuoteShould this enemy be afforded the protections it refuses to abide by? Yes, otherwise we are despicable as well. I'll remember this if I ever challenge you to a Duel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #99 December 24, 2004 QuoteQuotewe need to address how to treat nonuniform combatants Now you are starting to sound like a 18th century Brit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's face it, the Geneva Convention is a legallized form of racism. It requires decent treatment of POWs from uniformed armies (read white Europeans). The primary reason for treating them fairly is so that they will be willing to trade with you a year or two after the war (shades of George Orwell and the novel "1984"). Excluding "non-uniformed combatants" allows captors to torture, etc. geurillas representing poorer groups. Since few of those geurillas, mujahadin, freedom-fighters, call-them-what-you-will represent wealthy governments that we want to trade with, there is less incentive to treat them fairly. It comes down to dollars-and-cents. There is no financial incentive to treat "non-uniformed combatant" POWs fairly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
