Human shield gets Fined?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Fishu
Martlet,

after the news, specialists, human right organizations etc. etc. have made the accusation... yes.. I do have a right to make the accusation.

Great, what information do you base that accusation on?

[ccvi]

Originally posted by Martlet
"Illegal Combatants" do not fall under the Geneva Convention.

As inhabitants of high contracting countries everyone does - one way or the other. Either as POW, or if not falling within the categories defined by the convention, not as POW. It's not whether the convention is applicable, but whether or not the convention secures certain rights for the so-called unlawful combatants.


You state they do not fall into one of the categories that are defined as POWs. Can you please explain a bit more clear what they did do wrong during their fighting to not be POWs after capture? Even civilians taking up arms are POWs. "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." How does this not apply to them?

[Martlet]

Certain guidelines must be met to be afforded protection under the GC:

(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.

 

They clearly don't meet those qualifications.  Others are afforded protection too, but many of these are open to interpretation.

The one they come closest to fitting is the one you cited.  To fall into that category, you would have to assume they "spontaneously picked up arms at the approach of the enemy without having had time to form regular units".  Apparently, the detaining troops felt they didn't do that.  Neither you nor I were there.

[Rude]

The opportunity to teach a valuable lesson was lost. The United States had a chance to show the world that it extends its rights and freedoms not only to its best citizens, but also to its worst enemies, and could have lessened world hatred against it, even by a minute amount, by doing so.

What a ridiculous statement.....why in the world would we extend rights which are specific to the citizens of a sovereign nation?

Your one of those one world goverment folks aren't ya?

[Tumor]

[Rude]

Ya know what just dawned on me?

You guys spend so much time attacking the US and it's current leadership, yet I see no effort that even comes close to the same, extended towards the innocent who were killed on 9/11 or for that matter, anyone else who has been murdered or has suffered under the hands of our enemies.

Like I said before....I can respect Torque or dolf vader, because he lives here and may very well have served this nation in one capacity or another....you foreigners, you on the other hand offer tripe and venom....forcing your viewpoints on an audience that could care less what you have to say.

Think on this....all of this effort made on this bbs will yield you nothing....any of your opinions will bring about no change and nothing you can say or do will bring the US to alter it's efforts to protect our citizens and our property.

It's so obvious that you just can't stand the fact that we can and will do whatever we choose regarding our efforts against our enemies.

I wish we would just pull out of everywhere....it wouldn't take long for you to turn against yourselves....you have a history of that ya know.

[ccvi]

Originally posted by Martlet
Certain guidelines must be met to be afforded protection under the GC:

 

They clearly don't meet those qualifications.  Others are afforded protection too, but many of these are open to interpretation.

The one they come closest to fitting is the one you cited.  To fall into that category, you would have to assume they "spontaneously picked up arms at the approach of the enemy without having had time to form regular units".  Apparently, the detaining troops felt they didn't do that.  Neither you nor I were there.

Those certain points have to be met for those in category 2, if they were not civilians taking up arms spontaneously but organized resistance movements they would have to meet these criteria.

I'm not sure which you think they would not meet. They're surely commanded by someone (e.g. their local leader), they're easily recognizable by long beards on head covers, they were most probably carrying their weapons openly. Abiding to the customs of war is probably stretchable, but war allows pretty much.

Wasn't it decided that they were not going to be granted POW status right at the beginning of the war - before they were even captured?

[Gadfly]

The rest of the world, with notable execeptions, has NOT taken advantage of the the lesson of the U.S., but instead has allowed it's jealousy and religious extremists bring the world to where we are now.

I liken it to my children.  I always want the best for them, and encourage them to act in a manner that they can be proud of, and which will make them a better person.  In spite of this, sometimes they simply must be spanked, because their safety is more important than my feelings.  So it is with the world;  the unreasonable elements must be spanked, but in the adult world, that means people die, governments fall and shades of gray fade to white or black.

The most important thing to remember about current events is that the U.S. works in it's own interests, but responds with force only when it must, and reluctantly, then.

[Fishu]

Rude,

Several dictators have been raised into power with the thoughts bit similar to yours.
Go figure.

Do you want America to become the 21st century nazi germany?
Surely not literally, but something horrible anyway.

[Manedew]

Originally posted by Curval
I "think" you misunderstood what I was saying.  This woman cannot argue HER case based upon "Oh I didn't know about those laws"...even if she wasn't TOLD what the rules were.  The onus is always upon the accused to know what the law is before they break a law.

Ya and like any one person can know every law ...

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!

Judges don't even know ALL the laws..... Ignorance is the best excuse ..... US govement is down right Evil at times; .... I love my country, but there are some lame aholes in D.C.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by ccvi
Those certain points have to be met for those in category 2, if they were not civilians taking up arms spontaneously but organized resistance movements they would have to meet these criteria.

I'm not sure which you think they would not meet. They're surely commanded by someone (e.g. their local leader), they're easily recognizable by long beards on head covers, they were most probably carrying their weapons openly. Abiding to the customs of war is probably stretchable, but war allows pretty much.

Wasn't it decided that they were not going to be granted POW status right at the beginning of the war - before they were even captured?

Recognizable refers to differentiating them from the civilian population.  Long beards and head covers doesn't cut it.

At the beginning of the war, it was decided to treat the action as two SEPERATE actions.  One against Afghanistan, and one against al Queda.  In the former action, the Geneva Convention applied.  In the latter, for obvious reasons that I think we agree on, it didn't.  Now, (and I'll concede that it is a stretch) they determined that members of the Taliban were not given protection under the GC.

This is where it gets to be more manipulation, and less black and white.  The reasons the press secretary gave for not covering the Taliban, was because if violated factors which you and I have already discussed, and I think, agreed upon.   He didn't give any further reasons, and clearly didn't cover the  other subpoint under which it may be argued the Taliban is protected (Art. 4 1A).

I've seen several people argue that this also doesn't cover them.  The most compelling argument I saw was that AFGHANISTAN is covered under the GC, it has no military.  Afghanistan consists of warlords, and their fighters are loyal to them, not "Afghanistan".  Thus, they clearly don't fall into that articles description.  I know, this argument can have holes poked in it all day, but it really can't be shot down.  Does it hold water?  Legally, maybe.  Morally, not really.  

As I've stated before, do I think we are following the "spirit" of the law?  No, but I think we are following the "letter" of it.  I think that justice IS being served.  The only thing I am uneasy about is the precedent this sets.  It leaves a clear path for the situation to be repeated, only next time it may not be quite so justified morally.

[ccvi]

The signs are to distinguish friend and foe. Long beards work nicely in this case. Civiliens can easily identified by not carrying weapons.

Each fighting unit within the area afghanistan, at the heart loyal to their country or just defending their home town, is part of the entity afghanistan. I could not find any hint in the GC that places restrictions on the military structure. It does not require centralized command to allow fighting units to receive orders from the government.

At least we do agree that the spirit of the law is clearly beeing ignored. To the letter or not, there's no judge to enforce it, no neutral ivestigation going to take place anyway.

[Rude]

Originally posted by Fishu
Rude,

Several dictators have been raised into power with the thoughts bit similar to yours.
Go figure.

Do you want America to become the 21st century nazi germany?
Surely not literally, but something horrible anyway.

As is the case most often, you are over reacting to this as you have to much that the US has done. The vast majority of business associates, family members and friend that I speak with, have no fear of what you speak of notr do they fear our government like some would like them to.

Calm down and help us catch those who wish us harm like we did for you and yours this past century.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by ccvi
The signs are to distinguish friend and foe. Long beards work nicely in this case. Civiliens can easily identified by not carrying weapons.

 

It is to distinguish between friend and foe, not in regards to nationality, but civilian/soldier.  This is the very basis for identifying spies in WWII.  If you weren't in uniform, you were considered a spy.  Read it again.  Several arguments supporting your view of the original argument can be found on the .net.    All that bring this up disregarded it for the same reasons I did.

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.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Rude
As is the case most often, you are over reacting to this as you have to much that the US has done. The vast majority of business associates, family members and friend that I speak with, have no fear of what you speak of notr do they fear our government like some would like them to.

Calm down and help us catch those who wish us harm like we did for you and yours this past century.

People are never too concerned in general when the increased fear is met with increased protection.
Increased protection is only a concern if theres no justifiable fear.

Anyway..  it's been over 3 years of this century, which particular cases do you mean?
or if you mean the last century, what exactly then?