The torture thread!

[Gibsie]

Very well, if they specifically aren't covered by the GC, then they are covered by any of the other treaties on torture that don't make a disctinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. Can't have it both ways.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Besides the fact that the GC specifically says they aren't?

I quoted the GC in the Gitmo thread, It specifically says that they are.

[laurentius]

quote:
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.

[MrFun]

Re: The torture thread!

Originally posted by Oerdin
I have decided that forcing children to wear shoes is torture so I will now run around writting articles and posting threads declaring that all the countries of the first and second world are torturing their children. I realize that international laws do not back up my basesless claims but I shall never the less insist on calling every parent who makes their children wear shoes a torturer.

DOWN WITH THE TORTURERS!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Obviously, you do not know how to use the thumbs correctly, with the smilies.

correct way:

[laurentius]

Anything else MrFun?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by laurentius
I quoted the GC in the Gitmo thread, It specifically says that they are.

AQ doesn't wear uniforms, etc...

[Kuciwalker]

The thing you quoted defined POW's. I don't see how AQ is included in it.

[Hurricane]

Let's for a moment assume that the prisoners at Gitmo without a doubt weren't covered by the GC: would it then be ok to torture them?

[laurentius]

Yeah and you quoted my reply about Taleban fighter, not AQ operatives. Theres a difference between those two things, see?

[Kuciwalker]

conceded.

However, not all of those at Gitmo are Taliban fighters. Some are AQ.

[laurentius]

yeah and the AQ operatives shouldnt be there in the first place IMO. They are not fighters since the "War on Terror" is technically and legally not a war at all, but a series of police & security force operations. The AQ suspects should be tried fairly in civil courts.

The international Criminal Court would be exellent for this but ironically America opposes it. Pretty dumb huh?

[Kuciwalker]

Who's claimed that the WoT is an actual war? And why should AQ operatives be tried in civil courts?

[laurentius]

Because if WoT is NOT a real war you cant be talking about "AQ fighters" as a military force. If theres no war, then its a matter of civil courts to try international criminal. Remember the Jackal? He is an international "terrorist" or whatever and he was trien in civil court, got a fair trial, got what 200 years. What are you afraid of? Not having enough evidence? Then you have to let them go? You understand what I'm saying? If a person isnt POW, you either charge him or let him go.

And in western democracies military tribunals are only used against military personnel. You dont wanna look like one of those "junta" states do you?

[Kuciwalker]

Because if WoT is NOT a real war you cant be talking about "AQ fighters" as a military force. If theres no war, then its a matter of civil courts to try international criminal.

The war in Afghanistan is a real war. The AQ people were fighting against us in Afghanistan. They just aren't PoW's under the GC, so they don't get any of those protections.