The torture thread!

[Pekka]

at all the knuckle heads in this thread. Then again, it's the better tier of knuckle heads, go ahead check otu any other forum and you might kill yourself.

Anyways, I think the whole point is that we get so frustrated about the interpretations of different papers, that we just can't bothered with doing war, who the hell is going to check all those papers? No way.. let's just stay home.

[laurentius]

Yes Yes Yes OK. Operation Peace, Poppies and Indefinite Justice was the only part of WoT that can be classified as war. Therefore I will quote you something: "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.
.
.
.

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."

AQ fighters in my opinion meet those criteria. Therefore they are POWs

[Kuciwalker]

AQ fighters don't meet those criteria. That's the whole point! They do not fall into any one of those categories.

[laurentius]

Pekka; Yeah, War is Hell man.

We should stay home and thats why I just paid my Comittee of 100 member fee for the next year

[laurentius]

How so Kuci?

Dont you agree that in Afghanistan they were:

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 ulfil 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.

Now I know I said earlier that they may not meet requirement d) but
it seems you dont always conduct your operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. So its a draw.

[Kuciwalker]

AQ isn't a Party to the conflict. It's not a signatory to the GC, and it isn't even a nation anyway.

[laurentius]

It is irrelevant if they are nation or not! They were part of the enemy forces were they not? If yes, that makes them party to the conflict! Thats enough.

[Kuciwalker]

No it's not. They were shooting at us. They were not members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict (i.e. the Taliban) nor members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

For the second case:

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 ulfil the following conditions:

They don't belong to a Party of this conflict.

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

Arguable.

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

No.

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

Definately not.

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I agree, this is basically fluff.

[Pekka]

Right it's complicated issue. I'm not decided on this one yet. I tend to lean on giving them the POW status, but then again I'm not sure.

It's a criminal organisation basically, the AQ. If we were shooting with biker gangs, they wouldn't get POW status if caught. **** they could be wearing their uniforms it wouldn't matter. Of course it's not good comparison, but just that there are different shades of grey in this area and I'm not decided yet.

In the meanwhile, do you think Osama's toes will withdraw like in the Wizard of Oz movie.. the evil witch? Do you figure many midgets will come and dance and sing 'DING DONG the witch is dead' and walk in the golden route? I'm still undecided on this issue. I'm leaning more to the ding dong song, buit I'm not sure. I guess we'll have to see that. Do you figure Dorothy will land her house into Osama or not? Odds are weak, but I'm taking bets!

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No it's not. They were shooting at us. They were not members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict (i.e. the Taliban) nor members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

If they were shooting at you, then they were party to the conflict. Further on they were co-operating with the Taleban fighters wich further makes them party to the conflict.

For the second case:

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 ulfil the following conditions:

They don't belong to a Party of this conflict.

Of course they did belong to the opposing party! Its was the Coalition against the Taleban and the AQ fighters. Why do you think they were somehow isolated from Taleban? They fall under the catogory of other militias or volunteer corps.

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

Arguable.

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

No.

So how did you or the locals assiting you identify them as AQ operatives?

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

Definately not.

No? So you were shooting at presumambly unarmed people?

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I agree, this is basically fluff.

No, it just makes them equal to you

[Kuciwalker]

Biker gangs aren't in a war zone or occupied territory. There is no civil law under which to try AQ members.

[Pekka]

**** are you really that unable to read message's points and analogues, even bad ones, or are you just trying hard not to?

That's NOT MY POINT!

AND NO IT WASN'T THAT UNCLEAR EVEN IF IT WASN'T TEH PERFECT POST!

Damn it Kuci.. what's wrong with you man?

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not arguing with you. I'm making a statement, in the context of your post, arguing against an earlier post of lauri's.

[laurentius]

Biker Gangs? So if theres no civil law, what have they done wrong? Disagreed with you?

[laurentius]

So what the **** are the AQ mofos then? POWs, plain criminals or political prisoners?

Damn my q-tags are screwed..I need reeducation