Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's?

[General Ludd]

I think Faded Glory is drunk. (again)

[faded glory]

Leaves the answer to ACS poster's imaginations...

Originally posted by Osweld
I think Faded Glory is drunk. (again)

wha?

[Hueij]

Originally posted by faded glory


...as for the army captain, wasnt that accident? I cannot say the same for the actions of your Pig-**** ing/Goat ramming friends..

Accident? Sure, maybe by your standards... And they weren't my friends, just Vietnamese women and children. But the way you describe them makes me think. Do you normally describe people who aren't your race like this? Arabs, Vietnamese... If so, please let me know so I can skip reading your posts...

tsk.....tsk.....to the victor goes the spoils. And look who won? No mercy, weeks before there capture they talked of jihad and genocide against babies and women in buildings...now the irony is they are crying like women and babies.

These people are too dangerous to lock up...besides, who wants to pay for them?

So its ok to blow 4,700 people up in buildings?

In case you havent been paying attention to the new lately, the is from a few fringe, disenchanted fanatics of a largely peaceful religon. Oh ya, or are you wanna of those people who thinks "US policy" is too blame. Just because we have supported Israel...Bombed Iraq?? Pa'h.....

We(america) once again, will have the last word. Its only a matter of time before fix some of the issues I mentioned above.

Keep up this way of thinking... You(america) will be surprised. If you don't know by now that this isn't about Israel or Iraq then, well, sorry...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Mark L
The US signed the convention, and the POWs are in US custody. It doesn't matter if the party of the POWs signed it or not.

Mark is quite right - the U.S. is a signatory and its Geneva Convention obligations extends to combatant who are not signatories.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Hueij
But the way you describe them makes me think. Do you normally describe people who aren't your race like this? Arabs, Vietnamese... If so, please let me know so I can skip reading your posts...

Oh Huejj my boy

Your not trying to paint me into the deep-dark corner of ignorance are you? The good ole' Racist trick eh?

I called the Vietnamese Guards Pig ****ers..... And they clearly are.....if you have ever heard the stories of american POW's before? And little nammie's never signed your worthless Geneva convention. And war was never officially declared on Vietnam. Now, doesnt that sound familiar?

Keep up this way of thinking... You(america) will be surprised. If you don't know by now that this isn't about Israel or Iraq then, well, sorry...

Its not! Watch the bin ladin video my friend...mr. Sheyk says it loud and clear...

To get people interested in Islam.....

All that other stuff? Thats a mask of course..

[Hueij]

Originally posted by faded glory The good ole' Racist trick eh?

I called the Vietnamese Guards Pig ****ers..... And they clearly are.....

I don't know anything about a Racist trick, sorry. I just call 'm as I see 'm. And you weren't talking about guards, you were talking about Vietnamese in general...

if you have ever heard the stories of american POW's before? And little nammie's never signed your worthless Geneva convention. And war was never officially declared on Vietnam. Now, doesnt that sound familiar?

I heard the stories, read the books, saw the movies... (btw, 'little nammies', that's a new one to me, thanks...) And if you think my Geneva convention is worthless then this whole argument serves no purpose, right? All you do is convincing me more and more that I'm right...

All that other stuff? Thats a mask of course..

Right...

[Immortal Wombat]

What's so confusing about what I said?

Only that it contradicts Chris' points...

It's not like we would be able to bring these defendants before an International tribunal as some hear would apparently prefer. The shear number of potential defendants would overwhelm the realistic ability of international courts to handle them. As an example, only 31 individuals have been tried by the Yugoslav tribunal in 8 years, at a cost of $400 million. Imagine the costs of opperating with jurisdiction in this area. There are other faults with international courts but that one is the most glaring.

Thats silly. What El Awrence siad about MP&THG Course you can't try an army. In an international court, nor a military tribunal. They were following orders. You'd have to try US servicemen for all the war crimes against Afghans.

Treat the Al-Quieda leaders as criminals, and find them guilty by fair, open trial. Its not too difficult. You were sure enough to go blow a country apart, be sure enough to find them guilty.

[faded glory]

Well no point in argueing with somebody who believes terrorist are justified in killing civilians. Yet its not ok when we seek to bring them to justice?


Not to mention you seem only interested in calling me a bigot, rather than face the facts. An army captian killed a few Vietnamese civilians on accident..We treated there prisoners with respect, Vietnamese did not return the favor..You seem to only wanna say "Its ok they did it, because look what you did"


so I can see the ignorance and anti-american behind your mask

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Thats silly. What El Awrence siad about MP&THG

That's the second time you've confused me on as many forums.

Course you can't try an army. In an international court, nor a military tribunal.

And no where in my post did I suggest "trying and army?" If you have any substantive objections to my post please list them.

Treat the Al-Quieda leaders as criminals, and find them guilty by fair, open trial. Its not too difficult. You were sure enough to go blow a country apart, be sure enough to find them guilty.

I'm not exactly sure how you meant this part to connect to my arguement but I'll opperate under the assumption that you disagree with the use of military tribunals as a means to try war criminals. To that I can only say that the traditional venue for enforcing the law of war has been military tribunals (example Nuremberg) and are not in and of themselves inconsistent with international law. In fact a recent Executive Order issued by President Bush, setting out the jurisdiction of military commissions, is limited to foreign nationals, and may permit open trials, the participation of civilian judges and defense counsel, and some form of appellate review.

[Hueij]

Originally posted by faded glory
Well no point in argueing with somebody who believes terrorist are justified in killing civilians. Yet its not ok when we seek to bring them to justice?


Not to mention you seem only interested in calling me a bigot, rather than face the facts. An army captian killed a few Vietnamese civilians on accident..We treated there prisoners with respect, Vietnamese did not return the favor..You seem to only wanna say "Its ok they did it, because look what you did"


so I can see the ignorance and anti-american behind your mask

You really have no clue about what happened over there, do you? An accident indeed... If so then 911 was an accident too.

And to refrase you, Ãt's ok we do it, because look what they did'?

I was (a small) part of the anti-American demonstrations over here during the Vietnam war and it's people like you who bring out those long buried anti-American feelings out again. The ignorance is all yours btw...

Anyways, I'm off, hopefully this thread will be way down page three tomorrow.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's the second time you've confused me on as many forums.

What other forum? CF?
MP&THG - Monty Python and the holy grail.

And no where in my post did I suggest "trying and army?" If you have any substantive objections to my post please list them.

Not objections... How many constitute the "sheer number of defendants"?

I'm not exactly sure how you meant this part to connect to my arguement

It wasn't. I realised I hadn't stated my opinion before in this thread.

but I'll opperate under the assumption that you disagree with the use of military tribunals as a means to try war criminals. To that I can only say that the traditional venue for enforcing the law of war has been military tribunals (example Nuremberg) and are not in and of themselves inconsistent with international law. In fact a recent Executive Order issued by President Bush, setting out the jurisdiction of military commissions, is limited to foreign nationals, and may permit open trials, the participation of civilian judges and defense counsel, and some form of appellate review.

If the military tribunals are fair and open, I have no problem with them.

[faded glory]

This Thread reeks of Al-Queda supporters..

[Bereta_Eder]

Osama - Osama

[Alexander's Horse]

I knew the voting would even up once the rest of the world got online

[Bereta_Eder]

about the matter of Pow's, do what the international law says.

A question: if it is a closed trial all the transcripts of the procedings will be public. Isn't that right?

Closed trial means only that TV will not be inside correct?