I wonder how Americans would feel if their soldiers were kept like the Al Qaeda POW's

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Does the fact that 'its' been done to you excuse doing 'it' to others? I don't think so.

To what it are you refering to? The daily calls to prayer? The three meals a day? The Korans that have been provided? I'm kind of curious which "it" you are refering to so that we can stop doing it immediately.

What i do find slightly hypocritical is how Mr Walker will be put before a civilian tribunal, while the other captives have to go before a military tribunal. Still different rules for different people I suppose.

He could have been tried by a military tribunal under US law but I don't think that the administration wanted to take the potential heat over that decision.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Roland
"...I still fail to see how Al Qaeda fighters meet any of the conditions laid forth out in the Convention."

- 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.

Al Qaeda is an autonomous force. Even where Taleban leaders/fighters surrendered, Al Qaeda leaders/fighters continued to fight, not recognizing orders or command authority from the Taleban. This was demonstrated repeatedly.

Whether some of the militarily organised units were part of the Taleban army depends on the command structures.

Answered above

- Members of other militias...

Considering their conduct against rules of war, questionable. Although it is unclear how a breakdown of following those rules affects individuals.

MtG said: "They're screwed under 4A(1) because they were not an integrated part of the Taleban, had autonomous command structures, bore no recognizable marks or disctinctions, etc."

I don't know whether those "brigades" or what they called them had some form of insignia. I also do not know the exact command structures.

None whatsoever. They are recognized in general because they're not Afghanis, they don't speak local languages, and because they shoot at you when they feel like it.

And it is another issue whether with autonomous command structures, we'd have two parties to the conflict on the other side - Taliban and Queda.

So any group of people fighting for whatever reason is a "party to the conflict" under your interpretation of the Geneva Convention?

As I said, the "terrorist" has no claim. Tricky is the issue wjhether a terrorist being part of something resembling a military unit would be a POW. But as long as the US respects some basic rules in this, it is a dispute about the emperor's beard.

We finally agree on something.

[Rogan Josh]

Maybe this isn't the place to ask, but I really hate creating new threads (always seems so egotistical...) and since we are discussing the Geneva convention....

Is there any official definition in the Geneva Convention or anywhere else, which outlines the difference between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom-fighter'?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
Chris, I don't know why you insist on being a Dodal here, but for what it's worth....

Hardly being such, Roland.
You chose to make it personal, I respond in kind.

If I'm a leftist, than your position in the political spectrum is a bit brownish.

Not at all.
I always go for common sense, I leave politics to your ilk.

Indeed. Especially with the Pacific being so wide....

The Atlantic is closer

Becoming a normal person by quitting the village idiot persona ? Sad.

Very cute, but we both know that village idiot fits a certain lawyer from austria far better.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Is there any official definition in the Geneva Convention or anywhere else, which outlines the difference between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom-fighter'?

There are about 30 definitions, that I know of, for the word terrorist. Why do you ask?

[DanS]

We treat our detainees far better than Australia treats her refugees

Horsie is just trying to deflect criticism away from his own country.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

And Horsie, you weren't even in this argument - you're at an all time level of cluelessness. Usually your trolls have some vague resemblance to reality, and occasionally they have some glimmer of a good point to them.

Yeah right - that's why you and your bush lawyer friends have spent over a 100 posts trying to defend the indefensible - and failing miserably.

Keep up the good work Rumpole

(ask the Brits who that is)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Maybe this isn't the place to ask, but I really hate creating new threads (always seems so egotistical...) and since we are discussing the Geneva convention....

Is there any official definition in the Geneva Convention or anywhere else, which outlines the difference between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom-fighter'?

No, there isn't. The Geneva convention merely distinguishes who are lawful combatants subject to its protections. Any lawful combatant is subject to its protections, without distinction as to the nature of their role (this doesn't apply to individual crimes, but to the idea whether someone's called a regular member of the armed forces, a member of a militia or volunteer corps, etc.)

"Freedom fighters" is just a term of ideology, as is "terrorist."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Yeah right - that's why you and your bush lawyer friends have spent over a 100 posts trying to defend the indefensible - and failing miserably.

Keep up the good work Rumpole

(ask the Brits who that is)

"Defend the indefensible" Yes, calling out prayer times on the PA, giving them access to the red cross, giving foreign diplomatic representatives access to their citizens, giving them food, shelter and medical attention. Oh, and they had "no complaints"

Ohhhhh, they're treated so rough.

Even the Brit government admitted there was nothing to the allegations of abusive treatment. The whiny left can't work with facts, so they have to rely on fiction instead to have something to ***** and grovel about.

Why don't we discuss Australian policy towards aboriginals next. There's some real tragedy.

[Alexander's Horse]

Nah - forget the aborigines - unless you want to talk about the native Americans

You should have targeted refugees. We have 70 who have sewn their lips together in protest at conditions in our detention centres. Over a hundred are on hunger strike.

The big difference here is that we Australians don't usually feel the need to jump to the defence of our Government. We are much more likely to join in the attack.

So why do you feel the need to defend your Government? I find that a very weird American trait. Next minute you'll be saying all Government is bad

[DanS]

Voters here don't excuse ourselves when the gov't does our bidding

"So why do you feel the need to defend your Government?"

In this case, it's an easy defense. These measures are broadly popular and, after some simple fact checking, seem reasonable.

For instance, it's probably cowardice toward necessities that make Australians less likely to defend their government.

[Alexander's Horse]

Well all I'll say is don't give your prisoners sewing kits

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Well all I'll say is don't give your prisoners sewing kits

Why would we give them weapons with which to attack thier captors with?

[Alexander's Horse]

But my biggest complaint is that you haven't given them a vaulting horse. HTF do you expect them to dig tunnels if you don't give them sporting equipment?

[Hydey]

I don't think its very good that all the gaurds are named schultz.