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

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by lightblue
Looks like they're perfectly happy and well treated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_...00/1773143.stm

As long as they're not mistreated in mass, who gives a royal rat's ass if they're happy?
If they're happy they're even stranger than previously believed.

[Roland]

"I have no idea where this came from, but it is certainly your most assinine statement I have yet seen."

Just shows how polite I usually am.

"Defeatest?"

"-ist", I think ?

"You have b1tched and whined like the little girl you are from the first."

I have ? Suffering from your old reading comprehension problem, again ?

"Say that to my face, you little punk."

Bit difficult. If I could, what exactly are you going to do ? Be a big bad macho-man and beat me up ?

"You have no concept of the Islamic world"

Oh I think I have.

"People like you caused the holocaust, the Nazis, Stalinists, all the ills of this world, because you stood there and debated while they killed."

Hmm... maybe it's really time you stop playing the village idiot.

[Lefty Scaevola]

The Euro delegation was just impressed because the guards prevented them from bum-****ing all the prisoners, which restraint would never have occured to the Euros.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
The Euro delegation was just impressed because the guards prevented them from bum-****ing all the prisoners, which restraint would never have occured to the Euros.

You mean the delegation came there to.. uhm.. the prisoners ?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Make that BBC delegation, does not seem to have been other Euros with them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Not just fighting for it, but fighting as a combatant. "belonging" does not refer to nationality. This would be odd indeed.

That's a correct assumption on your part and would include any foreign Taliban fighters but I still fail to see how Al Qaeda fighters meet any of the conditions laid forth out in the Convention. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

How does that relate to mercenaries ?

It relates to thier supposed POW status, not thier status as mercs.

Whether they qualify depends ia on the things you listed above, with command structure another issue. Al quaeda fighting alongside the Taleban could qualify for POW status

How so? The second condition laid forth in Article 4 of the convention seems to specifically exclude them from the definition.

I fail to see a reason to rule this out right away.

Article 5 does provide for a competent tribunal to determine the status of the prisoners if "any doubt" exists to thier POW status. However, it is questionable if they will actually appear before such a tribunal as the US has said that it has no such doubts about thier status.

Chris62: You have no concept of the Islamic world, just listen to what they say, the contempt they hold you your kind.
Mercy and kindness mean nothing,

Are you talking about the Islamic World in general or the "few" Islamists that actively wish for and plan our deaths?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
Just shows how polite I usually am.

I'm through being so with you.
Your opinions are left wing tripe, of the worst kind.

I have ? Suffering from your old reading comprehension problem, again ?

Hardly.
You remain the number one European apologist.
Push your morality somewhere else, that kid stuff cuts no ice with me.

Bit difficult. If I could, what exactly are you going to do ? Be a big bad macho-man and beat me up ?

First thing you got right.
Easy to be a smart-ass from an ocean away, isn't it?

Oh I think I have.

You think wrong.

Hmm... maybe it's really time you stop playing the village idiot.

I would never take your role.

[DarkCloud]

Well, surely Americans would be angry if their soldiers were to be tried in a military tribunal... America has been angry about that before and yelled at other nations.

However, this is war, and although america should give the people a military tribunal, i feel that it should be televised to show people that it wasnt completely a kangaroo court, etc.

That way it would seem to be that the US had evidence on them.

[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.

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

- 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. 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.

"However, it is questionable if they will actually appear before such a tribunal as the US has said that it has no such doubts about thier status."

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.

[Roland]

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

"Your opinions are left wing tripe, of the worst kind."

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

"Easy to be a smart-ass from an ocean away, isn't it?"

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

"I would never take your role."

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

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Well, surely Americans would be angry if their soldiers were to be tried in a military tribunal... America has been angry about that before and yelled at other nations.

However, this is war, and although america should give the people a military tribunal, i feel that it should be televised to show people that it wasnt completely a kangaroo court, etc.

That way it would seem to be that the US had evidence on them.

No. What really pisses offsome Americans is that information is still requested from Hanoi 30+ years after troops totally left.
Don't whine to me, for one, about the poor terrorists.

[Immortal Wombat]

Does the fact that 'its' been done to you excuse doing 'it' to others? I don't think so.
Stick your head between your legs, and kiss your moral highground goodbye.

[lightblue]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Make that BBC delegation, does not seem to have been other Euros with them.

There wasn't any need for the bum****ing remark, but I'll ignore it. It wasn't the BBC as such, but rather from a statement from MI5 and British military officials who have interviewed the Brits there. 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 .

[Transcend]

This is what we should do with Al-Qaeda members:
1. Pumping them for information, I don't care whether the method is torture, drugging or bribe.

2. Keep these guys imprisoned until Al-Qaeda is reasonably destroyed. The prospect of staying alive can yield prisoners and defectors.

3. Once we are done with the Al-Qaeda, we have two choices: try them or execute them summarily.

There is no point in throwing out the "human rights" question, the only question needed to be asked is: what is the most beneficial way for us to punish Al-Qaeda?

[Transcend]

Originally posted by lightblue

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 .

I agree with you here. Walker is a traitor and should be locked up in the same cage as others do.

But there is the possibility that he cut some deal with the authorities by giving out information.