President Bush's Crusade Against Justice Continues..

[SlowwHand]

"The state" harbors them.

[BeBMan]

The def of unlawfull combattants is AFAIK not at all clear. For example if not wearing uniform is enough to qualify someone as unlawful combattant. The not wearing uniform part is often used for spies but it's pointed out that they also act secretly behind enemy lines and so are not openly id-ing themselves as combattants. That doesn't neccessarily go for fighters of non-state orgs (like guerilla, taleban) which may wear no uniforms, but still could be id-ed as combattants in many cases.

[SlowwHand]

Identified how?

[BeBMan]

Look if they bear arms openly for example.

[SlowwHand]

BeBro, I know you must be joking in some way.

Where's the weapons?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Pekka
"But we CAN lop off heads; and we can pose as civilians and blow up civilians. As long as we don't put a leash around their neck and make them bark like a dog, we're ok."

Who said you can do that? You can't do that. Or if you do, you'd be a terrorist. That's one of the things that does separate us from the terrorists.

This is a good argument. But an appeal to the Geneva Convention is weaker than an appeal to humanity.

[BeBMan]

Nope. IIRC you're a legal combatant according to the GC (so with the right to a POW status when captured) if you're part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly.
It's not clear at all fro the GC that in turn it makes you automatically an illegal combatant when you're lacking only one of those three aspects.

edit: Sloww, I don't doubt that certain guys don't bear arms, uniforms etc. I just say I would be wrong to say in general something like: _any_ guerilla/fighter of a non-state force = unlawful combattant

[Pekka]

In war, why should you identify yourself, if it's open all out war? That would make all infiltration etc illegal and basically open for torture. That's, I think, a ridiculous demand.

The thing about torturing, this is not something we should look as a static situation. We always must look into the future when making decisions with implications.

Now, the reason we don't give all the power to the police, even if we trust them to do their best, is because we'd become a police state. I don't know about the rest of you guys but I don't wish that. I wish to live in democracy and have my freedom. And freedom to everyone else too. It doesn't mean freedom to commit crimes.

Now, an example would be if something happens and a rogue person is elected. Then we're all ****ed. Not only have they all the info they need because of the new cool surveillance resources and tools, now they can openly persecute whoever they want. Nazi Germany is a great example. Imagine you were openly gay there? Or what about retarded people, it's not like they aren't registered being retarded. It's bye bye and extermination time.

It is of course unlikely that such even would take place, but so is the best case vs worst case. This is the example of not torutring a person whcih could save the lives of say, a million people. This is also extremely unlikely. And if it was evident that this is hte case, Geneve Convention signed or not, we all can bet our butts there will be torturing happening. They don't just 'not-save' people because it's illegal. But the bar should be set high when it happens.

And since everyone can interpret the definition of illegal combatant, it means no one is safe, it's just a matter of opinion and spinmeisters who gets tortured and who don't. And it should be taken a matter as if you were the other side.

There are more than just implications of torture being accepted and used more, it also will do grave damage to US image and PR within the western wold, that is also targeted in terrorism, just like everyone else.

[Pekka]

LordShiva, yes it is if you're in hands of rogue people. They don't give a crap about those papers. THat is for sure. But if it is made legal, there will be MORE torture, way more, and there's nothing to appeal to.

Plus after the confglict is over, those torturers are free to go. Since what they did was legal.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Pekka
In war, why should you identify yourself, if it's open all out war? That would make all infiltration etc illegal and basically open for torture. That's, I think, a ridiculous demand.

Because it belongs to the rules of warfare according to the GC and you _can_ be denied the right to POW status if you operate secretly, without uniforms etc. That's exactly the point here.

[Pekka]

Right, and that's why it shouldn't be the only definition for illegal combatant. That's exactly my point

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
But we CAN lop off heads; and we can pose as civilians and blow up civilians. As long as we don't put a leash around their neck and make them bark like a dog, we're ok.

So you're saying our police should act like criminals because criminals do?

[Pekka]

And if we compare worst case vs best case all the time, we can justify everything.

For example, why not actively tap all the phones and listen to everyone, every single phone call (assume we had the capability). You have nothing to hide so you have no problem with that of course. This would be an intrusion to your privacy, a sample of freedom, however, doing this we could ensure many good arrests, few strikes would be done less and some lives saved.

Why stop at that? Torture seems hardly equivalent to increased surveillance, so we must get few more added here. What about a new law that requires all citizens to keep photo ID with them, and are subjected to check up when ever it is seen important. Let's make a case of 'reason to doubt'. It is enough for the check up maker to say he had a reason to doubt, no further evidence needed. Some times you got to go with a hunch, person looking suspicious, wearing something, saying something. So, random check ups, and because they coudl be lying and not carrying anything at the moment, we should also have the right to check up their cars inside out and if the results are not satisfying and still suspicion is alive, lock up and search their homes.

In fact, if we are pretty sure something is up, we shoudl be able to check up everyone at their homes. There can be limits to that, to protect the rights of the citizens and say we never come to check you out 5PM.. to ensure dinner is sacred. Except if we REALLY have good reason to do that.

Why stop at there? This would save lives of not onyl terrorists victims but victims of criminals altogether. Make a safer place for everyone.

This sounds horrible, but then again, this is the best case vs worse case, and we can justify EVERYTHING with it. Thus it's not an argument that should be taken too heavily.

[SlowwHand]

You Commies really need to work on understanding sarcasm.

[chequita guevara]

You don't do sarcasm well.