The Washington Post hurts my brain

[DinoDoc]

DinoDoc, which Geneva Convention is it you have been reading?

Stop trying to defend snoopy's stupid comment with a stupid post of your own. Or to put it in the internet vernacular, "Screenshot it or it didn't happen." If you have a document that you claim lays down a so-called internationally recognized definition of war that supports what you and he claim quote it or STFU.

[Sirotnikov]

This is false. People have been fighting those who are without a nation and who could be legally a non-combatant throughout history. The only difference is that now planes/etc exist.

JM

This is false.
Throughout most history there was no Geneva Convention, so throughout history, those without nation never enjoyed any legal status, and were usually killed and maimed in different forms without hesitation.

[Blaupanzer]

Snoopy mentions a clause with part of the definition. The Convention defines war and its participants fairly thoroughly including several types of Civil Wars. I asked if you had ANOTHER internationally accepted definition. Getting on my case does not answer that question. Yet you seemed so sure when you dismissed Snoop's comment. You can't bully your way thru an internet debate, so answer the question, what definition were you refering to?

[Sirotnikov]

The problem is, as usual, that the current law falls far behind the realities of the war zone.

Current sub-state actors declare war against nation states, as well as people, religions etc, without for a moment considering what the GC has to say about it.

The same sub-state actors usually intentionally abuse the rules and conventions of war in order to gain a military benefit:
- rendering their forces immune to attack by mixing among civilian population
- allowing easy deniability of combat affiliation by their unfatigued personnel
- turning a successful attack of their forces into a PR disaster for the enemy (ie "look! they're killing women and children!")
- stirring legal and ethical problems for dealing with captured combatants - attempted to get undeserved protection, while actually abusing the combatant / civilian definitions.

This is while, if the sub-state actors captures one of the enemy's soldiers they are usually:
- denied red-cross access, POW status, any sort of trial
- at times are executed via public/broadcasted beheading (depending on the terrorist entity).

[Sirotnikov]

.

[Sirotnikov]

Which all leads to the fact that we need a new set of combat rules, to fill the gaps and loopholes in the current ones.

[Blaupanzer]

Sirotnikov, consider the OP question. What if you have a dangerous man in custody, however you determined he was dangerous? Further he has committed no crime you can prove as he was "rounded up" with many others. Do you not have a moral dilemma? By law, you must charge him or release him. You have nothing to charge, but he is dangerous. You do not want him on the streets. Is the range of choices too narrow? Are you partly to blame if he creates deadly chaos?

I had argued that US law forces his release. But I did not address the moral dilemma. What do you think?

[DinoDoc]

The Convention defines war and its participants fairly thoroughly including several types of Civil Wars.

If you have a document that you claim lays down a so-called internationally recognized definition of war that supports what you and he claim quote it or alternatively STFU. I repeated that statement because I'm still not seeing any quotes supporting what you claim.

[snoopy369]

Why is it certain people always define their beliefs as right until proven conclusively otherwise, even in the face of evidence ... you know, Pope Benedict, Joan of Arc, Dinodoc ...

[Blaupanzer]

We don't have to prove sh**! You said you disagreed with our claim related to the Geneva Convention. Well, use your f**king vaunted skills on the internet and look it up! I see nothing from you that indicates you know what you are talking about, so why don't you go stick your head up your a**.

[snoopy369]

Hmm, I like BP's response better. I need to work on my troll responses

Maybe I'll go call AAHZ for some remedial lessons...

[Blaupanzer]

AAHZ is a model to us all on how to react with fire to being trolled.

[Kuciwalker]

We don't have to prove sh**! You said you disagreed with our claim related to the Geneva Convention. Well, use your f**king vaunted skills on the internet and look it up! I see nothing from you that indicates you know what you are talking about, so why don't you go stick your head up your a**.

Uh, wow. You progressed to "ranting psychopath" and "bull****ter in retreat" on the same post.

You made a claim: there is a clear, internationally recognized definition of war set forth in international law. Prove your claim.

[Kuciwalker]

Why is it certain people always define their beliefs as right until proven conclusively otherwise, even in the face of evidence ... you know, Pope Benedict, Joan of Arc, Dinodoc ...

Given that he hasn't provided any evidence (for that matter, tubbins and I are the only people in this thread who have ever linked to outside sources), I'm not sure how your response applies.

[Jon Miller]

Sirotnikov, consider the OP question. What if you have a dangerous man in custody, however you determined he was dangerous? Further he has committed no crime you can prove as he was "rounded up" with many others. Do you not have a moral dilemma? By law, you must charge him or release him. You have nothing to charge, but he is dangerous. You do not want him on the streets. Is the range of choices too narrow? Are you partly to blame if he creates deadly chaos?

I had argued that US law forces his release. But I did not address the moral dilemma. What do you think?

No, you call him a POW, treat him like a POW, and discharge him like a POW (which might be never).

JM