Weasel words don't suit you Drew.

Post #25,323 by Silverlock 1/23/02 4:02:10 PM Reply	Weasel words don't suit you Drew. You can generally cut through the BS with ease. What happened here? -quote "War on Terrorism" So slogans now count as legal proof? Unless congress has declared it, it's not legally a war. -endquote I think this would come as a surprise to those citizens who were held as prisoners of war over in southeast asia not so long ago. This is a war. Declared or not, it is most assuredly a war. Just as the conflict in Vietnam was a war even though congress never declared it as such. We held opponenets in that conflict in prisonor of war camps, they did the same to our guys. We gave and expected treatment in accordance with the Geneva conventions. All that aside, If they are not going to be afforded the label "pow", and they aren't going to charged as criminals, then they must be come under the heading of something else. What that is, I have no idea. I think it's ridiculous to consider them anything other than as POWs. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #25,324 by drewk 1/23/02 4:13:28 PM Reply	But that's the exact problem I think it's ridiculous to consider them anything other than as POWs. But when the administration suggested that military tribunals would be used, people went ballistic that these were not appropriate because the people in question weren't military. What does that leave? We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #25,336 by Brandioch 1/23/02 5:02:02 PM Reply	NO! People went "ballistic" when SECRET military tribunals were declared for people SUSPECTED of being terrorists. In other words, foreign nations, residing in the US could be taken away in the middle of the night and executed. Their names would not be released. Their lawyers would not be notified. No public record of the "trial" would be released. THAT is the problem people had.
Post #25,338 by drewk 1/23/02 5:11:33 PM Reply	Fair enough Their names would not be released. You still haven't answered this one, though. Who should the names be released to, to satisfy this concern? I'm not playing devil's advocate, I really want to know what would satisfy both legal and ethical requirements, without jeopardizing ongoing operations. And, to play a little bit of the advocate, do you really believe that people would be executed before thair names were released? I doubt anyone that believes that is possible for the current administration could be convinced that anything they do is right. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #25,341 by Brandioch 1/23/02 5:34:11 PM Reply	I said it, but I didn't mean it. "And, to play a little bit of the advocate, do you really believe that people would be executed before thair names were released?" Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to say that that could happen. What I meant to say is that foreign nationals living in the US could be taken in the middle of the night and executed without their names being released or the details of their "trial" being available. Are we clear now? Foreign nationals Living in the US Arrested "Tried" Executed All in "secret" and without their names being released. "I doubt anyone that believes that is possible for the current administration could be convinced that anything they do is right." Possibly. Although if you remove the "secret" part and release the names of those arrested (you know, like we already do for our own citizens) then that would pretty much invalidate my position, wouldn't it? "You still haven't answered this one, though. Who should the names be released to, to satisfy this concern? I'm not playing devil's advocate, I really want to know what would satisfy both legal and ethical requirements, without jeopardizing ongoing operations." First off, let me ask you how such COULD jeopardize "ongoing operations". Second, to whom do you release the names? Oh I don't know, maybe the UN? After all, they are citizens of another country. While you're at it, why not hand the names off to InterPol? Along with their fingerprints and photos, maybe? After all, they are "terrorists".
Post #25,343 by bepatient 1/23/02 5:50:00 PM Reply	Seems that the folks at Oxford [link\|http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/01/21012002090135.asp\| understand the issues involved.] Roberts does not believe that the majority of prisoners at Guantanamo are in fact, prisoners of war, a category he says only applies to Taliban soldiers: "Basically [prisoners of war] have to be part of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, and Al-Qaeda is nothing like a state so there's a problem there. Second problem: There has to be a responsible command system, and it's not at all clear what the command system of Al-Qaeda is and whether there's a clear line of responsibility. Thirdly, they have to wear a uniform or insignia -- in fact a uniform and insignia [which can] be seen at a distance. And fourthly, they have to conduct operations in accord with the laws and customs of war. I would question Al-Qaeda on these accounts." You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,352 by Brandioch 1/23/02 6:39:02 PM Reply	If I may. Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. skipped 2. skipped 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. 4. and beyond, skipped.
Post #25,353 by Brandioch 1/23/02 6:44:28 PM Reply	And to clarify 'cause I know you're going to try to be dumb. That is for PRISONERS OF WAR! If they are captured TERRORISTS or belong to a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, then you can refer back to my earlier post: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25303\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25303] Am I the only person here who's memory can trace back more than two posts?
Post #25,395 by bepatient 1/23/02 10:38:00 PM Reply	Good...skip all the parts that make it muddy... ...so as to make it fit better with your binary style. [link\|http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm\|The Convention] Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. 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. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. 4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. 5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: 1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. 2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention. ========================================== Adding to the confusion created by those areas highlighted above... After reading through the 140+ articles (again)...I'd be hard pressed to find any violations of the convention...even if we don't think that these folks are covered under it. And while it >does< say we have to do our best to ascertain their identity and provide them with documentation of said id...it doesn't say ANYWHERE that we have to tell Brandioch who they are...only that we must allow them to write their family and must communicate their identity to a Central Information Agency after it has been created. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,423 by TTC 1/24/02 3:04:08 AM Reply	Re: Good...skip all the parts that make it muddy... I believe the criteria was ANY. So if it FITS one criteria, it's POW status, no? Can't understand why you are disagreeing with Brandioch.
Post #25,427 by Brandioch 1/24/02 4:45:16 AM Reply	What was that about binary? "A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:" Allow me to trim that a bit so you can understand it. "are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories" Did you get that yet? Maybe I need to trim it a bit more. "ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES" Now, I showed where the matched ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES. Now, the reason I left off the others is because some people of limited mental ability cough Bill Patient cough can't understand such complex concepts. You know of having multiple categories but only requiring one match? So I made it easy on such individuals. "A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:" Then I numbered, BUT DID NOT LIST THE CRITERIA for those categories that did not apply. But I did list the criteria FOR THE CATEGORY THAT DID APPLY. So, what does Bill do? He goes out and grabs the criteria for a category THAT DOES NOT APPLY and then shows that it does not apply. Congratulations, Bill, you have certainly shown which of us is limited by binary logic and which of us is not.
Post #25,504 by bepatient 1/24/02 1:40:39 PM Reply	Care to give me a definition of... "regular armed forces?" That's the 1 category that you feel matches. The rest obviously do not. A recognized authority also wonders if these folks fit so neatly into any of these categories. The reality is that they don't fit neatly into any of the catogories. Forcing them into the "regular armed forces" definition is a stretch...but convenient for those who are currently wringing hands at the fact that we have moved these people from harms way (per the Geneva Convention), have the Red Cross observing their conditions (per the Geneva Convention) and are most likely going to report the names of these people to the convening auhtority once it has been created (per the Geneva Convention). NOWHERE does the convention state that Brandioch is required to be informed. NOWHERE does it say that the New York Times has a right to these names. In addition...while we're spending so much time saying they must be protected by the Geneva Convention...would you mind terribly showing me where its been violated to date with respect to these detainees EVEN IF THE CLASSIFICATION OF POW APPLIES? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,522 by Brandioch 1/24/02 2:12:17 PM Reply	You have managed to go beyond stupid. "NOWHERE does the convention state that Brandioch is required to be informed. NOWHERE does it say that the New York Times has a right to these names. " Congratulations, you've just stated something that I've never claimed. You've stated it emphatically. The names should be released to the UN (and InterPol would make sense to sort out terrorists). Why would I want the names released to me? What purpose would releasing them to the New York Times serve for their country or their families? Or do you suppose that The New York Times is a common paper in Afghanistan? Bill, I'm revising my opinion of you from "limited mental capabilities" to "functionally illiterate and happy that way".
Post #25,524 by bepatient 1/24/02 2:13:45 PM Reply	Wrong...go to the lower post to see just how wrong. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,528 by Brandioch 1/24/02 2:23:00 PM Reply	There's one thing to be said about the functionally illitera illiterate. They're consistent. Bill, for years you have amazed me with your inability to provide references. Instead you always tell me to go look somewhere. Many millions of people have, by now, realized the ability of this medium to provide "links" to supporting materials. Yet you remain elite. You refuse to stoop so low as to provide easy reference for your claims. How many web pages are there out there? Written by how many millions of people? Yet that simple function continues to elude Bill Patient. I know of children of no more than 8 years of age who can manage such tasks. Yet Bill Patient cannot match their capabilities.
Post #25,533 by bepatient 1/24/02 2:38:34 PM Reply	Sorry for underestimating your intelligence. Lower post...meaning the one at the bottom...must have been to much for you. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25515\|Here's a link you can click on...] That should be easy enough for you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,539 by Brandioch 1/24/02 2:52:42 PM Reply	You've achieve the level of an 8 year old. Congratulations. You must be so proud of yourself. Now we can resume this discussion at the point you've referenced.
Post #25,544 by bepatient 1/24/02 3:05:15 PM Reply	Wow... ...I gave him a link....now he can follow the thread...good Brandi...come get your treat. {pat pat} Thats a good boy. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,547 by Brandioch 1/24/02 3:10:23 PM Reply	Awwww, isn't that cute? It's trying to think.
Post #25,327 by bepatient 1/23/02 4:33:01 PM Reply	It seems that how all this started... ...because this is NOT a "cut and dried" or a "binary" issue. Vietnam was a sovereign nation. Even without the official declaration...it was safe and easy to treat the captives as POWs and apply Geneva. This is NOT the case here. No official declaration. No soveriegn nation. Indeed many captives are not even Afgan...as the Al Q membership included many Saudi and other nations citizens. So...are they POW's in the Geneva sense. No. Is it safe to treat the Taliban membership as such. Probably. How about the members of Al Q. Clearly not...because there is no sovereign backing at all. And what exactly have we done that would even qualify as a violation of Geneva to date? The conflict is not over...so these prisoners can be detained until it is...and if you believe that the "War on Terrorism" slogan qualifies as the declaration...then sit back and relax....cause we're not gonna have to let these guys go for a loooong time. After all...Al Q was just the beginning, right? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,435 by Silverlock 1/24/02 8:09:31 AM Reply	You are flat wrong So...are they POW's in the Geneva sense. No. In the Geneva sense they are to be treated as POWs until determination of status is made. Period. So we are ignoring our duties as signatories to the Geneva convention, acting illegally with respect to the "detainees", and telling the world we are the champions of the rule of law while we ignore the law. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #25,548 by marlowe 1/24/02 3:11:14 PM Reply	Even this much may be overly generous. I won't dispute that the Vietminh were a sovereign nation, albeit a very nasty one. But the Vietcong had no state. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.

Welcome to IWETHEY!