IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Disagree
Let me start with a question.......
why do you think it even matters whether a government
"recognizes" another or not? If you can become legitimate
without any formal recognition.....why are some countries
so persistent about withholding it?
The short answer is that it DOES matter. Its a fundamental element in the
doctrines surrounding how de facto and de jure States come into being.

Even the United Nations refused to recognize the Taliban.

Final point.......if we give individual detainees POW status
it would mean that we recognized them as legitimate troops of their state.
This would mean that those individuals could not be tried for their acts of terrorism any more than a US Pilot could be tried for murder for acts
committed during prior wars. Moreover, the would HAVE to be released once hostilities were deemed to be over.
Why does this make sense?
--------Streak of batpiss---------
New Geneva Convention, Article 4, subsection 3.
First off, you claim:
"Final point.......if we give individual detainees POW status it would mean that we recognized them as legitimate troops of their state. This would mean that those individuals could not be tried for their acts of terrorism any more than a US Pilot could be tried for murder for acts committed during prior wars. Moreover, the would HAVE to be released once hostilities were deemed to be over.
Why does this make sense?"

And so I quote from the Geneva 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:"

Subsection 3
"3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. "

Even if no one officially recognizes the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, their troops are still POW's under the Geneva Convention.

It's all there in black and white.

Too bad, soo sad for you. :(
New Theres that loose definition again.
And to think...>is< is so much more concrete.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
     The Taliban are NOT the Afghan National Army - (Mike) - (43)
         Re: Male-cow-dung!!! - (dmarker2) - (42)
             So what does or doesn't count as a national army? - (marlowe)
             Obligatgory nit-pick - (mhuber) - (1)
                 Re: Of course ... - (dmarker2)
             Hmmmmm - (Mike) - (38)
                 Simple. - (Brandioch) - (26)
                     Yes you are - (Mike) - (25)
                         That is so amusing. - (Brandioch) - (24)
                             Have to give him McVeigh.... - (bepatient)
                             For Christ's sake do some research. You embarrass yourself. - (Mike) - (22)
                                 It is not I who cannot read. - (Brandioch) - (21)
                                     Response - (Mike) - (20)
                                         No particular need to go farther - (Ric Locke) - (19)
                                             I think you misread Brandioch. - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                 Nice post - (Mike)
                                                 Hey Scott. - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                                     So crack dealers are POWs when arrested, right? - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                         Start a new thread. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                             Go ahead. We'd probably agree on its failure. - (bepatient)
                                                         So.. where would the War on the Constitution go? -NT - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                             As a plank in the Republican Platform I suspect. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                     N.C. eh? - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                         Have family in Asheville. - (mmoffitt)
                                             I have a request. - (Brandioch)
                                             I have to disagree as well.... - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                                                 Minor point - POW must be let go when War is over. - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                                     But.. how long might a War on Evil last? Hmmm? - (Ashton)
                                             Psych 101A now? - (Ashton) - (4)
                                                 dis en zhin oo' os ness - (Ric Locke) - (3)
                                                     Ah well.. on That level - - (Ashton) - (2)
                                                         Oh, absolutely. - (Ric Locke) - (1)
                                                             Yes, I think it is that arcane.. - (Ashton)
                 Trouble with imagining that redefinitions work - (Ashton)
                 Re: Western nicities vs tribal reality - (dmarker2) - (9)
                     Disagree - (Mike) - (2)
                         Geneva Convention, Article 4, subsection 3. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                             Theres that loose definition again. - (bepatient)
                     Re: Western nicities vs tribal reality - (gtall) - (5)
                         Re: Western nicities vs tribal reality - (dmarker2) - (4)
                             Re: Western nicities vs tribal reality - (gtall) - (3)
                                 As you've broadened the arena, maybe I can agree - (Ashton) - (2)
                                     Re: As you've broadened the arena, maybe I can agree - (gtall) - (1)
                                         Cackle.. cackle.. Ulp!.. chomp.. - (Ashton)

What exactly do you expect it to do, halt and catch fire?
68 ms