"And just because the succeeding governments had to deal with terrorists doesn't mean they dealt well with them. In fact, they only got good at it when some fellow (forget his name) from Bavaria decided that Big Brother was the way to go and did things that would drive the ACLU nuts."

Hmmm, I've been over there multiple times and I haven't seen anything I would consider a violation of rights. Maybe I've missed it.

"Yes, but chemical warfare wasn't used against civilians as primary targets until Saddam decided it would be a good thing."

And the parallel with that is shooting civilians with machine guns. How is that handled?


"The Japanese suicide bombers were fighting against American, Brit, and Aussie GIs, they were not going after civilian populations."

But the point was that we have had suicide bombers before. They are NOT new.


"You'd have made a better case by bringing up atom bombing the cities in Japan or fire bombing the cities in Germany. "

Already did that. In a different thread. But the original article wasn't looking at it from the victim's point of view. It was claiming that such attacks were new and never before considered.

"You have no sense of proportion."

Whatever.

"There's a big difference between trying to kill large numbers of civilians (hell, the Red Brigades never even wanted to do that) and using similar methods against armies."

Only in the LEGALITY of it.
Translation: It is legal to send cruise missles against enemy troops.
It is NOT legal to send cruise missles against civilian gatherings.

"Marlowe is right, the Geneva Convention needs to be revisited."

I've seen this claimed before. Yet I have not seen any support for such a position.

"There's no central authority like a nation state to repatriate these terrorists to."

HELLO?!?!

Anyone home?

If they ARE "terrorists", then they do NOT get to be repatriated.

Are we clear on that?

"The Geneva Convention also states prisoners are due back pay. You want to pay them, don't you?"

If they're prisoners, they get back pay.

We signed those agreements.

If they're terrorists, then they are criminals and can be treated like other criminals. For a nice example, look at the German judicial system.

Once again, you make the now classic mistake of arguing that the prisoners are terrorists and claiming that I want to grant them POW priviledges.

If they're terrorists, they don't fall under the G.C.

If they fall under the G.C., they are NOT terrorists.

"There's no one who we can hold accountable for their future actions."

Ummm, because you do NOT know what their FUTURE actions will be, right?

"Well, I take that back, we could repatriate them to the loving hands of the Northern Alliance."

POW's get repatriated. Are they POW's? Then they aren't terrorists. Is this clear?

"Or we could give Saudi Arabia its sons back."

Ah, this is a bit more complex. Is S.A. asking us to extradite criminals? Or is S.A. asking us to repatriate POW's?

Hmmmmm?

"Surely, they'll promise never, ever to do it again. You trust'em, don't you?"

Actually, such promises are not enforcable.

"Just to refresh your memory, here's the NYT synopis of the Geneva Convention."

I've read it enough times that I don't think MY memory needs refreshing, but it might help your's.

"I cannot see where these terrorists come under the definition of "ARMED FORCES"."

Ah, that was the whole point of the earlier thread. You're already considering them terrorists WHEN THEY HAVE NOT HAD A TRIAL YET.

"You might argue that the Defining Prisoners of War allows extending the definition of prisoner to these terrorists."

Say it once. Say it twice. Say it enough times and people will believe it, eh?


Ah, that was the whole point of the earlier thread. You're already considering them terrorists WHEN THEY HAVE NOT HAD A TRIAL YET. If they have NOT been classified as such, they will be treated as POW's.

Now, the current "classification" the US has for them is "illegal combatants". Where is THAT classification in the G.C.?

"What Marlowe is arguing is that this needs to be done under some reasonable process that defines precisely how we are to think of this, not ad hoc."

And that process is outlined in the G.C. Until a "competant tribunal" determines that they are NOT POW's, they will be TREATED as POW's.

Now, a POW CAN STILL BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME (such as terrorism).

You see, the claims that the G.C. is not capable of handling this situation is only made by those who have not read the G.C.

"Questioning "prisoners" should similarly be open to review."

How so?

"These killers will take out millions of people if they could. I very much doubt the Geneva Convention would have been written in the way it was written on this item if German spies had taken out millions of Americans here. Instead, it would probably had said something like, "wring every scrap of information using appropriate methods.""

Fascism is so alluring.

Oh, did you forget that the US not only HAD that capability, the US >USED< that capability. Twice. On Japan.

But this is a NEW situation?

"I don't believe in torture, but to think of these terrorists using past definitions of "combatants" is absurd."

Say it often enough and someone will believe you. They have NOT been on trial. You are ASSUMING that they are guilt BEFORE the trial. Therefore, any actions used to get information from them to prove what you already know is okay.

Like I said, Fascism is alluring.

"Civil rights only mean something when there are still civilians alive to have them."

And the possibility that these idiots could wipe out all civilian life in the US is...........................................

Zero.

Nice hysterics.

Regarding the use of chemical/whatever weapons against civilian targets.

I said:
"And the parallel with that is shooting civilians with machine guns. How is that handled?"

You replied:
"Proportion, son, you have none."

Allow me to enlighten you.

If I whip up a batch of bio-agents and dump them into the water supply and kill 1 person, how many times can I be executed for that crime?

Once?

How many life sentences can I serve for that crime?

One?

Now, I kill 1,000 people.

How many times can I be executed?

How many life sentences can I serve?

"Proportion"? I don't think you understand it.

"Suicide bombers taking out 3,000 civilians is new...unless you'd like to confess now."

Again. How many times do I have to repeat the original? We were talking about TYPES not how many CASUALTIES there were.

Suicide bombers are NOT new.

I've got news for you, kid. People are fucking. That means that the POPULATION is increasing. With the limited land mass, that means that these people will be found in higher concentrations. So, an attack that might have killed 200 or so before (suicide against a ship) can now take out thousands (suicide against a building).

Care to compare that with dropping nukes on a couple of Japanese cities?

We've killed MORE civilians IN ONE ATTACK than the bombers did.

"Proportion"? Do you know what that means?

Regarding the "fact" that the G.C. is outdated, I said:
"I've seen this claimed before. Yet I have not seen any support for such a position."

You replied:
"Who cares what you've seen? Fact remains, those accords were developed for different times and reasons, Marlowe remains correct."

Like I said, you people LIKE TO CLAIM THAT, but you CANNOT SUPPORT THAT. And when I point that minor problem out to >YOU<, you get all huffy.

Hey, it's a problem in YOUR position. Deal with it.

"Well, if you are clear on them being terrorists and not combatants, why are you bringing any of this up. Hello, anyone home?"

Okay, perhaps English isn't your first language.

Did you, somehow, manage to miss the part where I pointed out that they haven't had a trial yet? As of right now, they are only SUSPECTED terrorists. Now, what does the G.C. say about people who aren't classified yet?

"Semantics aside, you appear to want to classify these guys as what, exactly?"

Huh?
Did you JUST come into this conversation?
Or do you think that by having me REPEAT MY ORIGINAL FUCKING STATEMENTS that you'll make your point?

Whatever.

Until they go on trial AND ARE FOUND TO BE TERRORISTS, they are POW's.

Was that too hard for you to understand?

And it isn't what >I< want to classify them as. That is the rule set by the G.C.

"I know, it does become you."

Huh?

So, saying that suspected terrorists should be subjected to a fair trial PRIOR to conviction as terrorists is "fascist" to you?

Or is it the point about them being treated as POW's before they go on trial? Is that "fascist" to you?

Son, you have A LOT to learn about political ideology.

You said:
"Civil rights only mean something when there are still civilians alive to have them."

I replied:
"And the possibility that these idiots could wipe out all civilian life in the US is..........................................."

You replied:
"But a few million wouldn't bother you, how good of you."

Son, I'm adding HISTORY to the list of subjects you have A LOT to learn about.

There are VERY DAMN FEW cases of a MILLION civilians being killed.

And WE are the only ones that came close without first taking over the country.

Yet you seem to be CONVINCED that these couple hundred people will somehow manage to kill a MILLION of our civilians.

I believe that comes under the heading of "paranoia".

What was that you said about "proportion"?

It still doesn't change the wording of the G.C.

Until they are CLASSIFIED as something OTHER than POW's, they are to be treated as POW's.

"Illegal combatants" is NOT a term used in the G.C.

Therefore, they are NOT classified under the G.C.

Therefore, they will be treated as POW's.

In order to get the additional priviledges granted to POWs...you must be classified as a POW.

So you KEEP claiming.

But no matter how many times you say it, it just is not true.

If there's ANY question as to their classification, they will be treated as POW's.

This is very clearly spelled out in Section 5.

Since "illegal combatants" is NOT a term used in the G.C., there is a question as to their classification.

Therefore, they are to be treated as POW's.

Feel free to learn how to use a dictionary sometime.

And you continue to ignore the other areas of the convention dealing with individuals who do not qualify as regular military (uniforms...carrying arms openly).

Again, your binary mind cannot cope with multiple options for single classification. That is your problem, not mine.

And it has specific limitations to those who directly pose a threat to the security of the captors.

I never said it didn't.

"Treatment according to the present convention" and "treatment as Prisoners of War" are not the same...no matter how hard you try to make it so.

And now I am allowing you !ONCE AGAIN! the opportunity to DETAIL what rights that would be granted to POW's will be REFUSED to these "illegal combatants" and what article/section provides that justification.

I'm going to bet that you will go off on some tangent about them being released after the war (we all know that won't happen) or them being security risks(duh! they're the enemy).

Like I said, you would be unable to provide any details.

...you can't seem to ever provide justification on status and yet it always falls upon those who disagree to prove you wrong.

Whatever. I've quoted the relevant articles of the G.C. I've shown how the prisoners meet the criteria.

All you've done is say that I'm wrong and that the prisoners don't meet the criteria.

This is a flaw in your reasoning. Because the prisoners don't have to meet ALL of the criteria, as I have pointed out to you.

Instead you'll hide behind saying that "they will be treated accourding to the G.C.". Well, that's saying ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Which is why I asked you to detail the differences in how the prisoners would be treated as opposed to how POW's would be treated.

Thats not my fault. Nor does it magically become my responsibility.

No magic necessary. I've made a statement and provided references. You've said that my references don't mean what I say they mean. Fine, then support your statement.

The assertion is that "treatment according to the present convention"=pow status.

That is an incorrect statement. Article 5 is what I quoted.

I have provided expert analysis that contradicts this.

Great. And the "experts" you've quoted are........? How about we look at the REAL experts? What does the Red Cross have to say? Hmmm, seems that they agree with my position? It isn't hard to find an "expert" that will say anything on any subject. The problem is finding the people who are the REAL experts.