You are still wrong.

Post #27,559 by bepatient 2/6/02 6:46:43 PM Reply	You are still wrong. 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. Until they are tried and found to be terrorists they are to be treated in a manner consistent with the Geneva Convention. Hint...the Geneva Convention IS NOT JUST ABOUT PRISONERS OF WAR. It has language about the treatment of civilians captured in times of war also. It also has provisions that allow the denial of certain priviledges based up the security concerns of the captors. I linked to those passages. You didn't read them In order to get the additional priviledges granted to POWs...you must be classified as a POW. The default is basic Geneva protection (treatment according to "this convention" is the language used IIRC)...which is humane treatment, medical attention and the ability to communicate with family among those basic rights granted. You can repeat your assertions all you like. It doesn't make them true. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #27,648 by Brandioch 2/7/02 11:00:20 AM Reply	Say it as many times as you want to. 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.
Post #27,725 by bepatient 2/7/02 8:03:13 PM Reply	Thats not what it says. 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). And it has specific limitations to those who directly pose a threat to the security of the captors. "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. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #27,803 by Brandioch 2/8/02 11:30:17 AM Reply	And here's your big chance (again) to prove me wrong. 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).
Post #27,807 by Another Scott 2/8/02 11:54:00 AM Reply	ICRC disagrees with Bush. From the AP via Newsday. The [link\|http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-afghan-detainees-reax0208feb08.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnationworld%2Dheadlines\|URL] will change. Red Cross Faults Bush on Detainees By NAOMI KOPPEL Associated Press Writer February 8, 2002, 11:16 AM EST GENEVA -- The international Red Cross said Friday that President Bush's promise that Taliban fighters in U.S. detention will be covered by the Geneva Conventions still falls short of the requirements of international law. Red Cross officials said Taliban and al-Qaida fighters must be considered prisoners of war -- something the Bush administration said it would not do. The White House also said that while members of the former ruling Afghan militia would be covered by the Geneva Convention, fighters for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida would not. "The ICRC stands by its position that people in a situation of international conflict are considered to be prisoners of war unless a competent tribunal decides otherwise," said Kim Gordon-Bates, spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross. The comment by the ICRC -- the official guardians of the Geneva Conventions -- came as Britain and Germany welcomed the U.S. announcement. The office of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson said it was waiting for an expert opinion on Bush statement, but UNHCR spokesman Jose Luis Diaz said, "It looks like a step forward on the issue of the treatment of the prisoners." [...] Gordon-Bates said ICRC lawyers are studying Bush's declaration in detail before they make any further comment. The neutral, Swiss-run ICRC is mandated by the 1949 Geneva Conventions on warfare to oversee protection of POWs and other victims of war. The ICRC, however, lacks enforcement powers. The Geneva Conventions, four treaties drawn up to avoid recurrences of World War II atrocities, were intended to regulate wars between nations and rebellions or insurgencies within a nation. Gordon-Bates said a "competent tribunal" -- one that understands the workings of the Geneva Conventions -- should determine whether a detainee was considered a prisoner of war. He said it was too early to say whether Bush's proposed "administrative tribunals" would be satisfactory. The International Commission of Jurists backed the ICRC. Bush's decision "is incorrect in law," it said. The Geneva-based organization, made up of 45 legal experts from different countries, works to uphold the rule of law and freedom of courts around the world. "The convention requires the conferral of prisoner of war status unless a competent tribunal decides otherwise," the jurists commission said. "Only a U.S. court and not the administration has the legal authority to make such a determination." [...] (Emphasis added) I'm not an international lawyer, so I don't know if things are as black-and-white as the ICRC and you claim. E.g. Was Noriega a POW? But the case seems strong that the US government should set up internationally-recognized tribunals and have courts determine the status of these folks soon. Cheers, Scott.
Post #27,809 by bepatient 2/8/02 12:00:19 PM 2/8/02 12:05:25 PM Reply	Cool...they agree with him. (Brandioch) So at least we may get a response from the administration that carries the opposing argument. (That would be my position) That position being that since these detainees do not meet the requirements of international law and the convention for being classified as "regular armed servicemen" (open carrying of arms, central command authority, uniform etc...) they can very well be considered either exempt from Geneva treatment or classified as Civilians under the convention. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Feb. 8, 2002, 12:05:25 PM EST Expand All History
Post #27,808 by bepatient 2/8/02 11:57:39 AM Reply	I notice that... ...you can't seem to ever provide justification on status and yet it always falls upon those who disagree to prove you wrong. I've provided links and details to passages from the Convention. You cannot reconcile "treatment according to the present convention" and treatment as POW. Thats not my fault. Nor does it magically become my responsibility. You made an assertion. The assertion is that "treatment according to the present convention"=pow status. I have provided expert analysis that contradicts this. I have provided Geneva Convention language that contradicts this. I believe its your turn now. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #27,826 by Brandioch 2/8/02 12:59:12 PM Reply	Score! 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.
Post #27,828 by boxley 2/8/02 1:19:28 PM Reply	isnt this the same red cross that advocates the disestablishment of Israel, just a tad one sided I would think thanx, bill "If you're half-evil, nothing soothes you more than to think the person you are opposed to is totally evil." Norman Mailer

Welcome to IWETHEY!