What about non-uniformed combatants?

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #25,618 by rsf 1/24/02 7:09:13 PM Reply	What about non-uniformed combatants? If they don't wear uniforms or some other identifiable insignia that distinguish them from civilians, can they be classified as spys. And if so, do the same Geneve Convention rules apply?
Post #25,627 by Brandioch 1/24/02 7:30:33 PM Reply	I am the authority on the Geneva Convention. [link\|http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm\|http://www.unhchr.c...nu3/b/91.htm]
Post #25,633 by bepatient 1/24/02 7:45:43 PM Reply	Forgot some. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

To summarize. - (Brandioch) - (106) - Jan. 24, 2002, 03:06:55 PM EST

to brandyise - (boxley) - (1) - Jan. 24, 2002, 03:19:23 PM EST

I have a mouse in my pocket. - (Brandioch) - Jan. 24, 2002, 03:33:12 PM EST

Why such sweeping assumptions? - (Mike) - (103) - Jan. 24, 2002, 03:45:33 PM EST

*sigh* - (Brandioch) - (98) - Jan. 24, 2002, 04:04:27 PM EST

Dont *sigh* - read and learn - (Mike) - (97) - Jan. 24, 2002, 04:46:08 PM EST

That's because it was covered already. - (Brandioch) - (73) - Jan. 24, 2002, 04:53:06 PM EST

Said it was my last but I'm hooked now - (Mike) - (72) - Jan. 24, 2002, 07:13:54 PM EST

Okay. - (Brandioch) - (71) - Jan. 24, 2002, 07:55:45 PM EST

I'll see your "Okay" and raise you - (Mike) - (68) - Jan. 24, 2002, 10:09:37 PM EST

Summary. - (Brandioch) - (5) - Jan. 25, 2002, 12:03:16 AM EST

Summary Part II - (Mike) - (4) - Jan. 25, 2002, 08:41:35 AM EST

I think my above post was correct. - (Brandioch) - (3) - Jan. 25, 2002, 02:42:52 PM EST

No - (Mike) - (2) - Jan. 25, 2002, 04:31:01 PM EST

Yes. - (Brandioch) - Jan. 25, 2002, 04:50:19 PM EST

We're all done - (Mike) - Jan. 25, 2002, 05:11:39 PM EST

The US purports to be defending "freedom". Everywhere. - (Ashton) - (61) - Jan. 25, 2002, 05:52:18 AM EST

Enjoyed your post....but - (Mike) - (60) - Jan. 25, 2002, 10:56:07 AM EST

Check the treatment of POW's. - (Brandioch) - (56) - Jan. 25, 2002, 03:43:19 PM EST

Let me get this straight........ - (Mike) - (55) - Jan. 25, 2002, 05:05:31 PM EST

You might want to read his post again. - (Simon_Jester) - (54) - Jan. 25, 2002, 05:14:01 PM EST

You're right - (Mike) - (53) - Jan. 25, 2002, 11:16:02 PM EST

It's so sad when you have to resort to oocq's. - (Brandioch) - (52) - Jan. 26, 2002, 01:26:28 PM EST

Brandi - its okay to be wrong...... - (Mike) - (51) - Jan. 28, 2002, 04:28:22 PM EST

Post-war treatment.___Indeed. - (Ashton) - Jan. 27, 2002, 05:32:19 AM EST

Did that feel good to you? - (Brandioch) - (49) - Jan. 27, 2002, 01:00:28 PM EST

Dude, it felt freakin' awesome. - (Mike) - (48) - Jan. 28, 2002, 04:32:24 PM EST

Then I am sorry for you. - (Brandioch) - (47) - Jan. 28, 2002, 01:47:16 AM EST

Re: Then I am sorry for you. - (Mike) - (22) - Jan. 28, 2002, 04:31:36 PM EST

Believe that if you wish to. - (Brandioch) - (21) - Jan. 28, 2002, 09:59:07 AM EST

Believe that if you wish to. - (Mike) - (20) - Jan. 28, 2002, 04:30:36 PM EST

Please change your "PS" sig. - (Another Scott) - (2) - Jan. 28, 2002, 01:06:24 PM EST

Done - (Mike) - (1) - Jan. 28, 2002, 04:35:03 PM EST

Vielen danke. -NT - (Another Scott) - Jan. 28, 2002, 05:11:37 PM EST

Ummm, you're wrong. - (Brandioch) - (16) - Jan. 28, 2002, 01:26:41 PM EST

One more time around - (Mike) - (2) - Jan. 28, 2002, 02:19:58 PM EST

The phrasing, not the position. - (Brandioch) - (1) - Jan. 28, 2002, 02:36:51 PM EST

Mmmmmm much better - (Mike) - Jan. 28, 2002, 03:14:40 PM EST

And..... - (Mike) - (12) - Jan. 28, 2002, 02:58:41 PM EST

Again? - (Brandioch) - (11) - Jan. 28, 2002, 04:09:38 PM EST

Dancing on the head of a pin - (Mike) - (10) - Jan. 28, 2002, 04:22:41 PM EST

You post lacks content. - (Brandioch) - (9) - Jan. 28, 2002, 05:15:18 PM EST

You are a naughty boy - (Mike) - (8) - Jan. 28, 2002, 06:19:02 PM EST

I think my original posts were clear enough. - (Brandioch) - (7) - Jan. 28, 2002, 06:43:42 PM EST

Brandioch: >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such - (Mike) - (6) - Jan. 28, 2002, 07:15:17 PM EST

Again, the two post rule applies. - (Brandioch) - (5) - Jan. 28, 2002, 07:56:02 PM EST

What POWs? -NT - (bepatient) - (1) - Jan. 28, 2002, 08:05:37 PM EST

Those POW's. -NT - (Brandioch) - Jan. 28, 2002, 08:16:21 PM EST

Bring out the context - (Mike) - (2) - Jan. 29, 2002, 08:07:34 AM EST

Incidentally, Mike... - (a6l6e6x) - (1) - Jan. 29, 2002, 11:57:17 AM EST

Thanks...another supporting link attached - (Mike) - Jan. 29, 2002, 01:25:25 PM EST

Just FYI - (Mike) - (23) - Jan. 28, 2002, 09:45:12 AM EST

I don't expect you to see the difference. - (Brandioch) - (22) - Jan. 28, 2002, 09:53:20 AM EST

Because thats not what you did. - (bepatient) - (21) - Jan. 28, 2002, 10:06:08 AM EST

Thank you. - (Brandioch) - (20) - Jan. 28, 2002, 11:49:00 AM EST

No problem.... - (bepatient) - (19) - Jan. 28, 2002, 12:41:48 PM EST

Flattered? - (Brandioch) - (18) - Jan. 28, 2002, 12:54:17 PM EST

Gospel according to Brandioch... - (bepatient) - (17) - Jan. 28, 2002, 02:01:28 PM EST

I am humbled before God. - (Brandioch) - (16) - Jan. 28, 2002, 02:26:13 PM EST

It would help if you read something... - (bepatient) - (15) - Jan. 28, 2002, 04:36:10 PM EST

You're posts are so easily disproven. - (Brandioch) - (14) - Jan. 28, 2002, 05:19:05 PM EST

Why don't you answer the point made? -NT - (bepatient) - (13) - Jan. 28, 2002, 05:20:43 PM EST

Allow me to refresh your memory. - (Brandioch) - (12) - Jan. 28, 2002, 05:39:39 PM EST

Again...pick at a detail and ignore the point. - (bepatient) - (11) - Jan. 28, 2002, 08:04:28 PM EST

Isn't the point comprised of the details? - (Brandioch) - (10) - Jan. 28, 2002, 08:22:45 PM EST

no.it wasn't - (bepatient) - (9) - Jan. 28, 2002, 11:15:34 PM EST

Now >THAT< is funny. - (Brandioch) - (8) - Jan. 29, 2002, 12:55:45 AM EST

Not as funny as putting a bra on a a statue because - (Ashton) - Jan. 29, 2002, 04:16:59 AM EST

I thought you were an expert? - (bepatient) - (6) - Jan. 29, 2002, 09:28:29 AM EST

Nope. I'm just able to read. - (Brandioch) - (5) - Jan. 29, 2002, 11:10:57 AM EST

Then why don't you try it sometime - (bepatient) - (4) - Jan. 29, 2002, 11:23:03 AM EST

You see, I can read and you're illiterate. - (Brandioch) - (3) - Jan. 29, 2002, 11:39:09 AM EST

I already gave you your homework assignment - (bepatient) - (2) - Jan. 29, 2002, 11:45:51 AM EST

And we, once again, come back to my point. - (Brandioch) - (1) - Jan. 29, 2002, 12:15:38 PM EST

No we haven't - (bepatient) - Jan. 29, 2002, 01:48:55 PM EST

Thou sayest.. - (Ashton) - (2) - Jan. 25, 2002, 05:23:25 PM EST

You're up - (Mike) - (1) - Jan. 26, 2002, 12:07:40 AM EST

Let us retire with the comforting thought - (Ashton) - Jan. 26, 2002, 03:01:35 AM EST

You are denying fact - (drewk) - (1) - Jan. 25, 2002, 09:59:03 AM EST

That may be true. - (Brandioch) - Jan. 25, 2002, 02:48:07 PM EST

New to brandi arnt you? - (boxley) - (22) - Jan. 24, 2002, 04:55:51 PM EST

Okay, I thought this was covered. I guess I was wrong. - (Brandioch) - (21) - Jan. 24, 2002, 05:07:15 PM EST

We treat the pirates as pirates and the taliban as pow's - (boxley) - (20) - Jan. 24, 2002, 05:19:15 PM EST

I like that. - (Brandioch) - (19) - Jan. 24, 2002, 05:25:36 PM EST

He didn't say "guilty" - (drewk) - (17) - Jan. 24, 2002, 05:28:37 PM EST

Allow me to quote. - (Brandioch) - (16) - Jan. 24, 2002, 05:36:49 PM EST

Jeez, that's intentionally obtuse - (drewk) - (11) - Jan. 24, 2002, 05:42:32 PM EST

"suspected" == guilty. - (Brandioch) - (10) - Jan. 24, 2002, 06:01:09 PM EST

So now *I'm* the final authority? - (drewk) - (9) - Jan. 25, 2002, 09:16:52 AM EST

Do you believe in Santa Claus? - (Brandioch) - (8) - Jan. 25, 2002, 03:47:56 PM EST

The classic flip. - (bepatient) - (7) - Jan. 25, 2002, 04:46:36 PM EST

F.I. - (Brandioch) - (6) - Jan. 25, 2002, 04:54:34 PM EST

Soooooooooooo doubt everything right? - (Mike) - (5) - Jan. 26, 2002, 12:26:06 AM EST

Shhhh... - (bepatient) - (4) - Jan. 26, 2002, 10:44:42 AM EST

:-) NT -NT - (Mike) - (2) - Jan. 26, 2002, 11:20:55 AM EST

Thank you Drew, Drew and Drew. - (Brandioch) - (1) - Jan. 26, 2002, 01:45:32 PM EST

Was talking to Mike...do you mind? - (bepatient) - Jan. 26, 2002, 02:38:54 PM EST

LRPD wryly notes: I'm sorry, I came here for an argument! - (Ashton) - Jan. 26, 2002, 01:26:35 PM EST

What conflict? - (boxley) - (3) - Jan. 24, 2002, 05:55:03 PM EST

Gotta love that. - (Brandioch) - (2) - Jan. 24, 2002, 06:03:01 PM EST

Lotsa prisoners were taken from the army - (boxley) - (1) - Jan. 25, 2002, 08:56:09 AM EST

Strangely enough, I do. - (Brandioch) - Jan. 25, 2002, 03:50:47 PM EST

according to the brits it does at least the one name - (boxley) - Jan. 24, 2002, 05:29:06 PM EST

What about non-uniformed combatants? - (rsf) - (2) - Jan. 24, 2002, 07:09:13 PM EST

I am the authority on the Geneva Convention. - (Brandioch) - (1) - Jan. 24, 2002, 07:30:33 PM EST

Forgot some. -NT - (bepatient) - Jan. 24, 2002, 07:45:43 PM EST

Re: What is a Taliban ? - What is an Al-Qaeda ? - (dmarker2) - Jan. 24, 2002, 08:40:02 PM EST

iwethey.org

Damn, man, you swing a mean left field passive aggressive non sequitur.
124 ms