Said it was my last but I'm hooked now

Post #25,620 by Mike 1/24/02 7:13:54 PM Reply	Said it was my last but I'm hooked now 1) >>As soon as you can identify which are Taliban troops and which Al Quaeda. >>That is the key. I would have expected your "summary" opening post to mention this. Given that you say it is "key". Why leave out the "the key" point from a summary? 2) >>I've already posted the relevent text of both articles 4 and 5. Should post links for your sources.....always better to let people read in context. 3) If these people were found fighting and did not satisfy (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. what doubt is left? Is your doubt based on the idea that we might have mixed them up somehow? Are you speculating on this or do you know it for sure? 4) Just because someone is Taliban does not automatically make them entitled to POW status. The Taliban were not recognised by most of the world. Many of the Taliban were outside mercenaries. THOSE Taliban are explicitly excluded from POW status. As it came into power, the new ruling authority stated that Afghanistan Taliban were free to go and live their lives peacefully...but foreign mercenaries were to be detained. This implies that the Taliban we have are the foreign Arab/Pakistani mercenaries. What is interesting about your position is that you are saying that SOME of them MIGHT be ordinary troops and therefore we need to examine them more carefully.......because there is "doubt" and therefore you get Article 5. I suspect your answer is that there is in fact no room for doubt and that we have strong reason to not entertain doubt. I don't think the US (or the new ruling govt) went for the first couple of hundred homeless people they could find. This doesn't mean that there won't be mistakes made.....there will..but nor should that call into question the entire policy. Given the choice between erring on the side of letting would-be hijackers go vs. erring on the side of depriving some Taliban their right not to be interrogated, I'll take the latter. Finally, the Geneva Conventions were drafted in an era where the common goal was to establish certain rules which were in everybodies interests. The rule against interrogating POWs was to prevent torture of rank-and-file to obtain information about (say) future plans or existing positions. It was NEVER conceived that it would (or might) prevent the interrogation of a body of people who plan to (say) blow up London with a nuclear bomb. There have been thousands and thousands of people whose lives have been negatively impacted.... the women of Afghanistan, the massacres of villages during conflict, the children who starved and not least those who died on September 11th...and the families they left behind. The fact that some couple of hundred Taliban and/or terrorists might be getting their rights trampled becoming of major concern is just classic protect-my-house-and-family-but-I'll-never-fight-pinko-lefty-bullshit. One day we are dropping daisy cutters on these people...the next we are getting all sniffly because someone might be getting intimidated by threats of violence. My genuine honest-to-god feeling about this thing (outside of the academic debate) is "fuck 'em". And if some poor misguided soul happens to get caught in the caterpillar tracks of justice rolling into town.....that's a shame....but I'm happy to pay that price. I think America (collectively) is too.
Post #25,634 by Brandioch 1/24/02 7:55:45 PM Reply	Okay. 1). So, I didn't cover that key point in my summary? "I think we've established that they are POW's (until determined to be otherwise) and that they are to be afforded all the rights and treatment that a POW is entitled to under the Geneva Convention." Well, it looks to me like I did. 2). This was a summary. A summary. The entire discussion is available below. I am NOT going to repost all the links and facts and such in the summary. 3). Read article 4, subsection 3. 4). "Just because someone is Taliban does not automatically make them entitled to POW status." You are correct. It does not. First, they have to be captured and controlled by our forces. "The Taliban were not recognised by most of the world." Now I quote from the Geneva Convention: "3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power." "Many of the Taliban were outside mercenaries." True, these are treated as mercenaries under the Geneva Convention. "THOSE Taliban are explicitly excluded from POW status." Yes they are. As are spies. As are Taliban troops who are also terrorists. And so on. "As it came into power, the new ruling authority stated that Afghanistan Taliban were free to go and live their lives peacefully...but foreign mercenaries were to be detained." That is wonderful and beautiful. Are you stating that none of the prisoners we have are Taliban troops? "This implies that the Taliban we have are the foreign Arab/Pakistani mercenaries." So you are stating that none of the prisoners we have are Taliban troops. Is that true? "What is interesting about your position is that you are saying that SOME of them MIGHT be ordinary troops and therefore we need to examine them more carefully.......because there is "doubt" and therefore you get Article 5." Well, it could be phrased that way. Actually, I have said that since the categorization of the prisoners has not been determined at this point, they are all to be treated as POW's until such time as they are categorized. "I suspect your answer is that there is in fact no room for doubt and that we have strong reason to not entertain doubt." I don't understand what you're trying to say. "I don't think the US (or the new ruling govt) went for the first couple of hundred homeless people they could find." That is good. I am happy for you. Do you believe that I have said that? If so, can you show me the reference where I said that? "This doesn't mean that there won't be mistakes made.....there will..but nor should that call into question the entire policy." What policy? What mistakes? What are you talking about? I was under the impression that we were discussing prisoners and whether they are to be treated as POW's. Are you saying that they shouldn't? If so, how are they to be treated? Why? "Given the choice between erring on the side of letting would-be hijackers go vs. erring on the side of depriving some Taliban their right not to be interrogated, I'll take the latter." I am glad you feel comfortable enough to have an opinion. Now, can you tell me how your opinion is in contradiction of the Geneva Convention? "Finally, the Geneva Conventions were drafted in an era where the common goal was to establish certain rules which were in everybodies interests." No. They were drafted to provide a set of rules for one of the most disgusting of human activities. The wholesale slaughter of other human beings. Also to ensure that those affected could expect some reasonable level of treatment. "The rule against interrogating POWs was to prevent torture of rank-and-file to obtain information about (say) future plans or existing positions." Close enough. "It was NEVER conceived that it would (or might) prevent the interrogation of a body of people who plan to (say) blow up London with a nuclear bomb." And it has? How? "There have been thousands and thousands of people whose lives have been negatively impacted.... the women of Afghanistan, the massacres of villages during conflict, the children who starved and not least those who died on September 11th...and the families they left behind." Shall we discuss WWII? Millions killed. Yet we still maintained rule of law. "The fact that some couple of hundred Taliban and/or terrorists might be getting their rights trampled becoming of major concern is just classic protect-my-house-and-family-but-I'll-never-fight-pinko-lefty-bullshit." I believe I have logged more military experience than you have. I fought for the laws of this country and I expect to see them upheld. "One day we are dropping daisy cutters on these people...the next we are getting all sniffly because someone might be getting intimidated by threats of violence." That is the difference between being a combatant and being a prisoner. "My genuine honest-to-god feeling about this thing (outside of the academic debate) is "fuck 'em"." I'm glad you feel comfortable enough to have an opinion. "And if some poor misguided soul happens to get caught in the caterpillar tracks of justice rolling into town.....that's a shame....but I'm happy to pay that price." I'm sure that 99% of the population agrees with you, too. Right up to the point where they're the one under those tracks. Which is why we have laws to protect the people in those situations.
Post #25,645 by Mike 1/24/02 10:09:37 PM Reply	I'll see your "Okay" and raise you >>Well, it looks to me like I did. Nope not really. Not at all actually. You made an assertion that its established that they are POWs. You didn't mention anything about your "key" distinction. A key disctinction which....if it turns out the US Army has already researched.....blows your position into a thousand droplets of protoplasm. >>This was a summary. A summary. >>the entire discussion is available below. I am NOT going to repost all the >>links and facts and such in the summary. Didn't ask for that. Just for links to your sources so others can read them in context. Don't see them anywhere. Just copied extracts. 3). Read article 4, subsection 3. >>Now I quote from the Geneva Convention: >>"3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or >>an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power." Some good your quote does you. I question whether the Taliban are members of "regular armed" forces. I think others would too. This clause was inserted because of fears that forces were losing their "status" as regular armed forces with the chnages in the political landscape. I quote (from the icrc site): The opening years of the Second World War witnessed immense changes in the political system of Europe. Many countries were occupied, armistices were concluded and alliances reversed. Some Governments ceased to be, others went into exile and yet others were brought to birth. Hence arose an abnormal and chaotic situation in which relations under international law became inextricably confused. In consequence, national groups continued to take an effective part in hostilities although not recognized as belligerents by their enemies, and members of such groups, fighting in more or less disciplined formations in occupied territory or outside their own country, were denied the status of combatant, regarded as "francs-tireurs" and subjected to repressive measures. The International Committee of the Red Cross always made every effort to secure for "partisans" captured by their adversaries the benefit of treatment as prisoners of war, provided of course that they themselves had conformed to the conditions laid down in Article 1 of the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907. The authors did NOT envision this as a back-door for every flakey half-baked revolutionary to be able to claim POW status. The first thing you have to satisfy is the the Taliban are regular armed forces. I know you SO want "Taliban" to be synonymous with "Afghan Army" but that is simply not how it was or is. At best the Taliban were a ruling militia. That is how they were being referred to by everyone prior to Sept. 11. The Geneva Conventions make it very clear what a militia group must do in order to be eligible for prisoner of war status. Its right there in article 4. >>"Many of the Taliban were outside mercenaries." >>True, these are treated as mercenaries under the Geneva Convention. AND..........NOT ELIGIBLE FOR POW STATUS. DON'T WEASEL OUT. >>"THOSE Taliban are explicitly excluded from POW status." >>Yes they are. As are spies. As are Taliban troops who are also terrorists. >>And so on. And so you grant at least that any of THOSE individuals can be immediately dismissed from the candidates for POW status? >>Are you stating that none of the prisoners we have are Taliban troops? Yes, but only to the degree that you would say they are ALL Taliban troops. >>"This implies that the Taliban we have are the foreign Arab/Pakistani >>mercenaries." >>So you are stating that none of the prisoners we have are Taliban troops. Is >>that true? I think you are making that 'ol Taliban=Afghan Army mistake again. I'm saying that of the individuals who are not terrorists....the remaining are more likely to be the foreign-recruited Taliban. I stated some evidence for thinking that. What's your evidence that we DEFINITELY have Taliban who are Afghan nationals? >>Actually, I have said that since the categorization of the prisoners has not >>been determined at this point, they are all to be treated as POW's until such >>time as they are categorized. No proof though. Just because CNN hasn't got the inside scoop on what is going on doesn't mean that the US govt has no evidence and has no clue who they are dealing with. >>"I don't think the US (or the new ruling govt) went for the first couple of >>hundred homeless people they could find." >>That is good. I am happy for you. >>Do you believe that I have said that? >>If so, can you show me the reference where I said that? Do yourself a favor, don't try to combat points with a "show me where I said that" routine. I was telling you what I thought......if I need to spell it out....the inference I was making was that the selection of these individuals was NOT arbitray and was NOT based on a "lets get them all to Cuba and THEN well start to figure out who the dangerous ones are". Rather it was based on a process....a process designed to flush the ones who looked like they were closer to the "terrorism" end of the spectrum than they were to the "I love Islam and Afghanistan" end of it. THAT is why you have a bunch of Brits and an Australian in the mix. It wasn't accidental. Or would you have us believe that those are the Afghan Army too? >>"This doesn't mean that there won't be mistakes made.....there will..but nor >>should that call into question the entire policy." >>What policy? >>What mistakes? >>What are you talking about? I'm saying that it is possible that someone with a legitimate claim to POW status may be denied it. >>I was under the impression that we were discussing prisoners and whether they >>are to be treated as POW's. >>Are you saying that they shouldn't? >>If so, how are they to be treated? >>Why? They should be subjected to at least the kind of questioning which a murder suspect would receive. POW status would prevent this. I don't think they should be automatically released once hostilities are deemed to have ceased. POW status could cause this. >>"Given the choice between erring on the side of letting would-be hijackers go >>vs. erring on the side of depriving some Taliban their right not to be >>interrogated, I'll take the latter." >>Now, can you tell me how your opinion is in contradiction of the Geneva >>Convention? Under the Geneva Convention, POWs can not be coerced into giving information. >>I am glad you feel comfortable enough to have an opinion. What is the pre-prescribed comfort factor before you allow yourself an opinion? >>"Finally, the Geneva Conventions were drafted in an era where the common goal >>was to establish certain rules which were in everybodies interests." >>No. They were drafted to provide a set of rules for one of the most >>disgusting of human activities. The wholesale slaughter of other human >>beings. Also to ensure that those affected could expect some reasonable level >>of treatment. How does your staement correct mine in any way? >>"It was NEVER conceived that it would (or might) prevent the interrogation of >>a body of people who plan to (say) blow up London with a nuclear bomb." >>And it has? How? If they get POW status, they don't have to give up any information about what they know. They can't be coerced to give it up. >>I'm sure that 99% of the population agrees with you, too. >>Right up to the point where they're the one under those tracks. Not sure what you know about the 99%....but don't align me with them for better or for worse. You are debating me, not them. I'd be happy to go under for the greater good. >>Shall we discuss WWII? Millions killed. Yet we still maintained rule of law. Are you fuckin' nuts????????????????????????????? We firebombed civilian Dresden so badly that people miles away suffocated from lack of oxygen. We atom bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki purely to get civilians. Here's your rule of law...... GANG RAPE IN NEMMERSDORF Just inside the east German border with Czechoslovakia, the town of Nemmersdorf was the first to fall into the hands of the victorious Red Army. Overrun by General Gatlitsky's 11th Guards Army, his soldiers, crazy with bloodlust, set about raping, looting and killing with such ferocity that eventually discipline had to be restored to force the soldiers back to fighting the war. From buildings, Russian signs were hung which read ' Soldiers! Majdanek does not forgive. Take revenge without mercy!'. When the Soviet 4th Army took over the town five days later, hardly a single inhabitant remained alive. Women were found nailed to barn doors after being stripped naked and gang raped, their bodies then used for target practice. Many women, and girls as young as eight years old, were raped so often and brutally that they died from this abuse alone. Children were shot indiscriminately and all those trying to flee were crushed to death under the treads of the Soviet tanks. Forty French prisoners-of-war were shot on the spot as spies after welcoming the Red Army as liberators. Seventy one women and one man were found in houses, all dead. All the women, including girls aged from eight to twelve, had been raped. In other East Prussian villages within the triangle Gumbinnen-Goldap-Ebenrode, the same scenes were witnessed, old men and boys being castrated and their eyes gouged out before being killed or burned alive. In nearby Metgethen, a suburb of K\ufffdnigsberg, recaptured by the German 5th Panzer Division, around 60 women were found in a demented state in a large villa. They had been raped on average 60 to 70 times a day. In nearly every home, the bodies of women and children were found raped and murdered. The bodies of two young women were found, their legs had been tied one limb each between two trucks, and then torn apart when the trucks were driven away in opposite directions. At Metgethen railway station, a refugee train from Konigsberg, consisting of seven passenger coaches, was found and in each compartment seven to nine bestially mutilated bodies were discovered. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, an ex captain in the Soviet Army, recalls, "All of us knew very well that if girls were German they could be raped and then shot. This was almost a combat distinction" (Details of these, and other attrocities, are contained in the Eastern Documentation Section of the German Federal Archives at Koblenz). Here is your reference if you want any more great anecdotes about the preservation of rule of law. [link\|http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html\|http://members.iine...ssacres.html]
Post #25,659 by Brandioch 1/25/02 12:03:16 AM Reply	Summary. "If they get POW status, they don't have to give up any information about what they know. They can't be coerced to give it up." I think that statement tells me all I need to know about your position. Say hello to Chairman Mao for me, will you?
Post #25,675 by Mike 1/25/02 8:41:35 AM Reply	Summary Part II "I don't like the way this debate is going on its details, so I'll resort to something facile." Say something intelligent. I know you can. -Mike --------Streak of batpiss---------
Post #25,740 by Brandioch 1/25/02 2:42:52 PM Reply	I think my above post was correct. You said (and I quote): "If they get POW status, they don't have to give up any information about what they know. They can't be coerced to give it up." Deny you said that, if you want to. Our difference is that I'm applying the rules to the prisoners to determine what classification they fall under. You're determining how you want to treat them, and then making claims about the prisoners to fit the rules that will allow you to treat them this way. If they're POW's, they cannot be coerced. You want to coerce them. Therefore, you cannot stand to have them classified as POW's. I don't believe that such was intended by the founders of this country. But I do know that such was endorsed by Chairman Mao and practiced in just about every totalitarian society. Freedom is rough. Freedom isn't easy. Your other quote: "And if some poor misguided soul happens to get caught in the caterpillar tracks of justice rolling into town.....that's a shame....but I'm happy to pay that price." Hey, you've got your political view and I have mine. Something to think about, though. What's the difference between your view and the terrorists?
Post #25,760 by Mike 1/25/02 4:31:01 PM Reply	No The ad hominem bullshit doesn't even get my time of day. You think you have some clever and more noble "better way". It makes a very heavy reliance on the premise that the US is detaining people randomly and arbitrarily. You have not once produced a shred of evidence of this. I've explained to you the technical basis for why I don't believe they qualify for POW status. I've explained to you why I don't think they qualify on moral grounds either. I've also tried to explain that the Geneva Convention was not envisaged to cover such people and has limitations. Yes I freely admit......limitations in the light of what the U.S. govenment (and I) would like to achieve. The Taliban probably don't view these as "limitations" at all. Such is life. The thing you haven't addressed in ANY of the threads here is how you propose to make distinctions between individuals based on only name, rank and serial number. (And let's face it, they DON'T have an identification number ......do they?) >>You're determining how you want to treat them, and then making claims about >>the prisoners to fit the rules that will allow you to treat them this way. I would make claims about the prisoners such as a) they were caught fighting b) in a militia capacity c) they have no identifying symbol d) I don't believe they are entitled to POW status e) I would very much like to interrogate them >>If they're POW's, they cannot be coerced. >>You want to coerce them. Very much so >>Therefore, you cannot stand to have them classified as POW's. They don't satisfy the requirements for POW status. They just don't get it. Period. And I'm not sure you do. >>I don't believe that such was intended by the founders of this country. >>But I do know that such was endorsed by Chairman Mao and practiced in just >>about every totalitarian society. Why go as far as chairman Mao? Lets start wih McCarthy right here. People's lives were destroyed for having an incorrect opinion. You are too funny. And naive as all hell. You really need to climb off your high horse. You would almost certainly throw yourself off it if you did an ounce of research about what your own government gets up to. "For four months I was heavily tortured by the Army in Rio de Janeiro, and then in the Naval Information Center.... Near death, I was taken to the hospital for the sixth time. The beatings had been so severe that my body was one big bruise. The blood clotted under my skin and all the hair on my body fell out. They pulled out all my fingernails. They poked needles through my sexual organs and used a rope to drag me across the floor by my testicles. Right afterwards they hung me upside down. They hung me handcuffed from a grating, removed my artificial leg, and tied my penis so l could not urinate. They forced me to stand on my one leg for three days without food or drink. They gave me so many drugs that my eardrums burst and I am impotent. They nailed my penis to a table for 24 hours. They tied me up like a pig and threw me into a pool so that I nearly drowned. They put me in a completely dark cell where I remained for 30 days urinating and defecating in the same place where I had to sleep. They fed me only bread soaked in water. They put me in a rubber box and turned on a siren. For three days I neither ate nor slept and I nearly went mad...." -- Manuel de Conceicao, peasant leader in Brazil He was arrested in 1972 and brought before Brazilian security police who had been schooled at US army bases in the latest methods of counterinsurgency and interrogation. [link\|http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10069\|http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10069] Now.......I'm NOT saying that because it was done elsewhere its therefore okay to go right ahead. I bring this up to point out your naivete in talking about what the "founding fathers" envisaged. What they envisaged has fuck all to do with how the western world has conducted itself this past couple of centuries. They probably didn't envisage slavery, slaughter of the indians and the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations ....now did they? I am saying that coercion of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay may be appropriate and necessary. Give them your claimed "automatic" POW status and that becomes illegal. Now.... coercion could mean a ton of different things, ranging from unpleasant to horrible. I acknowledge this. Just like the entire campaign involved MANY unpleasant things in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and countless other places. But lets forget about coercion for a second...the fat is....POWs don't have to answer your questions beyond some very basic facts. This is a bad thing. The idea that we should back away now that we have CAUGHT some of them is just ridiculous. The idea that we can purge our souls and cleanse ourselves of any responsibility by suddenly deciding to go easy on hardened callous killers is a lame suggestion. While your prisoners will continue to exist free of threat in Guantanomo - the innocents in Afghanistan still live in fear of being bombed. Does that strike you as just? >>Something to think about, though. What's the difference between your view and >>the terrorists? I see where you are going with this. I have no problem saying that violence is sometimes justified. This is how the world is. We differ only in what we believe are causes important enough to justify violence. Something to think about....... --------Streak of batpiss---------
Post #25,765 by Brandioch 1/25/02 4:50:19 PM Reply	Yes. You said it. I quoted it. You can attempt to rationalize it any way you want. Coerce == coerce. Feel free to attempt to rationalize away.
Post #25,772 by Mike 1/25/02 5:11:19 PM 1/25/02 5:11:39 PM Reply	We're all done You >>If they're POW's, they cannot be coerced. You >>You want to coerce them. Me >>Very much so What don't you get? You didn't address a single point I made. Say something new, otherwise I think we are all done here. --------Streak of batpiss--------- Edited by Mike Jan. 25, 2002, 05:11:39 PM EST Expand All History
Post #25,664 by Ashton 1/25/02 5:52:18 AM Reply	The US purports to be defending "freedom". Everywhere. A meaningless shibboleth - if that does not mean especially, down to the individual level of one person. If we believe what we are preaching - then we are at a tactical disadvantage against any adversary which would not: A) Putatively agree to the Geneva Convention rules for 'warfare'. (Call it what you like; Brandioch's description is as factual as any euphemism like, "the Gentlemanly conduct of war") B) Accordingly agree that torture to the level of human endurance is never anything but an illegal act. C) I'm sure there's more, for the punctilious. We (apparently) accept this inequality / handicap? because we believe that it is the inescapable price for attempting to create a more just world in which use of the power of the many, is restrained - against the few or especially, the one. By these standards, WW-II was indeed fought according to the rule of law - except in those execrable instances where crimes were committed. Any Russian, American, German ... who participated in the lengthy list of homo-sap atrocities described in your link: acted extra-legally and, whether victor or vanquished - deserved prosecution and punishment, if found guilty. Is that redundant to say? The issue is no different re 1/25/02. Laws, our Constitutional principles are merely fine rhetoric at all times, until there is emergency. Only then are the 'lawful' separated from the unlawful via performance test. It's academic in all other times. Only a naif would suppose that Americans are any less capable of bestial behavior than others, unless we really do believe we are \ufffdbermensch. Ditto for those who imagine that the holocaust never occurred and that the tales in your link are false. None of those events however, alters the fact: there was law and it was broken. Finally and re present conundrum - true, we do not have to treat captives as humans - if we decide simply, something akin to ~ Anyone, after being categorized as ineligible for POW status [AFTER investigation, some form of due process] - shall be deemed a "spy in wartime" and may be executed at our pleasure. If that 'due process' is a cynically contrived one which finds few 'POW's; if we then decide that 'torture' surely isn't a larger punishment than death - so let's get that Information: then we shall break our own laws and mock our own principles. And if we do - certainly it WILL be rationalized as, an emergency during which we had to break laws to protect our country, our principles and our 'rule of law'. Inventing new categories of undeserving sub-humans (like the Buck-toothed Jap of WW-II - in posters I saw) is the usual first step in war propaganda. Given enough fear-inducement via well-known formulae, now amplified by massive new techno means: Why would anyone imagine Americans not being capable of behavior as bestial as General Gatlitsky's troops? (Consider their level of provocation: the sum of all Nazi actions since the start of Barbarossa? was it). How about the effect of that rumor of a MT-sized device buried somewhere in Manhattan? (No it hasn't started. Yet.) Ashton Blessed are those who expect nothing, for never shall they be disappointed.
Post #25,701 by Mike 1/25/02 10:28:47 AM 1/25/02 10:56:07 AM Reply	Enjoyed your post....but I enjoyed reading your post, but unfortunately I think it misses the mark. The Second World War was most definitely NOT fought according to the rule of law. Just Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima alone are enough to justify this statement. Funny how we get all outraged when we hear about a bunch of villagers being mown down ........ but if we torch an entire city it is somehow not a massacre. It just doesn't cut it to even say that the war was "mostly" fought under the rule of law any more than it cuts it (in your eyes) to say that the prisoners in Guantanamo are being treated "mostly within the confines of the Geneva Conventions so who cares what their label is". We think of ourselves as being more noble and having higher morals but the truth is... when it comes to war.........we don't. We DEFINITELY could have reduced the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan by choosing not to bomb the crap out of them. The reason we took this approach was because we chose American lives over Afghanistan lives. We would rather see a thousand or so Afghanistan peasants die rather than lose 100 of our soldiers. That's the stark TRUTH. Nobility, nobility wherefore art thou nobility? We say we are defending "freedom". That's just very clever and effective propoganda. Something which makes us feel good about ourselves and lets us sleep better at night. That way we won't feel quite so bad about our 401k plans being in drug companies who will refuse to give a child in Africa a shot (which costs 10c to make) because they don't have the $2 being asked for it. (FYI: Africa has been getting a hard time getting access to aids-related treatments. It has taken threats to breach patent law to put pressure on companies). It allows us to conveniently forget that for years we have supported regimes who will not guarantee basic human rights. Freedoms have been getting STUFFED for years without us doing much more than making objections. Take South Africa ...... what did we REALLY do to help that situation along? Take Cambodia (who we incidentally bombed the shit out of). Take the massacres of Christians in Polynesia. Take the South American dictatorships who tortured their populations. Take Vietnam. Take the Falkland Islands which the British fought (a war for a bunch of crappy islands designed to let the Second and Third World know who was still in charge). Ooooh oooooh I remember now....we were unable to do anything because they had "sovereignty". Ahhhh yes.....the same sovereignty we conveniently overlooked when we bombed the living daylights out of Yugoslavia. Now its Afghanistan. You see......that whole sovereignty thing just isn't working for us any more so we have decided to conveniently disregard it for a while. Be assured it will be back in the future........it will reappear when don't want to have to do something and need an excuse not to. Let's look at the Palestinian crisis. ......for its entire opening tenure the Bush administration let those two sides just have at it. We were not at all interested. Very few Americans were writing their representatives to do something about this. Then suddenly when its clear that we have to attack a Muslim country....its "whoa guys........your gonna have to tone this thing down!" and we are telling Israel what it can and can't do. Now I'm not saying all this is right or all this is wrong. The point I am trying to make is that we are not defending "freedom"....we are defending ourselves. Let's just tell it how it is. We get involved when we think our interests are at stake. And I am totally okay with that. I don't need cosy "nobility" to help me sleep better or think good things about myself. I think it is wonderful that we have at least a vision of a fairer world and try to pursue it. But war is a very, very dirty business. It leaves us horribly torn between two evils - and we think we can have our cake and eat it too. We can't. When the situation necessitates it we fight JUST as dirty as any other nation in the world. Believe it or not....there are those who would say that sending a guided tomahawk cruise missile is not the most noble form of warfare there is. But it is EFFECTIVE. It is in our interests to fight this way. Historically we have chosen to follow the rules when it was convenient and break them when it suited us. This idea that on the first of the month we were brutal aggressors....but now we are not..........we're "fair" again now is just classic speak-out-of-both-sides-of-your-mouth hypocrisy. We have and are killing people because they are a threat to us. They are still a threat to us. The Geneva Convention was an attempt to encourage "gentlemanly" treatment of prisoners. Prisoners who......for the most part.... had little to give in terms of information, were no longer a threat and who (most would agree) didn't deserve to suffer. In practice there was little to be gained from the majority of prisoners. This is not the case here....there is a LOT to be gained from the information they have. Now..........if you are involved in plotting terrorist acts against innocent men, women and children anywhere in the world.... why do you deserve this "gentlemanly" treatment? On technical grounds it seems clear (at least to me) that they don't have a claim to it. On the moral ground ("its the right thing to do") I think they deserve it even less. They get nothing. The next terrorist action will bring death and destruction. I would hate to be the one who has to tell a child that the reason their father had to die was because we couldn't interrogate some terrorist prisoners. Yah...I know...a bit overly dramatic...but you get the point. Footnote: Remeber the CIA guy who died at the prison uprising? Supposedly he was kicked to death. --------Streak of batpiss--------- Edited by Mike Jan. 25, 2002, 10:56:07 AM EST Expand All History
Post #25,747 by Brandioch 1/25/02 3:43:19 PM Reply	Check the treatment of POW's. Yes, we bombed towns, villages, etc. And if we had lost, we would have been on trial for war crimes. "...but if we torch an entire city it is somehow not a massacre." Maybe not to you, but it is to me. "t just doesn't cut it to even say that the war was "mostly" fought under the rule of law any more than it cuts it (in your eyes) to say that the prisoners in Guantanamo are being treated "mostly within the confines of the Geneva Conventions so who cares what their label is"." Why, yes it does. For one simple fact. I was not capable of voicing an opinion then (WWII was a bit before my time). Now I am. And I am. "We think of ourselves as being more noble and having higher morals but the truth is... when it comes to war.........we don't." That is why we must follow the rules we have agreed to. Saying that we aren't more noble is NOT a defense for not following the rules. "We DEFINITELY could have reduced the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan by choosing not to bomb the crap out of them." You MUST be new here. Or haven't you been reading my posts? "The reason we took this approach was because we chose American lives over Afghanistan lives." No, the REAL reason is that this way is QUICKER and plays better to the masses. "We would rather see a thousand or so Afghanistan peasants die rather than lose 100 of our soldiers." No, we'd rather NOT WATCH any of them die. Keep them all as mere statistics. No names, no faces, no little children with their little hands blown off. Dead Americans are ALWAYS on the news. Achmed Jr and his missing leg aren't. "That's the stark TRUTH." No, that's what you believe. "Nobility, nobility wherefore art thou nobility?" It comes from within. It requires self sacrifice. It does not hide behind excuses and lies so it can feel safe. Call all you want, you'll never find it. "We say we are defending "freedom". That's just very clever and effective propoganda." You're starting to learn. "Something which makes us feel good about ourselves and lets us sleep better at night." Our freedom to feel safe. "That way we won't feel quite so bad about our 401k..." Life sucks. "It allows us to conveniently forget that for years we have supported regimes who will not guarantee basic human rights." Your education is progressing nicely. "Freedoms have been getting STUFFED for years without us doing much more than making objections." Don't forget about making excuses. And believing the lies that people in our government have been telling us. ... a bunch of stuff from the past ... "Ooooh oooooh I remember now....we were unable to do anything because they had "sovereignty"." No, we were UNWILLING to do anything 'cause it wasn't us and we weren't up to the sacrifice involved. "Ahhhh yes.....the same sovereignty we conveniently overlooked when we bombed the living daylights out of Yugoslavia." If we don't watch our government, who will? "Now its Afghanistan." And later it will be another country. "You see......that whole sovereignty thing just isn't working for us any more so we have decided to conveniently disregard it for a while." You don't understand. It's only important when it's our's or our alies. ... more stuff ... "Now I'm not saying all this is right or all this is wrong. The point I am trying to make is that we are not defending "freedom"....we are defending ourselves." No, what we are defending is our current interests. This "war" will just make more terrorists. More people die on the roads every year than will EVER be killed by terrorists. "Let's just tell it how it is." Okay, let's. "We get involved when we think our interests are at stake." That is correct. But that is NOT to "protect ourselves". Will will sacrifice US troops in order to preserve our access to oil. "I don't need cosy "nobility" to help me sleep better or think good things about myself." I think that is termed "self-centered". "I think it is wonderful that we have at least a vision of a fairer world and try to pursue it." Ummmm, how do we try to persue it? All I've seen are excuses and rationalizations for our fucking everyone else. "But war is a very, very dirty business." That is true. And the best you can do in war is to hold true to your ideals and nobility. "It leaves us horribly torn between two evils - and we think we can have our cake and eat it too." No it does NOT! It OFFERS two evils. But we do not have to become the enemy to fight the enemy. "When the situation necessitates it we fight JUST as dirty as any other nation in the world." The problem is, that the situation almost NEVER necessitates that. We abandon our principles immediately. Just like we did in this instance. "Believe it or not....there are those who would say that sending a guided tomahawk cruise missile is not the most noble form of warfare there is." To send it against the enemy's encampment? Or to send it against a city that houses the enemy and children? The act itself is neutral. Just as firing a bullet is neutral. Hit a tin can. Hit an attacker. Hit a child. "But it is EFFECTIVE." Depends upon your definition of "effective". We've never won a war through bombing. "It is in our interests to fight this way." Not if we're bombing children and our interests are to abide by the rules we've agreed to. "Historically we have chosen to follow the rules when it was convenient and break them when it suited us. " I'm sorry, but it you only follow the rules when it's convinient, you aren't following the rules. You're doing whatever you damn well please and sometimes that coincides with the rules. "We have and are killing people because they are a threat to us." Really? How many times have YOU been threatened? Personally? No, the "threat" is manufactured by the politicians to manipulate you into associating yourself with undefined groups/concepts. The fact remains that we kill more people every year than terrorists do. Just counting the roads. They aren't a "threat" any more than buying lottery tickets is a "retirement investment". "The Geneva Convention was an attempt to encourage "gentlemanly" treatment of prisoners. Prisoners who......for the most part.... had little to give in terms of information, were no longer a threat and who (most would agree) didn't deserve to suffer." No. It was so that we could put rules in place so prisoners would have some expectation of basic human rights. "This is not the case here....there is a LOT to be gained from the information they have." Again, that is what the people deciding what you hear about them would have you believe. The facts are that, if they're religious fanatics ("terrorists") then they won't talk. Not without torture/drugs. Which we don't condone. Do we? "Now..........if you are involved in plotting terrorist acts against innocent men, women and children anywhere in the world.... why do you deserve this "gentlemanly" treatment?" Now.......if you're capable of telling who is and who isn't a terrorist, are you a mind reader? "On technical grounds it seems clear (at least to me) that they don't have a claim to it." On technical grounds, they're still covered under basic human rights. "On the moral ground ("its the right thing to do") I think they deserve it even less." The classic mistake of adjusting YOUR morality to suit THEIR morality. Unless YOUR morality is as low as their's is. "The next terrorist action will bring death and destruction." Ummmm, that is their goal. "I would hate to be the one who has to tell a child that the reason their father had to die was because we couldn't interrogate some terrorist prisoners." Think about the CHILDREN! But we've already been over that. If they are "terrorists", they won't talk, even under interrogation. Would you want that same child to watch you "interrogate" the prisoner who won't talk? "Yah...I know...a bit overly dramatic...but you get the point." No, it usually gets down to appeals to nameless, faceless, orphans. This isn't about rationality or morals or anything of such a high nature. It's about how to justify your actions when you feel impotent in a world of enemies. The truth is that that child stands more of a risk of losing Daddy 'cause some drunk got in his car than EVER losing ANYONE he knows to a terrorist attack. But we're not focusing our efforts on "interrogating" drunks. You are afraid. You don't really have any reason to be afraid. But you aren't going to react in a logical manner. Although it will be in a predictable manner. This is what the human animal does when a threat is perceived. Regardless of the reality of the threat.
Post #25,767 by Mike 1/25/02 5:05:31 PM Reply	Let me get this straight........ You just shared with me that the world is a fucked up place and that we do very bad things. And yet you seriously believe that the Second World War was fought in a fair manner? You're delusional....... >>You are afraid. .....blah blah >>But you aren't going to react in a logical manner. Yeah.......I see how you cut through my absent logic with a single stroke. Scratch that...........lets make it multiple strokes. Clean your keyboard off and try again. --------Streak of batpiss---------
Post #25,774 by Simon_Jester 1/25/02 5:14:01 PM Reply	You might want to read his post again. He never claimed WWII was fought in a fair manner.
Post #25,816 by Mike 1/25/02 11:16:02 PM Reply	You're right ...he said it was fought according to the "rule of law". [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25634\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25634] --------Streak of batpiss---------
Post #25,863 by Brandioch 1/26/02 1:26:28 PM Reply	It's so sad when you have to resort to oocq's. Out Of Context Quotes. Let me repost the section you were refering to. You said: "There have been thousands and thousands of people whose lives have been negatively impacted.... the women of Afghanistan, the massacres of villages during conflict, the children who starved and not least those who died on September 11th...and the families they left behind." I replies: "Shall we discuss WWII? Millions killed. Yet we still maintained rule of law." That seems to be a bit different from what you implied. Shall we take the previous two sections of that discussion? You said: "The rule against interrogating POWs was to prevent torture of rank-and-file to obtain information about (say) future plans or existing positions." I replied: "Close enough." You said: "It was NEVER conceived that it would (or might) prevent the interrogation of a body of people who plan to (say) blow up London with a nuclear bomb." I replied: "And it has? How?" Hmmm, it seems to me that the quote you quoted wasn't about FIGHTING accourding to the Rule of Law in WWII (at least not on our side). It seems that the quote you quoted was about our TREATMENT OF THE PRISONERS AFTER THE WAR. You've said we need to be able to "coerce" the prisoners to reveal information they might have. You support this position by saying they MIGHT be ready to nuke cities. You say that they've already hurt/killed/whatever THOUSANDS. I pointed out that even after MILLIONS were killed in WWII, we still followed the rules and treated the prisoners with basic human civility (far better than they deserved, but we're representing the good guys here). In fact, if you'd actually read my other posts, you'd see that the only reason we weren't charged with war crimes was that we were the victors in that conflict. We are not perfect, but we can try to be better. Rather than try to justify being worse. But I already know your position.
Post #25,931 by Mike 1/27/02 2:23:10 AM 1/28/02 4:28:22 PM Reply	Brandi - its okay to be wrong...... .....its the denial which hurts you the most. Brandioch: >>It seems that the quote you quoted was about our >>TREATMENT OF THE PRISONERS AFTER THE WAR. So be it. I see now. You're proposing that although the FIGHTING was barbaric and ugly......afterwards the prison-taking and POW treatment was all done according to the letter of the law. What utter fucking trollop. What a load of I-can-imagine- these-things-so-therefore-they-must-be-true. You fucking self-absorbed non-thinker. How warm things must be in your world. Is this a go-ahead-prove -me-wong-I-dare-you thing? Or is this bollocks just typical self-serving shit which I can expect to see here? You are so delighted with yourself at having found what you think is another sliver of light in the door opening in which to put your mangy foot of lunatic logic that you forgot to pause and actually wonder whether you are correct or not. In the department of twisting and wriggling to satisfy one's own ego you get a perfect 10. In the department of research before doing your talking.....you get 1 for presentation (because at least some people could possibly be taken in by your pompous attitude). SIT DOWN FOR A SECOND. YOU'RE JUST FUCKING WRONG Read on ...... and for once open up that little snot ball which your are trying to pass off for a mind. Please, PLEASE read the link below and then maybe give yourself a day to chill out. Then reconsider.......are you really sure that your are right? And on what do you base this? Common wisdom? Pah! You can find supporting info for Bacque yourself if you try (you won't). I'm not here to breathe life into your pathetic untrained ill-informed and largely unresearched view of the world and its history. Nonetheless I''l try if you try to wrap your already-been-chewed brain around the following and let the rest of us know what you think:- [link\|http://serendipity.magnet.ch/hr/cm01.htm\|http://serendipity..../hr/cm01.htm] Extract from James Bacques "Crimes And Mercies": For most of my life I hardly thought about the flaws in our democratic system. I thought things were bumping along not too badly until I encountered the crimes of Eisenhower and De Gaulle. Even then, I did not imagine that these crimes revealed anything important about our society today because, after all, they occurred almost half a century ago, under the tremendous force of hatred caused by war. It was only when I interviewed Drew Middleton, a star reporter for the New York Times, that I began to see how events of long ago were affecting our lives today. In Middleton's office in New York in 1988, I told him I had discovered that the US and French armies had committed enormous atrocities in Europe in 1945. Because he had written stories in 1945 denying this following his visits to the prison camps, I wanted his reaction. ...... In the opinion of nearly everybody in the West, the Second World War was a good war. It was necessary to defeat the utter evil of the dictators. If anyone in the post-war years doubted this, they were reminded of the pictures of emaciated bodies in Hitler's death camps. Lofty were the aims of the Allies, noble were their ideals, eloquent the expression of these ideals in such documents as the Geneva Convention, the Atlantic Charter, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. All these were in the tradition of the liberal reforms which had succeeded in the West for many years, yet all these noble declarations were being broken by one branch of government while they were being written by another. Or, like the Geneva Convention, they were broken as soon as they became applicable. People who say anarchy is impractical are ignoring modern government where anarchy is normal, in the sense that government is constantly changing course, covering up, contradicting and reversing itself and doing these things simultaneously. The Allies clearly did not intend to keep their word in the 1940s. Why not? And why give it? ....... The answer to the first question is of course that people often don't keep their word, because normal human frailties prevail over the noble resolve to correct them. The more interesting question is, why make such declarations? For one thing, it is reassuring to hear them. And probably it is fun to make them. Think of the well-dressed gentlemen, arriving by limousine in English castle, French chateau or American office block with polished secretaries to sit about a gleaming table making high-toned statements about lofty purposes until lunch. Surely, to a kind of mind that is quite common, this is highly important. But there is another reason, maintained by a delusion prevalent in the West. We see today great institutions of public opinion \ufffd among them Le Monde and the New York Times \ufffd feverishly denying the Western Allied atrocities of the post-war period against Germany. For most people in the West, the denials rest on delusion, not evidence. The question never even becomes, 'Did the Allies do such things?' because the answer has been planted in everyone's heads already. 'NO, the Allies did not, because they could not.' For instance, the eminent British historian Michael Howard, reviewing for the Times Literary Supplement a book about Allied atrocities against Germans, admitted that although he was 'an innumerate historian' unqualified to judge the crucial statistics in the book, he could 'apply the criterion of inherent probability' to refute the book. You can buy James Bacque on Amazon.com One more thing.....before you wimpering about James Bacque not being directly relevant to POWs blah blah blah (I see your kind every fucking day and it makes me ill) read....... Bacque, James Other Losses Prima Publishing 1991 Other Losses : The Shocking Truth Behind the Mass Deaths of Disarmed German Soldiers and Civilians Under General Eisenhower's Command "This book has shaken many of the accepted views on World War II. Bacque investigates the deaths of about 1 million German soldiers and civilians in American and French concentration camps. The French and American authorities had purposely allowed prisoners to starve to death and refused them adequate housing and medical care." ...if you can get it. Naah I know the answer to that one already. Edited by Mike Jan. 28, 2002, 04:28:22 PM EST Expand All History
Post #25,934 by Ashton 1/27/02 5:32:19 AM Reply	Post-war treatment.___Indeed. Your reply was to Brandioch, but I followed your link. The numbers he reports are indeed startling - about an order of magnitude larger than I had imagined / heard vague reports about over years. This Canadian researcher appears to have spent about 2 years (and among the first English speakers there?) at the Central State Special Archive in Moscow. After reading his thesis I looked for some reviews from orgs. not necessarily dedicated to general nose-rubbing of the species into its dung. Found also this rebuttal to a book by Douglas Peifer, by James Bacque: [link\|http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~german/discuss/veday/bacque.txt\|Corrections to another book with claimed errors] Excerpt: This and the many mistakes in the Ambrose-Bischof book raise questions about their scholarship. In future postings, I shall if anyone asks, describe some of these very distressing errors in their book. In the meantime, the more interesting question turns on the accuracy and extent of the Soviet archives. Here are the chief points: the archives record a death total for the Japanese prisoners that is the same as the total determined by the Japanese government; the archives show that more Poles died in the Katyn-related massacres than the Poles themselves had thought; the archives record more deaths among captured German civilians (internyrovannye) than the Adenauer government had estimated in the 1950s. These facts are doubly significant, demonstrating not only the accuracy of the archives, but also providing a second test of the accuracy of the German death totals, since all these prisoners were kept in the same camp system, many of them in the same camps at the same time. By every test, these are by far the most complete, coherent and accurate archives on World War Two prisoners in the whole world. And they record an appalling atrocity by the Soviets: to the 421,000 Germans must be added all the others to a total of well over 600,000. I'll have to read the book, as it passes (my) first degree test for plausibility (there are so many rants that do not). Enough time has elapsed for: Bacque to be disgraced (!?) had he Bowdlerized the archival data. That I also count as (+), aided by Google search for any such accusation.. Found none such. I'd agree that it is a rather massive rebuttal to the idea that (the US, UK, France)'s "TREATMENT OF THE PRISONERS AFTER THE WAR" bore any resemblance to the Geneva or any other convention. I can only observe FWIW: I am shocked at the magnitude; hardly surprised at the qualitative ugliness (that I have in fact asserted on occasion): OF FUCKING COURSE! Muricans are as hypocritical as the rest of the species - compounded by our egregious sanctimony which is incapable of imagining that WE ARE. This likely will deserve a thread of its own, if any others plan to read the book. I plan to. "Those who deny history" must be in a special Dantean locale way below the ones who.. won't bother even to read it: Ah but, Whose Version? (No wonder jingoistic ignorance is popular -- it's so much easier.) But to return to the original contretemps: You surely wouldn't suggest the "Everybody Does It" rubric for, in 2002: out-Eisenhowering Ike, would you? Yes, we're killers. We (can) try to restrain ourselves each day, for one more day. Should we try to debrief these collected suckers? Fucking-A. Should we torture them? (And would anyone answer that positively, beyond a whisper? / or report on it after doing it?) ... Probably this entire thread is moot, except as an effort to get the folks with the whips to try and remember that their aim was to remain human - within The Great New War Against Evil\ufffd. A certain naivete is necessary to avert madness. Y'know? We are not ever going to find out - well, maybe after some of Our Dungeonmasters reach retirement age and write memoirs: which the next generation will dismiss as Impossible, as in Bacque II ? Muricans don't do bad things\ufffd Share your pain over our malevolence. (When on other worlds, I never admit I am from This species - and I join in with their ridicule of those crazy destructive homo-saps and their juvenile hubris..) Ashton just visiting Kurt Vonnegut - ..and so it goes (Hey at least everyone knows about Dresden - who wants to)
Post #25,951 by Brandioch 1/27/02 1:00:28 PM Reply	Did that feel good to you? "I see now." Actually, I doubt you do. That's based upon the fact that you take my qoutes out of context and have trouble reading the references I've posted. "You're proposing that although the FIGHTING was barbaric and ugly......afterwards the prison-taking and POW treatment was all done according to the letter of the law." Let me focus on one part of your statement. "was all done" No. You are the one with the fantasy belief in the infallibility of this government and the people in it. Not I. I am the one questioning their decisions when their criteria is not made public. "What utter fucking trollop." Informational content == zero "What a load of I-can-imagine-these-things-so-therefore-they-must-be-true." Informational content == zero "You fucking self-absorbed non-thinker." Informational content == zero "How warm things must be in your world." Informational content == zero "Is this a go-ahead-prove-me-wong-I-dare-you thing?" Informational content == zero "Or is this bollocks just typical self-serving shit which I can expect to see here?" Informational content == zero "You are so delighted with yourself at having found what you think is another sliver of light in the door opening in which to put your mangy foot of lunatic logic that you forgot to pause and actually wonder whether you are correct or not." Informational content == zero "In the department of twisting and wriggling to satisfy one's own ego you get a perfect 10." Informational content == zero "In the department of research before doing your talking.....you get 1 for presentation (because at least some people could possibly be taken in by your pompous attitude)." Informational content == zero "SIT DOWN FOR A SECOND." Informational content == zero "YOU'RE JUST FUCKING WRONG" Informational content == zero "Read on ...... and for once open up that little snot ball which your are trying to pass off for a mind." Informational content == zero "Please, PLEASE read the link below and then maybe give yourself a day to chill out." Informational content == zero "Then reconsider.......are you really sure that your are right?" Informational content == zero "And on what do you base this?" Informational content == zero "Common wisdom?" Informational content == zero "Pah! You can find supporting info for Bacque yourself if you try (you won't)." Informational content == zero "I'm not here to breathe life into your pathetic untrained ill-informed and largely unresearched view of the world and its history." Informational content == zero Then we have a link to a reference saying that our people violated the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, I have to research this a bit before I can comment.
Post #25,968 by Mike 1/27/02 5:43:12 PM 1/28/02 4:32:24 PM Reply	Dude, it felt freakin' awesome. It was even better the second time reading your response because your "Informational content == zero" seemed like the next best thing to a stunned silence. >>Unfortunately, I have to research this a bit before I can comment. Yeah and I'm sure they'll be a public climbdown in your future if you discover you were deluding yourself. NOT. Edited by Mike Jan. 28, 2002, 04:32:24 PM EST Expand All History
Post #26,010 by Brandioch 1/28/02 1:47:16 AM Reply	Then I am sorry for you. You post: "You fucking self-absorbed non-thinker." I reply: "Informational content == zero" You reply: "It was even better the second time reading your response because your "Informational content == zero" seemed like the next best thing to a stunned silence." So you think that my replies to your personal attacks pointing out that you're saying nothin is equivalent to "stunned silence"? Stunned by what? Your research? Your insight? Your education? Or the fact that the majority of your post seems to be direct to personal attacks against me and not at my position. "Yeah and I'm sure they'll be a public climbdown in your future if you discover you were deluding yourself. NOT." If I believe I am wrong, I will admit it. I have in the past.
Post #26,024 by Mike 1/28/02 8:24:35 AM 1/28/02 4:31:36 PM Reply	Re: Then I am sorry for you. >>Or the fact that the majority of your post seems to be direct to personal >>attacks against me and not at my position. In this thread I ripped your position on both the Geneva Convention and the treatment of prisoners during/after the WWII. Then I ripped you when you just weren't prepared to listen. Live with it. Edited by Mike Jan. 28, 2002, 04:31:36 PM EST Expand All History
Post #26,037 by Brandioch 1/28/02 9:59:07 AM Reply	Believe that if you wish to. "In this thread I ripped your position on both the Geneva Convention and the treatment of prisoners during/after the WWII." First off, I've shown that the reference you used to "counter" my position on the Geneva Convention was fundamentally flawed in that it claimed that the Geneva Convention only applied to treatment of prisoners of armies that abided by the Geneva Convention. This is not the case and is stated as such repeatedly in the Geneva Convention. Then you post a reference to a book stating that our treatment of prisoners was not in accourdance with the Convention. This author's prior journalistic endevour has been questioned. Now, I'm looking into this SINGLE PIECE OF "EVIDENCE" that you've referenced. While it may be accurate, it is still the only work to make such claims. Sorry, that is not YET an adequate refutal of my position. But, you'll believe whatever you wish and make whatever claims you wish.
Post #26,073 by Mike 1/28/02 1:00:33 PM 1/28/02 4:30:36 PM Reply	Believe that if you wish to. >>This author's prior journalistic endeavour has been questioned. And as I pointed out - Stephen Ambrose doing the questioning made it very clear that evidence of Allied atrocities was apparent. >>While it may be accurate, it is still the only work to make such claims. Not so. If you had looked you would know. >>But, you'll believe whatever you wish When I see evidence it influences my beliefs >>and make whatever claims you wish. I'll have opinions and express them. P.S. Sorry about the ad hominem stuff but it really makes my ass clench when somebody who is thick as pigshit in the neck of a bottle thinks they are clever just because they went to college. Edited by Mike Jan. 28, 2002, 04:30:36 PM EST Expand All History
Post #26,076 by Another Scott 1/28/02 1:06:24 PM Reply	Please change your "PS" sig. It's not appropriate. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #26,123 by Mike 1/28/02 4:35:03 PM Reply	Done You are of course, correct. I even cleared up a few prior posts.
Post #26,138 by Another Scott 1/28/02 5:11:37 PM Reply	Vielen danke.
Post #26,084 by Brandioch 1/28/02 1:26:41 PM Reply	Ummm, you're wrong. Oh, not that there are instances where we violated the rules. But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such. In fact, if you will read back over my previous posts, you will see that I said we violated the GC many times. Up to and including dropping nukes on women, children and wounded. But since this claim will render your strawman null and void, you will continue to ignore it. Yes, we broke the GC at times during our handling of prisoners. But not to the degree that you've claimed. The thing I find most amusing in this is that such actions (even if they did occure) have ZERO relevance to the current discussion. Or do you believe that because we did it before, it is okay? Not so. This is just some weird tangent you've gone off on to try to support your position by claiming I've taken positions that I have not. Thrill yourself.
Post #26,097 by Mike 1/28/02 2:19:58 PM Reply	One more time around >>In fact, if you will read back over my previous posts, you will see that I >>said we violated the GC many times. Up to and including dropping nukes on >>women, children and wounded. GC came into effect in 1950. Time to change your position? -- Silly people make me cross --
Post #26,099 by Brandioch 1/28/02 2:36:51 PM Reply	The phrasing, not the position. They were adopted August 12, 1949. We still dropped nukes on women and children and wounded. Or do you deny that we dropped those nukes? Maybe you don't think it was a "war crime" to do so?
Post #26,106 by Mike 1/28/02 3:14:40 PM Reply	Mmmmmm much better Yes I know.....you were the one who had the brain burp. "The 1949 Geneva Conventions entered into force on 21 October 1950." [link\|http://www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf/c1256212004ce24e4125621200524882/301ba126aac7284841256604002e8ccd?OpenDocument\|http://www.icrc.org...OpenDocument] >>We still dropped nukes on women and children and wounded. Un huh uh huh. And...and.....and......and another thing.....oh.....yeah... so there. Hmmmmmm. >>Or do you deny that we dropped those nukes? Read my posts, silly billy. >>Maybe you don't think it was a "war crime" to do so? Oh you bitch. -- Vacuous people make me very vexed --
Post #26,101 by Mike 1/28/02 2:58:41 PM Reply	And..... >>But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such. You said: Shall we discuss WWII? Millions killed. Yet we still maintained rule of law. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25634\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25634] Then......when I raised the more general breaches of international law.... you requalified your position to focus only on POWs. When I have given you evidence that POWs were treated outside of international law.......you are now trying to say that you "never said that we NEVER did such". Way to go. Let's just both say that the question of POW treatment NEVER came up in EITHER of our posts. That way I can go back to my imagined world and you can go back to your imagined world (note: trying to be even handed). You have to admit that its kinda sorta tough to reconcile that with a statement that we "maintained the rule of law". Finally...... if you want to do a better job of arguing that the Taliban are recognised and "regular army" you could make the point that the U.N. Security Coucil recently passed resolutions condemning the Taliban for allowing Al Quaeda to operate on its territory. You could argue that if the United Nations were able to conceive that Taliban were in any way responsible.....that if the United Nations thought they were an appropriate entity to appeal to for some kind of response......that they were being recognised and as such so were all/any troops calling themselves Taliban. If the United Nations expected any kind of response it could be said that they saw evidence of legitimate authority. Apologies if this is said elsewhere.....but you made it clear in a post to BePatient that it's bad form (obsessive?) to be reading posts if you are not directly involved (hee hee). -- Can't think of anything PC right now --
Post #26,112 by Brandioch 1/28/02 4:09:38 PM Reply	Again? It's called "context". And we've already been over this. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863] "Then......when I raised the more general breaches of international law.... you requalified your position to focus only on POWs." No, that was the ORIGINAL context of the discussion. You were the one that lost it in an attempt to re-draft my position to one more suitable to your arguments. But, as I said, that's been covered. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863]
Post #26,118 by Mike 1/28/02 4:22:41 PM Reply	Dancing on the head of a pin If you want to say that you NEVER said something. I'm going to point out where you did. -- Can't think of anything PC right now --
Post #26,141 by Brandioch 1/28/02 5:15:18 PM Reply	You post lacks content. Or at least, it lacks a reference. I will, once again, instruct you in the construction of a well reference posting. Pay attention. First, I quote the part of your post that I'm replying to: "If you want to say that you NEVER said something. I'm going to point out where you did." Then I reply: What the fuck are you talking about you IDIOT!?! Then I provide supporting material for my post. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=26101\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=26101] Read that. You said I "requalified" my position to only focus on POW's. As I noted ONLY THREE FUCKING POSTS AGO that was the CONTEXT of that discussion. You do understand CONTEXT, don't you? Oh, I forgot. Like Bill, you can't remember anything that is more that two posts ago. Oh, I understand. If I say something like "cops are employed to uphold the law" and you can point to a specific instance of a cop breaking the law, then you feel that this somehow justifies your position or invalidates mine? Or if I say that "cops have arrested people without violating their rights before", you can find someone who claims that cops have violated rights before and this supports your position or invalidates mine? Oh, because I didn't put weasel words like "usually" or "most of the time" or "in many cases". Is that what you're trying to say? Sorry to interupt your fantasy world. But people don't behave like that. I thought it was understood by most adults (well, intelligent adults). I guess you don't fall into that "most adults" category. Only in your fantasies is it that everyone acts the same and believes the same. In the real world, you have good people and bad people.
Post #26,160 by Mike 1/28/02 6:19:02 PM Reply	You are a naughty boy >>Oh, because I didn't put weasel words like "usually" or "most of the time" >>or "in many cases". >>Is that what you're trying to say? >>Sorry to interupt your fantasy world. But people don't behave like that. This is so delicious. I can't believe I have been blessed with you. More! More! Dude, if you want to dip your toes in the legal pond for a while you would be well advised to steer clear of the famed "weasel word" defense. Let me guess.......you hardly ever lose an argument do you? My guess is that you kick the chessboard every time your Queen gets her skirt blown up. Does it not strike you as ironic that in the same post where you are pedantically squealing about me saying you "requalified" something you also want to extend yourself the privileges of not needing to use precise language? In the SAME post! lmao THE FUCKING SAME POST! Mike:The Second World War was most definitely NOT fought according to the rule of law. Brandioch, you asked me to "Check the treatment of POW's." in the TITLE to one of your posts. You are asking me to believe that what you intended for me to find was (please insert appropriate weasely word) evidence of (please insert appropriate weasely word) behavior? If so, I think you (please insert appropriate weasely word) lying. Brandioch:>> I pointed out that even after MILLIONS were killed in WWII, we Brandioch:>> still followed the rules and treated the prisoners with basic Brandioch:>> human civility (far better than they deserved, but we're Brandioch:>> representing the good guys here). LINK=[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863] What weasely word shall we use to describe the above? Restating? Repeating? Clarifying? Pick anyone you like. Make a new one up if you prefer. But........ once....... you........ have....... a.......... name....... for........ it......... PLEASE reconcile it with: Brandioch:>> But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such.
Post #26,167 by Brandioch 1/28/02 6:43:42 PM Reply	I think my original posts were clear enough. "This is so delicious. I can't believe I have been blessed with you. More! More! Dude, if you want to dip your toes in the legal pond for a while you would be well advised to steer clear of the famed "weasel word" defense." What did you intend to say? "Let me guess.......you hardly ever lose an argument do you?" You'd be wrong. But I don't supposed you'll believe that. You haven't so far. "My guess is that you kick the chessboard every time your Queen gets her skirt blown up." content == zero (again) "Does it not strike you as ironic that in the same post where you are pedantically squealing about me saying you "requalified" something you also want to extend yourself the privileges of not needing to use precise language?" In your opinion or mine? I was talking about you taking a post of mine out of context. That is NOT the same as you insisting that everytime I make a statement it must apply to 100% of individuals. "In the SAME post! lmao THE FUCKING SAME POST!" You quoted me out of context. Out of context. Deal with it. START QUOTE "Mike:The Second World War was most definitely NOT fought according to the rule of law." ... useless crap deleted ... Brandioch:>> I pointed out that even after MILLIONS were killed in WWII, we Brandioch:>> still followed the rules and treated the prisoners with basic Brandioch:>> human civility (far better than they deserved, but we're Brandioch:>> representing the good guys here). LINK=[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863] END QUOTE Again, you seem to be UNABLE to grasp the simple fact that I was talking about our treatment of the POW's after the war. In fact, I have ON SEVERAL FUCKING OCCASIONS pointed out that we dropped nukes on WOMEN, CHILDREN AND THE WOUNDED. But that doesn't fit the point you want to make so you will ONCE AGAIN skip over it. Unfortunately, it was the point I was making so your "rebutal" of my position keeps falling apart when I point out that what you're claiming I said was actually taken out of context. Context. It's what you keep missing. Reminder, I said we nuked women and children. You said I said that we fought WWII accourding to the rules of war. I said we nuked women and children. You said I said we fought WWII accourding to the rules of war. Eventually, I will have to presume that you think nuking women and children is in accourdance with the rules of war. I would suggest you reconsider that opinion.
Post #26,173 by Mike 1/28/02 7:15:17 PM Reply	Brandioch: >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such (just thought it might help if I put it in the title....you appear to have missed it in the last post). >>Again, you seem to be UNABLE to grasp the simple fact that I was talking >>about our treatment of the POW's after the war. And.........what..........were.......you.......saying......about......them? I think I know but I may be mistaken so tell me again. Go ahead, restate/rephrase/repeat your position. And then............reconcile it with........ Brandioch: >> But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such. -Mike P.S. Reprise. Brandioch: >> But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such. >>In fact, I have ON SEVERAL FUCKING OCCASIONS pointed out that we dropped >>nukes on WOMEN, CHILDREN AND THE WOUNDED. I got there first. (Go check I dare ya). I thought we we're talking about POWs? Why are you bringing this up at this point? -- Can't think of anything PC right now --
Post #26,179 by Brandioch 1/28/02 7:56:02 PM Reply	Again, the two post rule applies. You can't remember anything I posted more than two posts ago. And you're attempting to quote me out of context again. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863] "I got there first. (Go check I dare ya). I thought we we're talking about POWs? Why are you bringing this up at this point?" Ah, but that's the point. You keep switching from the treatment of POW's to claiming that I'm claiming we didn't commit war crimes. Try to keep it straight. And in context.
Post #26,182 by bepatient 1/28/02 8:05:37 PM Reply	What POWs? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,183 by Brandioch 1/28/02 8:16:21 PM Reply	Those POW's.
Post #26,256 by Mike 1/29/02 8:07:34 AM Reply	Bring out the context I'm posting the links to your posts. I've exhausted my ability to put it into the correct context. I think you must mean some other as yet undefined context. I think you should flush it out right now Look......put it BACK into whatever context you see fit. Right here. And then we can attempt to reconcile what you said. Reminder....... Brandioch, you asked me to "Check the treatment of POW's." in the TITLE to one of your posts. You are asking me to believe that what you intended for me to find was (please insert appropriate weasely word) evidence of (please insert appropriate weasely word) behavior? If so, I think you (please insert appropriate weasely word) lying. Brandioch:>> I pointed out that even after MILLIONS were killed in WWII, we Brandioch:>> still followed the rules and treated the prisoners with basic Brandioch:>> human civility (far better than they deserved, but we're Brandioch:>> representing the good guys here). LINK=[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863] What weasely word shall we use to describe the above? Restating? Repeating? Clarifying? Pick anyone you like. Make a new one up if you prefer. But........ once....... you........ have....... a.......... name....... for........ it......... PLEASE reconcile it with: Brandioch:>> But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such. P.S. I'm not getting in the least bit impatient, honest. Every time you make a post I hear a guy in the background shouting "Goooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal!" -- Can't think of anything PC right now --
Post #26,325 by a6l6e6x 1/29/02 11:57:17 AM Reply	Incidentally, Mike... you have agreement from Charles Krauthammer of Washington Post. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35191-2002Jan24.html\|The Jackals Are Wrong.] The critical issue in the treatment of these captured fighters is whether, under international law, they are prisoners of war or "unlawful combatants." Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #26,347 by Mike 1/29/02 1:25:25 PM Reply	Thanks...another supporting link attached Ronald D. Rotunda, professor, University of Illinois College of Law [link\|http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry012402.shtml\|http://www.national...012402.shtml] -- Can't think of anything PC right now --
Post #26,032 by Mike 1/28/02 9:45:12 AM Reply	Just FYI You say: >> Or the fact that the majority of your post seems to be direct to personal >> attacks against me and not at my position. From VERY early on in the debate: Brandioch >> I think that statement tells me all I need to know about your Brandioch >> position. Say hello to Chairman Mao for me, will you? You abandoned the "high road" a long time ago. Don't bother to even dream about trying to reclaim it now. P.S. Sorry about the ad hominem stuff but it really makes my ass clench when somebody who is thick as pigshit in the neck of a bottle thinks they are clever just because they went to college.
Post #26,035 by Brandioch 1/28/02 9:53:20 AM Reply	I don't expect you to see the difference. But I'll post this anyway. There is a difference between telling someone that their position is similar to Chairman Mao's handling of "counter-revolutionaries" -and- "You fucking self-absorbed non-thinker." Note that my statement is in reference to your position. Your statement is about me.
Post #26,038 by bepatient 1/28/02 10:06:08 AM Reply	Because thats not what you did. Nice try, though. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,056 by Brandioch 1/28/02 11:49:00 AM Reply	Thank you. It's so nice to know that, even though you have nothing of value to offer any conversation, you still feel psychologically compelled to read each and every one of my posts. Who did that song "Obsession"?
Post #26,065 by bepatient 1/28/02 12:41:48 PM Reply	No problem.... I don't have anything to add to the POW discussion because Mike already destroyed you. And...its pretty much a moot point now anyway. They've been classified. They're not POWs. Read the story. [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1784000/1784700.stm\|http://news.bbc.co..../1784700.stm] And we even have our own little internal debate about terminology so as to make sure we stay with in the confines of Geneva...as Colin Powell appears to not like the title "illegal combatants" It is clear and restated, however, that our position is that we were NOT dealing with members of "regular armed forces" and that we continue to treat these detainees in accordance with Geneva with the exception of interrogation. Oh. And to this untrained reader, your statement about >Say Hi to Mao for me< seemed a little far from your characterization of what it was >supposed< to mean. Mike must be functionally illiterate too...since he seemed to not read it your way either. Oh well. Obsessed? You should be so flattered ;] You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,070 by Brandioch 1/28/02 12:54:17 PM Reply	Flattered? Not really. But I guess you need someone to obsess about. Anyway, I'm so glad that you're so informed on this subject. Maybe you can tell me about the NSC's visit scheduled for later? You see, as stated in the article "illegal combatants" is NOT a term that was used in the rules regarding war. But then, I don't expect you to know anything about actual situations. So, a US official says that the prisoners are not POW's. And this is gospel to you because your government wouldn't lie to you. Well, even when they do, it's because it's in your own best interest, right? So that's okay. "Speaking during a visit to the camp along with four other US senators, Mr Rumsfeld told reporters that the war against terrorism required a new way of thinking and new concepts." Strange, I must not have understood this way of thinking. Oh, that's right. All those years I spent in Germany (where they deal with terrorism on a daily basis) don't count. "They've been classified. They're not POWs. Read the story." Really? And accourding to the Geneva Convention, who is it that determines the classification? "Oh. And to this untrained reader, your statement about >Say Hi to Mao for me< seemed a little far from your characterization of what it was >supposed< to mean." And that can easily be accounted for by the fact that you're rather less than educated in certain matters. Well, what can one expect when you've demonstrated time and time again that you can't remember what happened just 2 posts ago?
Post #26,091 by bepatient 1/28/02 2:01:28 PM Reply	Gospel according to Brandioch... ...can I get an Amen! You see, as stated in the article "illegal combatants" is NOT a term that was used in the rules regarding war. But then, I don't expect you to know anything about actual situations. So, a US official says that the prisoners are not POW's. And this is gospel to you because your government wouldn't lie to you. Well, even when they do, it's because it's in your own best interest, right? Oops...you seem to be confusing me with someone else...because I've never assumed it was in our best interest to deny their status as POW...only that they don't qualify. Then, it seems, I've provided links to several publications reporting that the US government and other experts in international law agree with my POV (and Mike's) that these combatants do not qualify. To which...you linked to the convention...and supplied us with your interpretation. To which Mike provided his. I have yet to see you link to anything besides the Geneva Convention. To which Mike has indeed raised questions about your interpretation. To which you respond with direct personal attack. Oh, that's right. All those years I spent in Germany (where they deal with terrorism on a daily basis) don't count. About as much as all those years I spend in Brussels, where they deal with more terrorism on a daily basis...as they have the distinction of being the only capital in Europe with a recognized Embassy for the PLO. Oh...and that little building on the north side of town didn't help either...that being HQ for the EEC. Really? And accourding to the Geneva Convention, who is it that determines the classification? Clue...its not Brandioch. And there are prominent experts on international law that agree with the US position that they are NOT prisoners of war. So when and if a competent tribunal is put forth to determine status...its seems the consensus has you in opposition. And by that time...we'll have released most of the detainees in accordance to international law...something you seem to thing the US has complete disregard for. And that can easily be accounted for by the fact that you're rather less than educated in certain matters. Still trying to take the high ground, I see. Well, what can one expect when you've demonstrated time and time again that you can't remember what happened just 2 posts ago? Et tu You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,098 by Brandioch 1/28/02 2:26:13 PM Reply	I am humbled before God. A nice, simple one. "Oops...you seem to be confusing me with someone else...because I've never assumed it was in our best interest to deny their status as POW...only that they don't qualify." Oops. You seem to be functionally illiterate, again. You see, any time their designation is NOT know, they are to be treated as POW's. And "illegal combatants" is NOT a term used in the GC. Therefore, they were not classified under the GC. Therefore, they are POW's. Under the GC. "Then, it seems, I've provided links to several publications reporting that the US government and other experts in international law agree with my POV (and Mike's) that these combatants do not qualify." Then tell me why the NSC is coming over to check? "I have yet to see you link to anything besides the Geneva Convention." Well, could it be because that is the standard by which these people should be classified? "To which Mike has indeed raised questions about your interpretation." And to which I have responded. Most recently (sorry, more than 2 posts ago and you won't be able to recall) regarding the fact that his "reference" was under the impression that only troops who follow the GC are afforded the protections of the GC. "To which you respond with direct personal attack." Like I said, you're functionally illiterate and unable to recall anything further back than 2 posts ago. "About as much as all those years I spend in Brussels, where they deal with more terrorism on a daily basis...as they have the distinction of being the only capital in Europe with a recognized Embassy for the PLO. Oh...and that little building on the north side of town didn't help either...that being HQ for the EEC." Great. And what can you tell me about their handling of terrorists? Hmmmmm? Nothing? I thought not. I ask: "Really? And accourding to the Geneva Convention, who is it that determines the classification?" You reply: "Clue...its not Brandioch." Allow me to rephase that exchange. I ask: "Really? And what is the capital of New York?" You reply: "Clue...its not Brandioch." Okay, that is to illustrate that you HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. It was a simple, question. "And there are prominent experts on international law that agree with the US position that they are NOT prisoners of war." A fact that is irrelevant IF THEY ARE NOT THE ONES WHO MAKE THE DECISION. "So when and if a competent tribunal is put forth to determine status...its seems the consensus has you in opposition." How amazing that you already know the verdict of that tribunal. You know, they could save time and money and just consult with you regarding what their decision will be. "And by that time...we'll have released most of the detainees in accordance to international law...something you seem to thing the US has complete disregard for." Even MORE amazing. Not only do you know what that tribunal's findings will be -BUT- You also know the date/time that we will release "detainees". I was under the impression that only one being knew the future to such a detailed degree. I am humbled before God. How foolish I was to ever argue with someone who already knows the future.
Post #26,124 by bepatient 1/28/02 4:36:10 PM Reply	It would help if you read something... ...about this besides your own posts...and your occasional link to the Geneva Convention. And "illegal combatants" is NOT a term used in the GC. Therefore, they were not classified under the GC. Therefore, they are POW's. Under the GC. Bzzt...wrong answer...try again. To many ergos. They are to be afforded equal treatment until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. They are NOT classified as POW. To which directly relates back several posts where I asked you to detail just how their treatment was NOT in accordance to the Geneva Convention. "About as much as all those years I spend in Brussels, where they deal with more terrorism on a daily basis...as they have the distinction of being the only capital in Europe with a recognized Embassy for the PLO. Oh...and that little building on the north side of town didn't help either...that being HQ for the EEC." Great. And what can you tell me about their handling of terrorists? Hmmmmm? Nothing? I thought not. Ah...I see...my experience in a country with daily dealings in terrorism doesn't apply...but yours does. Love that logic. ---- Oh..and you can rephrase the other exchange however you would like... but YOU do not determine the classification. A competent tribunal will do that. And the fact that they have not yet been classified does not make them POW's. It only means that they be treated according to the rules set forth. And while you seem to think that insulting my intelligence will make that fact change...until you provide some evidence that they are NOT being treated humanely in accordance with the GC then the rest of your lengthy diatribe really has no purpose. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,144 by Brandioch 1/28/02 5:19:05 PM Reply	You're posts are so easily disproven. I said: "And "illegal combatants" is NOT a term used in the GC." You said: "Bzzt...wrong answer...try again. To many ergos." Sorry, Bill, but "illegal combatants" is not a term used in the GC. You might want to read the actual documents before attempting to correct me.
Post #26,146 by bepatient 1/28/02 5:20:43 PM Reply	Why don't you answer the point made? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,150 by Brandioch 1/28/02 5:39:39 PM Reply	Allow me to refresh your memory. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=26144\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=26144] START QUOTE I said: "And "illegal combatants" is NOT a term used in the GC." You said: "Bzzt...wrong answer...try again. To many ergos." Sorry, Bill, but "illegal combatants" is not a term used in the GC. END QUOTE Do you deny that such was from your post, in context? Do you deny the validity of my refutation? Here is the url for the text of the G.C. [link\|http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm\|http://www.unhchr.c...nu3/b/91.htm] Use your favorite search app to find "illegal combatants". There, a quote, in context, a reference and instructions. What else can I do for you? Oh, I know, remind you again after your next two posts.
Post #26,181 by bepatient 1/28/02 8:04:28 PM Reply	Again...pick at a detail and ignore the point. Again...nice try...but now that we're over a post away...let me quote it for you.... ===== And "illegal combatants" is NOT a term used in the GC. Therefore, they were not classified under the GC. Therefore, they are POW's. Under the GC. Bzzt...wrong answer...try again. To many ergos. They are to be afforded equal treatment until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. They are NOT classified as POW. To which directly relates back several posts where I asked you to detail just how their treatment was NOT in accordance to the Geneva Convention. ===== 3 sentences too much for you to handle? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,185 by Brandioch 1/28/02 8:22:45 PM Reply	Isn't the point comprised of the details? Or is the point somehow not related to the details? Can the details be wrong and the point still be correct? "They are to be afforded equal treatment until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. They are NOT classified as POW." Hmmmm, looks like a duck walks like a duck quacks like a duck therefore, it is NOT a duck. I think I'm beginning to grasp your logic. Funny, but I thought that >MY< position was that, until they are classified (and "illegal combatant" is NOT a recognized classification) then they must be treated as POW's. At least, accourding to the Geneva Convention. Now, where did I lose you? Or are you saying that because "illegal combatant" is NOT a recognized classification, they were to be treated as POW's until they could be classified? Ahhhh, I see where the confusion is.
Post #26,215 by bepatient 1/28/02 11:15:34 PM Reply	no.it wasn't I think we've established that they are POW's (until determined to be otherwise)... That was from the very first post in this thread where you declared them to be POWs. Where did you get lost? Now...since you are a self-declared expert...please detail Geneva treatment for captives that are not POW status...and while your at it...show where the current situation violates those conditions. Duck duck goose. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,230 by Brandioch 1/29/02 12:55:45 AM Reply	Now >THAT< is funny. So, you've gotten past the "they're evil terrorists" phase and now you recognze that they're human beings with rights? The only thing you're focused on right now is....... Whether having all the rights and priviledges of a POW means they are actually POW's or not. But you admit that they have those rights. Well, Bill. I'm going to declare that you've won. :) You're right. They aren't POW's. They're just accourded all the rights that a regular POW would have. Thanks for playing.
Post #26,238 by Ashton 1/29/02 4:16:59 AM Reply	Not as funny as putting a bra on a a statue because The Attorney General for All of Us\ufffd.. feels uncomfortable posing IN FRONT of this bestial naked statue - I guess the same one that legions of less easily upset AGs.. just never even noticed or if they did they didn't think much of it or - See? not as funny :( It's Gotta be.. something in the water.
Post #26,276 by bepatient 1/29/02 9:28:29 AM Reply	I thought you were an expert? Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be. So...you see...there are SUBSTANTIAL differences in treatment afforded by the convention depending upon classification and interpretation. So, you see, Mr Expert...treatment according to general Geneva principles and treatment under the rules established for prisoners of war are NOT the same. Hence...duck duck goose. Or was that too much for you to figure out? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,314 by Brandioch 1/29/02 11:10:57 AM Reply	Nope. I'm just able to read. "So...you see...there are SUBSTANTIAL differences in treatment afforded by the convention depending upon classification and interpretation." Exactly. And they're classified as "illegal combatants". Which is not listed anywhere in the G.C. So they're afforded all the rights of POW's until they are classified as something else. It's all so simple. All you have to do is think in non-binary terms. I know that is hard for some of you. Billthink - terrorist or released.
Post #26,317 by bepatient 1/29/02 11:23:03 AM Reply	Then why don't you try it sometime They are afforded the rights contained in the Convention. NOT the rights of POWs per the Convention. The GC is much more than just a document covering POW treatment. And it establishes minimum standards for treatment...which you still can't seem to show are being violated. And you seemed to NOT read the direct quote I gave from the Geneva Convention regarding those detained that pose security risk. They are DENIED communication rights and are afforded only the full rights of the Convention after it has been determined that they pose no further risk. R I F You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,321 by Brandioch 1/29/02 11:39:09 AM Reply	You see, I can read and you're illiterate. Oh, so tell me what rights they have then, as "illegal combatants". Then tell me what rights POW's have. Then compare/contrast the two.
Post #26,322 by bepatient 1/29/02 11:45:51 AM Reply	I already gave you your homework assignment Also showed you where basic Geneva provisions can be denied based upon security concerns of the captors. So...if you don't mind...show me where basic Geneva treatment is being violated? You're the expert, right? They are not POW and don't qualify for POW protection. They qualify for basic Geneva protection. Humane treatment, medical care, etc. Those basic protections can be even further limited...appropriate Geneva language was quoted more than 2 posts back. Or can't you follow that far either? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,329 by Brandioch 1/29/02 12:15:38 PM Reply	And we, once again, come back to my point. That's right. The prisoner's are to be treated as if they were POW's. But you don't want that. You want these "security" issues to be used to remove their rights. Which is a problem with the GC.
Post #26,352 by bepatient 1/29/02 1:48:55 PM Reply	No we haven't They are to be afforded basic treatment per the Geneva Convention. That is NOT the same as being treated as a POW. POW status grants MORE protection than basic Geneva protection. Those "security" provisions ARE IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION. R(eading) I(s) F(undamental) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,777 by Ashton 1/25/02 5:23:25 PM Reply	Thou sayest.. But perhaps you missed the crux of my syllogism: do we actually believe the homilies which we spout - and which are so comforting to repeat, especially to elementary school children and other innocents? For myself - I'll second in detail the analysis provided by Brandioch, above. There are none more firmly deluded than the intentionally self-deluded. And IMhO: in the world today (and all the while I have lived in it).. there is no more sanctimonious (as is every proselytizer), arrogant (as is everyone who imposes His 'morality' du jour via force), naive (as is everyone too lazy to read history with comprehension) -- than the sterotypical 'Murican Peepul'. Our election non-dialogue is the litmus for how the carefully crafted feedback system maintains all discussion at the sloganeering babble level. This guarantees that the 1-3% ruling class (now almost synonymous with the Corporate ruling class) - are never in any danger of losing their control over legislators, thus legislation -- thus the majority of all 'wealth'. News Clowns maintain the fine-tuning / double duty as icons and entertainers. Our various Ministries of Propanda are patterned upon the Master's Berlin edifice - but constantly techno-tuned for effectivess as would have rendered even ice-Nazi Paul Joseph G.. temporarily orgasmic. Still and all - Mr. Gauss measures the distribution of abilities in homo-sap as in many processes of random life: the Murican Peepul monolith exists only in fantasy - even if it is the most-used phrase of the political class. Perhaps a different '1-3%' shall ultimately succeed in reversing the outright purchase for ca$h, of the Peepul's representatives [??] Possibly we may even.. cease filling our offspring's little heads with the Fantasy Murica? and.. dust off those magnificent ideas which spawned us. Crap shoot. Ashton Pigs CAN fly. Greed CAN become less fashionable and finally, an object of ridicule: the most powerful gravitational force in packs of homo-saps (at the mall or at home).
Post #25,820 by Mike 1/26/02 12:07:40 AM Reply	You're up Hey I wish you well with your little community n'all. I'm moving on. If it helps you grow, and especially...if it helps your community grow...I'm okay with you saying that your logic and greater wit had me absolutely tied up in knots. Its not that we are all engaged in hourly billing for the sake of it.......its that dinosaurs can actually be encouraged to mate if you have the right Barry White album playing. Rachmaninoff's second concerto is clearly the better for having been ignored by most of the progressive musicians who did not make it to the pro bowl. Clearly this is an important factor for your fat free antelope farm. Are you fat? No nor am I. I include the word "murican" here not just because you need immediate relief, but rather because the greater polytechnic requires it. The good of the many outweighs the good of the banjo statistician. There are circumstances when it is intolerable to exercise a particle collider and there is no reason why primitive bacteria can not be used to prevent this. Ordinarily, given sufficient proof I would be prepared to admit that there are no case studies which are unable to rectify the situation. I understand what your requirements are but it is vital that all people take immediate cognisance of the pugilistic tendencies which certain individuals have been prone to displaying when not engaged in obsequious activites which only journalists and biologists can truly investigate. Fish can be persuaded to drink but not if there happen to be horses in the area. He he. Its a small world after all. Its a small small world. Gimme, gimme, gimme a man after midnight won't somebody help me chase the shadows away. I like the yellow diggers the most, those are the ones which make me less inclined to feel outraged when the horizon hasn't moved for several days. I don't mind admitting that I like to have my sphincter tickled from time to time. Its a funny thing, but sometimes an ordinary vegetable has no deeper meaning than a thumb in middle of winter. Formula one racing is not what it might have been if unnecessarily short prunes and princesses are being allowed to go hunting with steely knives. But they just can't kill the lights even though enough of them have been categorically proven to be in mourning. It makes me smile and it gives me great pleasure. Often. Its funny how people can derive a sense of superiority by attempting to be blatantly disrespectful. I feel it now. I think it helps to galvanize a holier than thou....or perhaps more irreverent-than-thou attitude and therefore leave the individual with....if nothing else....a sense that I care less than you and therefore that makes me better. Well...you are mistaken. I am better. You don't care less and you don't care more. I said its alright. Its okay. You can look the other way. You can try to understand the New York Times' effect on man. You care differently. Fernando. It really is ineffective to lay traps when you know not what you are unable to decipher. Tablizer would understand. --------Streak of batpiss---------
Post #25,844 by Ashton 1/26/02 3:01:35 AM Reply	Let us retire with the comforting thought - there are no undetected errors. [Courtesy Rick Moen] The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves that make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them that we are missing. --Gamel Abdul Nasser [Courtesy Peter W.] "Are you sure that you don't want to not reformat all the hard disks in the server and erase all the backup tapes?" Wit? Uh.. Shakespeare died :( Me? I wallow in differently-abled not-very-Large concernlessness, guided by She's Leaving Home (Zappa) and the Glenn Gould Bach Partita (#6?) .. Oh and Rafael Mendez playing the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto - on the trumpet. Peas ^h^h Piece
Post #25,697 by drewk 1/25/02 9:59:03 AM Reply	You are denying fact Actually, I have said that since the categorization of the prisoners has not been determined at this point, they are all to be treated as POW's until such time as they are categorized. Actually, they have been categorized. You have disagreed with that categorization. You would prefer that they be categorized as POWs until and unless someone can prove to your satisfactin that they are something else. The people actually making the decisions have opted to trust the opinions of people involved in the process who, it can be supposed, might have access to information that lends their categorization some credence. 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 #25,741 by Brandioch 1/25/02 2:48:07 PM Reply	That may be true. "Actually, they have been categorized." Yes, they have. And if you've been paying attention, many people who overwatch things like this have also disagreed with the categorization. "You would prefer that they be categorized as POWs until and unless someone can prove to your satisfactin that they are something else." Nope. I just find it amazing that out of all of those prisoners, none of them are POW's. Fascinating. Particularly given the wide range of categories that an individual can fall into and be considered a POW. "The people actually making the decisions have opted to trust the opinions of people involved in the process who, it can be supposed, might have access to information that lends their categorization some credence." Hmmmmm, these are the same people who pushed for secret military tribunals, right? Sorry, Drew, I don't trust the people in my government to follow the laws when operating in secrecy. I'm interested in the fact that you seem to trust them to.

Welcome to IWETHEY!