Post #25,668
1/25/02 7:23:17 AM
1/25/02 8:05:25 AM
|
Re: Male-cow-dung!!!
What you are peddling is a purely warped perception vs on the ground reality
Try telling your story to Ollie North who funded the freedom fighters called 'conrtas' (murdering mercinaries) vs the Sandinistas (legitimate government of Nicaragua (sp?))
except US didn't like Sandanistas & set about to topple them by funding mercinaries (called freedom fighters).
You will buy a shitload of argument if you try to peddle the argument that the Taliban were not in control of Afghanistan. What we think of them has ***nothing*** to do with what they were !!! - yes we nearly all dislike them and what they stood for but don't dare peddle shit that claims they weren't what they were. To do so is to warp history since men took to fighting for control of anything. Massod (who I liked) was *not* in control of Afghanistan neither was any other exiled Afghani. Why not cliam the Shah of Iran was in control of Iran !!!. Or even better still why not claim that TAIWAN is *the* legitimate China !!! ---- F-*(&%G B-@@}:!T
Re Taliban & Afghanistan - We have won - they lost - just accept it for what it is - Power politics.
D
Edited by dmarker2
Jan. 25, 2002, 08:02:08 AM EST
Edited by dmarker2
Jan. 25, 2002, 08:05:25 AM EST
|
Post #25,681
1/25/02 8:55:10 AM
|
So what does or doesn't count as a national army?
Let's try to define terms here before we flame. Then the flames will be of better quality.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #25,699
1/25/02 10:14:24 AM
|
Obligatgory nit-pick
There are no male cows. There are male cattle.
Cows are adult female cattle.
There are an insane number of different terms for cattle of various genders and former genders and life stages, most of which I have heard and forgotten, but the generic term for the animal is "cattle".
----
"You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
|
Post #25,829
1/26/02 12:38:35 AM
|
Re: Of course ...
But what appeared was a lot nicer than what I first wrote :-)
But tks for the clarification.
Doug
|
Post #25,704
1/25/02 10:42:28 AM
|
Hmmmmm
I think the opposite. The Taliban were not the army of any recognised
goverment. Let me ask......what prevents the likes of Timothy McVeigh who would
claim to have been a freedom fighter......claiming POW status under the Geneva
Convention?
Just because you are the de facto ruling power does not make you a legitimate
government in International Law (although given enough time it *can*).
-Mike
--------Streak of batpiss---------
|
Post #25,734
1/25/02 2:28:12 PM
|
Simple.
He wasn't captured by our military nor was he turned over to them.
He was captured by our "police" force (FBI & locals).
|
Post #25,821
1/26/02 12:14:15 AM
|
Yes you are
If you had spent more than a nono-second actually studying international
law you immediately understand what I was driving at. You haven't. You don't.
--------Streak of batpiss---------
|
Post #25,861
1/26/02 1:09:34 PM
|
That is so amusing.
Since I destroyed your illogical position, you're going to claim that it was based upon something logical that I have no experience with BUT you are not going to provide references.
From your original post:
"Let me ask......what prevents the likes of Timothy McVeigh who would claim to have been a freedom fighter......claiming POW status under the Geneva Convention?"
Note your specific reference to the Geneva Convention as the criteria for determining POW status.
From your last post:
"If you had spent more than a nono-second actually studying international law you immediately understand what I was driving at."
Now you're refering to "international law".
Simply put, there is nothing in the Geneva Convention that would classify Timmy as a POW.
You need that to be incorrect so you can twist the POW's into non-POW's.
That's your problem.
Provide a reference if you want to be taken seriously next time.
Oh, and save your money and buy a clue sometime.
|
Post #25,875
1/26/02 2:34:20 PM
|
Have to give him McVeigh....
...since he wasn't part of an organized militia...but had he been accepted into a militia (they all thought he was too crazy for them...chuckle)...he would qualify...after all...we seem to have a very loose definition of "regualr armed forces" floating around here.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,913
1/26/02 10:45:51 PM
|
For Christ's sake do some research. You embarrass yourself.
The expression "members of regular armed forces" denotes armed forces which differ from those referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph in one respect only: the authority to which they profess allegiance is not recognized by the adversary as a Party to the [p.63] conflict. These "regular armed forces" have all the material characteristics and all the attributes of armed forces in the sense of sub-paragraph (1): they wear uniform, they have an organized hierarchy and they know and respect the laws and customs of war. The delegates to the 1949 Diplomatic Conference were therefore fully justified in considering that there was no need to specify for such armed forces the requirements stated in sub-paragraph (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d).
[link|http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/eca76fa4dae5b32ec12563cd00425040?OpenDocument|http://www.icrc.org...OpenDocument]
<drumroll>
One more time stepwise for the hard of learning and generally slow-witted:
(1) These "regular armed forces"
(2) have all the material characteristics
(3) and all the attributes of armed forces
(4) in the sense of sub-paragraph (1):
(5) they wear uniform,
(6) they have an organized hierarchy
(7) and they know and respect the laws and customs of war
<end drumroll>
I am bored with you. I am filled with boredom. Your vacuous ramblings
lead me to conclude that you can teach me nothing....except perhaps how to stifle a yawn.
--------Streak of batpiss---------
|
Post #25,948
1/27/02 12:04:24 PM
|
It is not I who cannot read.
It's you.
Note for those with chronic stupidity, it is POSSIBLE to QOUTE the relevent sections of a REFERENCE.
Instead, you post a link to the ENTIRE document.
But, what did I expect from you?
Allow me to shatter your latest position. And I will quote it so you will find it easy to find.
Note: I'm using the URL you provided.
[link|http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/eca76fa4dae5b32ec12563cd00425040?OpenDocument|http://www.icrc.org...OpenDocument]
"(1): they wear uniform, they have an organized hierarchy and they know and respect the laws and customs of war."
I'll now narrow that quote to illustrate my point.
"and they know and respect the laws and customs of war."
Now, this is the part where I show that your previous statement was incorrect.
You're using this person's commentary on the Geneva Convention to support your statement about what constitutes "regular armed forces".
Yet no place in the Geneva Convention does it say that the Geneva Convention will only apply to those forces that recognize it.
In fact, in several places, references are made to situations where only one combatant country follows the Geneva Convention.
So, by stating that a "regular armed forces" must "know and respect the laws and customs of war" he has invalidated his position by making a claim that is contradictory to the statements of the Geneva Convention.
|
Post #25,966
1/27/02 5:21:10 PM
1/27/02 8:45:20 PM
|
Response
The question surrounding who is bound by the Convention is not the same as the
question of who were intended to be the beneficiaries of Articles 4/5.
If you can't see that......you are not going to futher your understanding. You see..... the issues get harder after that.
>>So, by stating that a "regular armed forces" must "know and respect the laws >>and customs of war" he has invalidated his position by making a claim that is >>contradictory to the statements of the Geneva Convention.
Its commentary and interpretation provided and sanctioned the IRC.....you know the body charged with overseeing the application the Geneva Convention.
You need to contact the IRC and tell them that their interpretation of the
Geneva Convention is incorrect.
[link|http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/eca76fa4dae5b32ec12563cd00425040?OpenDocument|http://www.icrc.org...OpenDocument]
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. 27, 2002, 08:45:20 PM EST
|
Post #25,992
1/27/02 10:12:33 PM
|
No particular need to go farther
I've been following this thread with some interest. You see, I, too, feel that the United States should take care to be seen to treat the prisoners better than they deserve, as a PR measure.
But based on what I recall of his posting history, Brandioch is fairly easy to understand. He wants to let them go, with a ticket home; whether or not they're to be issued a replacement Kalashnikov and a kilo of Semtex on the way to the airport is to be determined later. Why is that?
Well, it would embarrass George Bush, wouldn't it? Vile oppressor compelled to let his prisoners go. Sackcloth and ashes, on yer knees, Bubba!
Which is the agenda. Brandioch doesn't give a damn about the prisoners. If he can embarrass the President, who is of the opposing [and therefore vile] political party, he has to do all he can, and damn the collateral damage. So the actual content of the Geneva Convention is irrelevant, as are prevailing interpretations in International Law, unless they can be used as a lever to pry GWB out of office. So let the thread lapse.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #26,004
1/27/02 11:50:03 PM
|
I think you misread Brandioch.
Hi Ric and All,
It seems to me that Brandioch's position is that the detainees must be treated as POWs until they're found (by methods outlined in the GC) to be something else. He thinks that it's vital that the GC and other existing laws be respected. He's not arguing that terrorists should be released.
We can argue about the speed of notification of the relevant authorities about names, etc.
I think the US position is that the people being held in Guantanamo are not merely Taliban footsoldiers or other covered POWs. If that's all they were, they'd likely still be in Afghanistan. The US believes the people they're holding at Guantanamo are either involved with terrorism, or are knowledgable about Al Qaeda, etc., (as I understand it). They aren't soldiers for Afghanistan. As such, the US believes they can't be afforded all of the POW benefits. The US wants to hold these people in a secure area and intensively investigate who they are and what they know, decide how and where they should be tried or released, etc.
I think these apparently conflicting opinions on POW status can and will be reconciled. And by ways other than the US declaring that the "war on terrorism" will not end thus the detainees will not be released....
I've been disappointed by the amount of ad hominem (on both sides) in this thread. It's an interesting, and important, topic.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #26,023
1/28/02 8:20:57 AM
1/28/02 4:29:21 PM
|
Nice post
I think you have written an accurate summary.
And you are right in all other respects too.
-Mike
Edited by Mike
Jan. 28, 2002, 04:29:21 PM EST
|
Post #26,092
1/28/02 2:03:09 PM
|
Hey Scott.
I've read this thread with some interest and I am not sure on which side I'd come down if pressed. However, I think it is the height of hypocrisy to use the fact that we are "At War with Terrorism" as an excuse to march mud all over the Bill of Rights, then 180 and claim that the captured terrorists we are at "War" with are not Prisoners of War.
For a dumb old country boy from North Carolina like me, this is difficult to follow. We are at "War", but the prisoners we take during the execution of that "War" are not, themselves, "Prisoners of War".
bcnu,
Mikem
|
Post #26,127
1/28/02 4:51:07 PM
|
So crack dealers are POWs when arrested, right?
It is a War on Drugs after all.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #26,131
1/28/02 5:00:31 PM
|
Start a new thread.
How many years has that war been going on?
How much has it reduced the drug supply?
|
Post #26,137
1/28/02 5:11:18 PM
|
Go ahead. We'd probably agree on its failure.
Doesn't change my point here.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #26,133
1/28/02 5:05:10 PM
|
So.. where would the War on the Constitution go?
|
Post #26,354
1/29/02 2:08:19 PM
|
As a plank in the Republican Platform I suspect.
|
Post #26,130
1/28/02 5:00:13 PM
|
N.C. eh?
Have friends in Asheville. Was thinking.. should the Ashcroft Covenant extend a bit further, particularly after some next atrocity - such that,
When civil rights are outlawed, only outlaws will have rights.
In this strangest of all possible imaginary worlds (for some) we might possibly meet on the barricades or in the Molotov er Ashcroft cocktail fabs - no doubt located nearby them there stills.. in the Great Smokies (?)
Better to burn out than rust out cowering in suburbia, I say..
Ashton Yevtushenko
deja vu all over again strange bedfellows 42
Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..
|
Post #26,355
1/29/02 2:12:05 PM
|
Have family in Asheville.
The Moffitts have been in Asheville a long time. Except that I think I only have two cousins still living there now. My dad lives just down I-40 in Old Fort, across the road from "Moffitt Hill" (named after my great-great-grandfather).
Asheville has always been one of my favorite towns. It lost quite a bit when 240 blasted through - it was much better when the only access was Tunnel Road.
bcnu,
Mikem
|
Post #26,009
1/28/02 1:30:21 AM
|
I have a request.
Would you leave me out of your paranoid delusions?
"So the actual content of the Geneva Convention is irrelevant, as are prevailing interpretations in International Law, unless they can be used as a lever to pry GWB out of office."
Hey, I've quoted DIRECTLY from the Geneva Convention.
Verbatim.
If you have a problem with that it is because >YOU< have a problem.
I've noticed that you haven't supplied any references to contradict my position.
Just claims that my position isn't valid because I must have an ulterior motive.
Now, what debate falacy does that fall under?
|
Post #26,026
1/28/02 8:57:33 AM
|
I have to disagree as well....
[...]
But based on what I recall of his posting history, Brandioch is fairly easy to understand. He wants to let them go, with a ticket home; whether or not they're to be issued a replacement Kalashnikov and a kilo of Semtex on the way to the airport is to be determined later.
[...]
Which is the agenda. Brandioch doesn't give a damn about the prisoners. If he can embarrass the President, who is of the opposing [and therefore vile] political party, he has to do all he can, and damn the collateral damage. So the actual content of the Geneva Convention is irrelevant, as are prevailing interpretations in International Law bunless they can be used as a lever to pry GWB out of office
Brandioch has repeated argued that they must be treated as POW's, not that they have to let them go. (I don't agree with his opinion, but that's me.) Besides, if Brandioch REALLY wanted to go after GWB, he'd be yelling about Enron. (I know I am.)
|
Post #26,199
1/28/02 9:35:01 PM
1/28/02 9:39:36 PM
|
Minor point - POW must be let go when War is over.
per Geneva Convention.
Sorry, this comment belongs with Ashton Psych 101A remark below.
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Edited by a6l6e6x
Jan. 28, 2002, 09:38:34 PM EST
Edited by a6l6e6x
Jan. 28, 2002, 09:39:36 PM EST
|
Post #26,210
1/28/02 10:45:46 PM
|
But.. how long might a War on Evil last? Hmmm?
Treating the uninvestigated members as POWs until 'evaluated' - was the ORIGINAL topic here. Those investigated and deemed to 'belong in custody' at our Cuban HQ - for forensically provable reasons - shall open the next can o' worms:
Are there *any* restrains on our handling of these prisoners that we will cop to? While they are waiting? - indefinitely - as surely the length of this WarOnEvil must be indefinite: because it is a nonsense phrase.
Propaganda will be the title of this next sub-War. What will we do with/to the lifers? And what will the world/allies make of the secrecy: I suppose that we won't allow any inspections.
Stay tuned - it may take longer than bringing M$ to some form of Murican Justice. And as far as we know - they only contributed to Ed Curry's death.
Ashton
|
Post #26,100
1/28/02 2:49:14 PM
|
Psych 101A now?
Maybe a refresher on the classes of spin is appropriate?
[link|http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html|All Too-Common Logical Fallacies == US Polit-Speak Standards]
When you project your collected illusions along the tawdry dichotomies of, Librul/Cunservative, Right/Left, Right/Wrong yada yada and imagine you Know what Brandioch (or me, for that matter) Rilly Believes\ufffd. (Nada, Zippo and ugh):
You simply mimic the process by which all polit-speak in Murica is regularly doomed to doggerell and sloganeering. As here, sadly, too, mostly. Apparently it is this Murican habit which guarantees the status quo indefinitely (?) While it's fun to skewer one piece of doggerel with its equal & opposite piece of doggerel (though useless) - in present thread, the Question was more easily stated than in the usual exchange of vague generalities about the Meaning of Life as seen through My Glasses. It was about:
WTF does the 'Geneva Convention' have to say about certain classes? categories? of captured combatants.
Dubya, the Ayatollah, various Imams n' other cloaked wonders [oil] and guided or misguided [oil] adherents to their mindsets - has Zippo to do with THAT topic. (Issues of mindset are about merely trying to see ~how certain kinds of idiots contrast with other kinds of idiots - at home and abroad, seems to me.)
A second rich vein of either brilliant analysis or maudlin demagoguery would be: The Kid from Marin (next door to my county). And it has its thread(s). But not This thread IIRC.
If you think Brandioch's POV needs 'explaining' (??) then I'd have to go with Another Scott's nicely brief recapitulation of the thread and where it has gone --> typical.
There Is No Such Thing as a 'Liberal' or a 'Conservative' in 2002 Murica - just as there is no such thing as The American Peepul. Meditate on that just after Aummmmmmmm, please. Gosh.. maybe a form of that assertion could introduce the Politics forum; save lots of inane rhetoric.
Yours for more Interesting Catfights,
Ashton Gandhi Cthulhu
who will also have to try not to bite on the Next lazy buzz-word, in the Next textbook rant - for the sheer discipline.. :(
|
Post #26,194
1/28/02 9:04:05 PM
1/28/02 9:06:05 PM
|
dis en zhin oo' os ness
Yes, I can read the Geneva Conventions. I have.
Given the content of the Conventions, which Brandioch represents very accurately and fairly [though I disagree with his interpretations], if the Conventions were applied correctly to the Afgani prisoners now in Cuba, they would be considered Prisoners of War. Given the content and meaning of innumerable U.N. resolutions, this would then have to refer back to the fact that our Afghan operation was not a "War" under the normal meaning of those documents. And, under that reasoning, "Prisoners of War" when no war exists are by definition unjustly held, and must be released forthwith.
That is: if you wish to argue that the Geneva Conventions require that those people be declared prisoners of war, you are absolutely and without question arguing that they must be released immediately and repatriated.
Given that these selfsame people are known to have publicly declared (a) their intention to kill Americans and (b) their belief that they get the same "Paradise Points" for a nursing infant as for an armored infantryman, I was simply attempting to postulate some rationale for Brandioch to argue that they have to be turned loose right away, and found at least a trifle of justification in the political theory. The bit about the Kalashnikov and the Semtex was perhaps not well founded.
[the edit was a spelling misteak]
Regards,
Ric
Edited by Ric Locke
Jan. 28, 2002, 09:06:05 PM EST
|
Post #26,205
1/28/02 10:12:31 PM
|
Ah well.. on That level -
Sure - if some sophist wants to argue that the collected selected presumed-nasties at our Cuban HQ.. weren't collected in a 'Real War\ufffd' ergo - we should forthwith drop them in bizness class back home* (where they might find a likeable CIEIO who at least understands rapacious tendencies in the psyche)..
* Saudi Arabia? Sudan? Afgh? other nearby country?
If that's what's botherin you, bunky - why, not to worry. 'Least I don't think anyone here was arguin for (even tourist class - today that means: all ya get is peanuts and water. Now THERE's oppression.)
Personally I'd love it if Dubya (for one) would Also reappreciate that perception is Everything - he sure knew that during the campaign..
Those guys will have to be detected, inspected, questioned - merely to confirm that each Does belong in DC-South, and then - for those who do belong there: will come the challenge about just how much that doesn't leave marks we shall do, under the rubric of fear of NYC buried nukes or acid-etched rotors at Hoover Dam.
But if we imagine that we can get away - in 2002 - with inventing a New \ufffdntermensch - one with 0 rights as a human critter: then we may as well declare Amnesty International a terrorist group too. Enough fucking with language. If we're throwin a Big War on Evil, there can't be a free pass for some sort of Murican-Evil In The Name of Freedom So We Get To Do Real Nasty Stuff.
Note that I didn't address.. how long we keep the Certifiably Not-Accidentally There: in DC-South. I suspect that we won't release any? many? of the ones for whom a forensic case can be made (against). For a lengthy period - compared with the half-life of Tritium, say.
Let's see if Dubya can say disingenuous too, and define it (even if he was a pal of Mr. Lay). 'Member that other little homily? 'Truth is the first casualty of war' - heh, in a Corp consumer culture: who needs a war to start the lying?
Ashton
for Truth Decency and the American Way (pre 1980s)
(yeah we never had it then either - but let's go back to it for nostalgia's sake. At least they didn't brag about the lies then)
|
Post #26,438
1/29/02 7:44:45 PM
|
Oh, absolutely.
What bothers me is -- under what legal theory are we holding those folks? Sorry, but POW just doesn't work. You really have to stretch to get the whole mess defined as a "war" in the first place, despite rhetoric. And if not... Yer honor, ladies an' gentlemen of the jury,
My client is an instructor and teacher in religious matters. Having heard the Call of the Lord to put down his Earthly goods and go minister to the souls of the people of Afghanistan, he was about his usual haunts and affairs [i.e., advanced instruction in woman-beating] when to his dismay he heard that armed strangers were abroad in the countryside.
Taking up arms in support of his friends, neighbors, and spiritual dependants, he went abroad to assist in defense against the invaders, who were going about, murdering and despoiling at their pleasure...
All of which happens to be true, for large enough values of "true"; better, it's all based on legal defenses that worked in the past. The Geneva Convention is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure that any of the ordinary legal conventions of the West even have anything bad to say about those folks. But to the extent there is anything, either they're "unlawful combatants" rather than POWs, or they don't fit the Convention(s) at all, and can only be considered under color of local law. U.S. law? Hardehar. Afghani law? Is there any? The U.S. is forbidden by the Constitution to institute ex post facto laws; is it permitted to enforce such laws for the benefit of a third party? Saudi law? What gives them jurisdiction? The offenses (if any) did not occur within their borders. Egyptian law? Same question -- and on and on. And as you point out, it's most uncharacteristic of GWB to fail to be on top of the PR spin on something this large. Unlike some here, I take that to mean that the questions involved are hard, and the answers aren't all in yet, rather than automatically adopting the "dumber than dirt" hypothesis. But on point, if there is one: Either they're "unlawful combatants", in which case we're being nicer than we're required to be, or the Geneva Conventions don't apply at all -- and if the latter, they're being held in durance vile without legal justification and must be released. And if they must be released, the whole effort is brought into question; and if the whole effort is in question, we have no defense against the bastards, and might as well resign ourselves to daily or hourly reports of murderous attacks. Because if allowed to do so, they will attack with intent to do murder -- they say so themselves. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." The guy who said that had an agenda I don't much agree with, but the notion itself is true. To the extent the Geneva Conventions constitute a suicide pact, I don't mind their abrogation too much. Hm. It occurs to me to wonder: Does Britain hold IRA prisoners as POWs under the Geneva Conventions? If not, why not? As for getting away with it -- fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, we look to be able to get away with most anything we want to for the foreseeable future. The Verdict of History doesn't concern me overmuch. At the moment, I'll settle for having a history the future can pass judgement on, OK? Regards,
Ric
|
Post #26,476
1/30/02 6:41:20 AM
|
Yes, I think it is that arcane..
too. Almost a caricature\ufffd of, ..it depends on what the definition of is is :-\ufffd. But wisdom is where you find it. (And yes, I think Dubya has demonstrated an ability to handle er concepts - in same league with the other folks fatalistically attracted to the proposition that: herding cats is a doable proposition. Bad as his command of English was, he's made strides -- and it was always folly to imagine that mere awful speaking abilities == pure dumbth. He's just Gotta kick the nonsense slogans though; 'War on ___ (several things)' can be a useful slogan but NOT on &^#$*# 'Evil' - y'know?) I'd say yours is as good a summary as any of - the 'best' we can hope for, all BS considered (and Gawd will we be knee-deep in That.. prolly all along): As for getting away with it -- fortunately or unfortunately, depending on
your point of view, we look to be able to get away with most anything we
want to for the foreseeable future. The Verdict of History doesn't concern
me overmuch. At the moment, I'll settle for having a history the future can
pass judgement on, OK? Cheers, Ashton WTF! are they doing to my Language NOW...?
|
Post #25,762
1/25/02 4:40:10 PM
|
Trouble with imagining that redefinitions work
like say, Microsoft Trustworty Software\ufffd .. is that according to the Geneva Rules it is no large stretch to note that -
From the POV of the remaining unmassacred indigenous inhabitants (descendants) of this continent: US Govt is merely the defacto ruling power.
Which inexorably leads us ---> What is Truth?
Truthful Whitefoot
Lying Blackfoot
Which? *
Brownie points for attributing this quote :-)
|
Post #25,832
1/26/02 12:52:01 AM
|
Re: Western nicities vs tribal reality
We all know we are different from the tribes of Afghanistan in terms of political evolution (well I hope we do).
For those countries who have evolved to running & maintaining paid full-time standing armies - it is pointless to argue the merits of the 'national' army of a politically crippled region about what constitutes their national army when they are a loose knit confederation of tribes & ethnic groups.
No matter what we have done to Taliban or think of them (exclusing covert ops maniacs) Taliban brought some sanity & internal stability to a very troubled region that was tearing itself apart. The Taliban *were* in control & it is blatantly naive if anyone tries to argue that they gained control because they were bullying thugs who took over - fact is they fought a coalition of squabbling murderous tribal groups and were welcomed by a lot of the Afghan population who had no stability.
Our dislike of the Taliban is for three reasons :-
1) Their idea of Sharia law is intensly distateful to us.
2) Omar took a liking to Bin Laden and Bin Laden's dream of an Islamic empire encompassing all the 'Stans' & any where else they could impose a religious theocracy.
3) That they wouldn't allow US to build an oil pipline across their territory.
Now moving on to who governed & controlled Afghanistan - the Taliban did -
What did Timothy McVeigh control - the fuse to a big bomb -
What defines a soldier vs a terrorist ?
McVeigh attacked unarmed innocent civillians who had no idea what his problem was (neither did he really)
Al-Qaeda trainess who intend attacking innocent unarmed civillians are not soldiers by any definition (Koran, Bible, Geneva)
So it can't be all that difficult to follow the wording of the Geneva convention that clearly (as in 1st post) explains the differences.
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #25,837
1/26/02 1:58:08 AM
|
Disagree
Let me start with a question.......
why do you think it even matters whether a government
"recognizes" another or not? If you can become legitimate
without any formal recognition.....why are some countries
so persistent about withholding it?
The short answer is that it DOES matter. Its a fundamental element in the
doctrines surrounding how de facto and de jure States come into being.
Even the United Nations refused to recognize the Taliban.
Final point.......if we give individual detainees POW status
it would mean that we recognized them as legitimate troops of their state.
This would mean that those individuals could not be tried for their acts of terrorism any more than a US Pilot could be tried for murder for acts
committed during prior wars. Moreover, the would HAVE to be released once hostilities were deemed to be over.
Why does this make sense?
--------Streak of batpiss---------
|
Post #25,867
1/26/02 1:51:50 PM
|
Geneva Convention, Article 4, subsection 3.
First off, you claim:
"Final point.......if we give individual detainees POW status it would mean that we recognized them as legitimate troops of their state. This would mean that those individuals could not be tried for their acts of terrorism any more than a US Pilot could be tried for murder for acts committed during prior wars. Moreover, the would HAVE to be released once hostilities were deemed to be over.
Why does this make sense?"
And so I quote from the Geneva Convention
Article 4
"A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:"
Subsection 3
"3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. "
Even if no one officially recognizes the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, their troops are still POW's under the Geneva Convention.
It's all there in black and white.
Too bad, soo sad for you. :(
|
Post #25,876
1/26/02 2:35:56 PM
|
Theres that loose definition again.
And to think...>is< is so much more concrete.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #25,847
1/26/02 7:18:23 AM
|
Re: Western nicities vs tribal reality
I think you are ignoring that the Taliban were mainly a Pashtun group which bought, wheedled, tortured, murdered, and ultimately used mercenaries (al Qaeda) to do the dirty work on the Turkmens, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and Tajiks. To say they brought stability to these folks is like saying the U.S. government brought stability to the native Americans.
That being said, we can now argue about the merits of their rule. Errmmm...I'm sure there were some...at least for the Pashtun in the south who then only had one warlord to answer to instead of several.
At the end of their reign, it was fairly clear the Arab Afghanis were the real power behind the regime. So, we have here a group of murderous thugs who ultimately sold out their own country to another bunch of murderous thugs who decided that discrimination is wrong and that murder should be Politically Correct and more widely practiced.
Some legitimate government, that.
Gerard Allwein
|
Post #25,938
1/27/02 6:48:03 AM
|
Re: Western nicities vs tribal reality
Your points bring us back to issues such the 'Contras' vs the Sandanistas.
The only way I believe anyone could fairly argue who the thugs & who the murderers were (in that conflict) is to pick a side then by that very act we have a likely picture of one's opinion. But one could just judge each side based on its deeds.
From your post I could unfairly conclude that to you the Contras were heroic liberators fighting against an oppressive bunch of murderous commies. But seeing as how the Contras so accurately fit your description of the Taliban, I might fairly conclude you support the view that the Contras were murderous mercianaries.
The real issue all this is about is the status of the captured Taliban fighters & as to if they deserve to be treated as POWs. I really do find it depressing that so many people among us find it so easy to view them as having no rights. I don't like them (Talibanis or Al-Qaeda volunteers) but this insistance on calling them detainees with no Geneva rrights (to whom we can do what we want) is as intrinsicly nasty as what Hitler's glorious followers did to those 'scum Jews & Gypsies'.
But I am sure we are in agreement about one uncomfortable fact - that US really does need to be aggressive in extracting all the info possible from the hard cases captured among Taliban fighters during the conflict. But I don't have what ever it takes to strip anyone of what I really believe are their rights to do this. So I am chicken in that I am glad someone else is doing the dirty work - cos dirty work is just what it is.
We really are forced to put our faith in the people acting all this out - I just wish I had a bit more faith in them & their values & judgement
Doug Marker
|
Post #25,939
1/27/02 8:19:20 AM
|
Re: Western nicities vs tribal reality
Ah, relativism, the U.S. has no right to pick and choose its enemies and friends because then the U.S. is just like the bad guys. Get a grip.
The Sandindistas were a bunch of murdering thugs who took over from the ruling murdering thug, Samoza (whom, by the way, they murdered in a bomb blast in Argentina several years after gaining power). The U.S. supported that bastard, that was wrong. The contras were indeed a bunch of pretty nasty guys, but in the end the U.S. forced a democratic election and the ruling nuts lost...even after the left wing in the U.S. had supported them. I get misty eyed over left wing intellectuals telling us after the election that the Peeeeple were simply to ignorant and steeped in Spanish heritage to accept the socialist future the intellectuals had laid out for them...sniff...
The real issue is not really the status of the captured Taliban. The real issue is the "cultures" and "religions" that spawn such reckless hate. And it is a reckless hate. They have nothing to offer except Sharia law and hatred of all of who reject it. There is no room for culture, economic life, etc in their philosophy. In short, they will never be happy until they've installed hell here on earth with the expectation that Allah will pimp them 70 virgins in heaven.
And if you want an argument, the POW agreements were developed by the Western nations after WWI and WWII for different times. I think they should be held up for review to see if they are still adequate or if they need to be changed. Those documents were drawn up with the expectation that most POWs thought like Judeo-Christians. This lot doesn't and the documents need to be revisited.
That being said, the U.S. should adhere to the documents as is and treat the prisoners as good old-fashioned POWs, as long as the debate alluded to above gets started.
And we will have to wring information out of them, but if we have to resort to torture, then it isn't worth it...and it won't work anyhow because a tortured prisoner will say anything. Any real information isn't going to come from this lot of prisoners. The Big Shots always take care to look after themselves and consider it a gross mistake to get caught. Same with Enron, Watergate, Mullahs, Jihadis, the entire Clinton administration, etc.
And whether the U.S. likes it or not, the current argument with the Islamo-Fascists comes down to who kills who first. Of course if you have no belief in the U.S. or what it stands for (at least in good light), then we're simply as bad as they. Doesn't matter, kill or be killed.
Gerard Allwein
|
Post #26,104
1/28/02 3:10:04 PM
|
As you've broadened the arena, maybe I can agree
with the common thread:
It has been US policy all along - to pit one brand of murderous thug against another, opportunistically (and ever short-sightedly as IS our National preoccupation with quarterly result$). Our duplicity becomes apparent mostly in contrast to our putative "love for and support of that slippery ideal, democracy": for US purposes - the "next democratic regime" we always support, has been, without exception I can recall (?)
The One which shall promise to support our interest$ / POV ever after the Democratic Revolution\ufffd we funded.
In present case (not Nicaragua) - tell me again... [oil] where our virtually sole [oil] 'Interest*' has been re Anything! whatsoever to do with the er Afghani Peepul ??
* prior to 9/11 - and after, Actually - after the War on Evil! spin conflates or retakes its proper relationship to $$$.
Yours for More Sincere US Policy Assessments,
Ashton
|
Post #26,252
1/29/02 7:27:03 AM
|
Re: As you've broadened the arena, maybe I can agree
Nicaragua -- 1990 - Sandanistas lost because of "it's the economy stupid", the U.S. had an embargo on. That and pressure from others in the Americas pushed the Ortega into calling elections...which he lost.
Philippines -- 1986 -- U.S. assists Philippinos in giving Marcos the bum's rush.
Panama -- 1989 -- U.S. clocks one Pimple Face Noriega to give the Panamanians their country back.
Kuwait -- 1990-1991 -- U.S. gives the idiot rich boys in Kuwait their country back after it was stolen by one Saddam, Butcher of Baghdad.
Kosovo -- 1999 -- U.S. crumbles Milosevic, Butcher of Serbia for being an asshole. Of course, Clinton caused the problem in the first place by giving the Big M. the Dayton Accords which more or less gave him free reign in "Serbian" territories. Even then we had to "lead" the weenie Europeans, our "partners" in NATO.
Afghanistan -- 1980-1989 -- U.S. rips Soviet Union a new asshole for attempting to instill puppet regime.
Afghanistan -- 2001 -- U.S. rips Islamo-Fascists a new asshole for being an asshole's asshole.
Yes, the U.S. has helped set up the initial conditions that caused some of these problems. But the U.S. had help. I think the U.S. has done a fine job of going back and correcting some of the problems even if it was in the U.S.'s own self interest. The interesting point was that the U.S. actually FELT is was in its own self interest. Now if only we'd perform a little more correction on Saddam and Saudi Arabia. In every case, except the first Afghanistan sortie, the U.S. has consisting pushed for democracy.
Now if only we could get the Bush administration to push for democracy in PCs and rip M$ a new asshole.
By the way, Bill Gates, the Allwein House Rodent, was recently eaten by one Ariel and Tinkerbell Allwein, a pair of Siamese cats. A search is currently under way for a new house rodent, who too shall be named Bill Gates. Any applicants should not feel squeamish about eventually being DWE (Dead While Eaten).
Gerard Allwein
|
Post #26,477
1/30/02 7:08:55 AM
|
Cackle.. cackle.. Ulp!.. chomp..
Ah, would 'twere so simple - scaled up to 5'-Rodent-size. Redmond Mountain Oysters on the half-shill. I kinda like Rick Moen's little sig 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 Abdel Nasser But I have no problem agreeing too, that.. just often enough (!) we indeed went in to [something] with rather fine sentiments - and occasionally we even got out with those intact! As a few eloquent posts in the past, 'in defense'.. have illustrated: dismissing Muricans as Just the more silly (and occasionally transparently self-serving) exploits would suggest - is as inane a POV as the pure-jingoism is. {sigh} At least we aren't firing our best State Dept. 'experts on er communism' - for likely bein communists anymore. But if we really are gonna be Pax Americana indefinitely, methinks we have GOT to discover a way to bring sane, articulate debate into our [ugh] 'political process': for maybe the First time? I mean - we can muddle along with all this sloganeering stuff, when just keeping the trains running. We can't! run the entire &^#$& World! on that babble. 'Cause if we do: Imagine Rev Foulwell ... .... in 37 language translations. Rest case. George Carlin for Minister of Plain &^$&*%# Speech on complex topics. Cheers, A.
|
