Flattered?

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]

Welcome to IWETHEY!