Why don't you answer the point made?

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!