How Many Believe 'Unlawful Combatants' are NOT covered by GENEVA?

[bpilgrim]

Poll question: How Many Believe 'Unlawful Combatants' are NOT covered by GENEVA?

how many know that that is the same argument that imperial japan made during WWII?

peace

[arcane1]

1. what makes a combatant 'unlawful' to begin with?

seems that shooting at an invading army is about as lawful as it gets!

[bpilgrim]

4. i don't think the neoCONs have put out a definitive definition yet

no suprise... but it sounds like it's whom-ever they claim, again just like the imperial japanese :crazy:

peace

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

21. Yes, but the new defs are double-plus good!

'Scuse me now. It's time for my Soma.

[desertalien]

5. Would the resistance in France/WW11

be considered unlawful combatants?

[hector459]

19. A made up name to circumvent following the law.

We have said that we are at war with Al-qaeda and Iraq. The prisoners in Iraq were not "unlawful combatants" even by our own definition. Boxer should have called Condi on this too.

[tjdee]

2. If they catch OUR soldiers, we'd better HOPE they're covered.

This seems like THE simplest concept.

Yes, "unlawful combatants" should be covered by the Geneva Convention, so that they are bound by it when they capture our soldiers.

DUH DUH DUH DUH. Neocons are so full of shit, period, but on this issue they are dangerous.

[ClassicDem]

3. Revise Geneva

I say they need to revise the Geneva Convetion and give specific rules on how to treat unlawful combatants.

[burythehatchet]

6. can they be tortured?

[bpilgrim]

7. it's already SPECIFIED in GENEVA... we learned that lesson after wwII

anybody got a link?

peace

[arcane1]

9. the could start by telling us WTF unlawful combatant MEANS

:grr:

[bahrbearian]

10. When you are an invading country and the population

shoots at you , are those people termed Unlawful Combatants,? Or do you call them Patriots.

[ClassicDem]

12. What does the Geneva call them?

n/t

[bahrbearian]

17. I think the defenders of the home land are called Patriots.

[ClassicDem]

23. That they are

but they need to wear something that identifies them as such.

[bahrbearian]

29. How bout striping down naked and tying a wire to to their genitals.

Maybe we could help identify them .

[desertalien]

13. Patriots of course.

How does one distinguish between a patriot and an insurgent?

[havocmom]

16. What the h*ll IS an unlawful combatant anyway?

Some term a junta spin-Meister came up with so we could pretend the 'other guys' are less than human? Less than legitimate? Less than real?

Our nation has engaged in the unprovoked invasion and occupation of another nation. They had nothing to do with terrorists until we got there are made their secure borders a sieve. Most there are fighting because there are foriegn invaders (that'd be US) there wrecking infastructure and killing them. We would do the same to any force landing on our shores and deciding they were in charge.

Revise the Geneva Convention to deal with a mythical term invented by a bunch of immoral lawyers and PR hacks to justify the pre-decided agenda of a corrupt administration which took control of the American Government by VERY questionable means? Nah, let's clean our own house first.

[ClassicDem]

22. I am saying revise it so it covers

individuals who are captured but are not wearing a fixed distictive sign period. They do this there is no arguement on behalf of Bush Co. to how to handle them.

[havocmom]

24. So, the local Mosul neighborhood watch has to have UNIFORMS?

Hey, get serious. WE INVADED THEM WITHOUT PROVOCATION! We are killing them. We are destroying their homes, schools, hospitals, houses of worship, water delivery systems, shit removal systems. We are doing that in the present. We should at least treat all captives well. It's not like we gave them time to make team jerseys and/or send delegates to Geneva to hash out the details and design team insignias.

If Bushco really supported our own troops, they would INSIST all our prisoners be treated in absolute accordance with Geneva Conventions. To do otherwise is to thumb their noses and say "Bring it on" all over again and invite a firestorm of torture/be-headings of our own people.

The junta doesn't care for our own personnel any more than they care for any other combatants. They are all just means to an end. The end being prolonged warfare resulting in $$ for their pals.

[bpilgrim]

25. IT DOES cover that term as noted above

:hi:

peace

[tedzbear]

8. Condi and chimp are hiding behind semantics to cloak their evil intentions

which seeks to use torture (including sexual abuse) for intelligence gathering. Boxer was soooooo right on in her questioning of Condi today.

[Fleshdancer]

11. even in unprecedented, unclear situations....

...wouldn't it be best to err on the side of human rights?? Just a thought.

[arcane1]

15. this is Bush's America. That kind of clear thinking is unwelcome

:grr:

[The Magistrate]

14. This Is A Trick Question, Old Friend

The very category of "unlawful combatant" is established by the Geneva Conventions. Whether or not a person is properly categorized as an "unlawful combatant" must be established by a tribunal, which can be military, using the same standards of evidence and procedure that would be applied to the soldiers of the nation conducting the hearing, and that body must then conclude the person was not part of any legitimate armed body under the Convention, and that that person committed crimes of war. A person certainly cannot be simply declared an "unlawful combatant" by fiat. A person who is legitimately determined to be such is certainly subject to prosecuton for the criminal acts he has committed. But all signatories of the Geneva Convention are obligated, even when dealing with persons not strictly covered by the Conventions, such as citizens of a state that has not signed the convention, or persons who have been judged "unlawful combatants" under it, to refrain from torture and similar mistreatments.

[MrBenchley]

18. Geneva is addressed to the country TAKING prisoners

It makes no distinction between civilian or military prisoners, and there no requirements or restrictions whatsoever on what they did, how they did what they did, what uniform they wore, etc.

The entire convention is about how the country taking the prisoners will behave...whether or not the other side has signed.

After World War 2, some Japanese war criminals claimed that their torture of prisoners was allowable because Japan hadn't signed the Geneva Convention...and they got convicted anyway.

[bpilgrim]

26. during WWII

imperial japan claimed that UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS were NOT covered by GENEVA... just like we are now :cry:

peace

[Fleshdancer]

20. link to read Geneva...we should print it and mail it to Rice.

It's obvious our future Sec. of State needs a refresher course. :grr:

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

[bpilgrim]

27. thanks

:toast:

3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.

more...
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1.html#44

peace

[Fleshdancer]

28. sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

even if this is a "different kind of war" as Rice is fond of saying. :eyes:

[bpilgrim]

30. me too

:hi:

peace