dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8
share rss forum feed
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: Watch and learn...

said by jc100:

Nations call it VIOLATING the Geneva Convention due to torture taking place.
For someone who claims to be educated, you are completely ignorant.

The Geneva Convention only applies to soldiers in uniform for a military of a nation. Terrorists do not have protection and neither do military personnel out of uniform.

Try again.
jc100

join:2002-04-10

4 edits

Re: Watch and learn...

Still trolling I see as Usual? Not surprised. You have YET to offer anything useful.

1) There's no BS rant on Religion. Christians are equally guilty of the same crimes. Get over it.

2) Might want to read the Geneva Convention before sounding like a Troll. Yes, I know, you like sounding smart. You AREN'T. #2 and #6 can Apply to the Taliban and People currently locked up at gitmo. #2 fits a lot of the bill but not all. However, #6 is the winner. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq were occupied and WE (US) invaded. Hence, without time to formalize an army, they have taken up arms. Lest we not forget, TORTURE is banned NO MATTER what by international agreements. So Nice try though... I love proving you wrong. I won't even afford you the right of calling you educated, because everything you state is NONSENSE. So yes, THEY ARE GUARANTEED RIGHTS under the law.

Note: In Afghanistan's case the Taliban were a FORMAL government and therefore their army can be recognized as a FORMAL line of defense and armed resistance by a government that has been toppled. Armed resistance to restore one's "rightful" power is legal.

quote:
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:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: Watch and learn...

said by jc100:

Still trolling I see as Usual? Not surprised. You have YET to offer anything useful.

1) There's no BS rant on Religion. Christians are equally guilty of the same crimes. Get over it.

2) Might want to read the Geneva Convention before sounding like a Troll. Yes, I know, you like sounding smart. You AREN'T. #2 and #6 can Apply to the Taliban and People currently locked up at gitmo. #2 fits a lot of the bill but not all. However, #6 is the winner. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq were occupied and WE (US) invaded. Hence, without time to formalize an army, they have taken up arms. Lest we not forget, TORTURE is banned NO MATTER what by international agreements. So Nice try though... I love proving you wrong. I won't even afford you the right of calling you educated, because everything you state is NONSENSE. So yes, THEY ARE GUARANTEED RIGHTS under the law.

Note: In Afghanistan's case the Taliban were a FORMAL government and therefore their army can be recognized as a FORMAL line of defense and armed resistance by a government that has been toppled. Armed resistance to restore one's "rightful" power is legal.

quote:
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:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs
They are out of uniform and, by their own admission, not under any command structure.

Might want to read this little tidbit too:

quote:
Article 51.3 of the Commentary: IV Geneva Convention also covers this interpretation: "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.". In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."
Try again little boy.
jc100

join:2002-04-10

1 edit

Re: Watch and learn...

You still didn't answer #6. Nice try pointing out evidence that doesn't refute anything though... The only little boy is you who tries to act smart, and can't. Six says if a territory is INVADED and the people don't have time to act, they can carry arms openly and respect to the law. They do carry their guns open and attack. Not to mention, Guerilla warfare is a LEGAL tactic used by many countries. It was used during vietnam war when we attacked them. Not to mention, the Japanese used it in WW2. Neither of which were enemy combatants. Once again, in Afghanistan's case, they were a FORMAL government that was INVADED. Therefore, without having time to set up an army to rebuke the attack, they have resorted to spontaneously taking up arms. Nice try though. Keep grasping for straws on your quest towards bigotry and xenophobia. Got a clan march after this discussion to attend?
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: Watch and learn...

said by jc100:

You still didn't answer #6. Nice try pointing out evidence that doesn't refute anything though... The only little boy is you who tries to act smart, and can't. Six says if a territory is INVADED and the people don't have time to act, they can carry arms openly and respect to the law. They do carry their guns open and attack. Not to mention, Guerilla warfare is a LEGAL tactic used by many countries. It was used during vietnam war when we attacked them. Not to mention, the Japanese used it in WW2. Neither of which were enemy combatants. Once again, in Afghanistan's case, they were a FORMAL government that was INVADED. Therefore, without having time to set up an army to rebuke the attack, they have resorted to spontaneously taking up arms. Nice try though. Keep grasping for straws on your quest towards bigotry and xenophobia. Got a clan march after this discussion to attend?
Guerilla warfare is only acceptable when fighting for a known army or militia. This is not the case in Afghanistan and most of the people caught are from other countries and not locals.

Facts get in the way of your point of view, doesn't it?
jc100

join:2002-04-10

1 edit

Re: Watch and learn...

Actually, they are a KNOWN army. The Taliban RAN the Afghanistan government. Therefore, they were a recognized body of governance. We toppled their power, similar to what we tried in Vietnam. Now, they are actively resisting us in the same Guerilla methods. Lest we not forget, since they were a recognized government, their army is too. Do you think the Vietnamese wore uniforms when they attacked? Nope. They hid out among the people. Reality cloud your judgment?

See other post on your Geneva Rebuttal. You = OWNED there. =).
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: Watch and learn...

said by jc100:

Actually, they are a KNOWN army. The Taliban RAN the Afghanistan government. Therefore, they were a recognized body of governance. We toppled their power, similar to what we tried in Vietnam. Now, they are actively resisting us in the same Guerilla methods. Lest we not forget, since they were a recognized government, their army is too. Do you think the Vietnamese wore uniforms when they attacked? Nope. They hid out among the people. Reality cloud your judgment?

See other post on your Geneva Rebuttal. You = OWNED there. =).
Wrong again. The Taliban have no uniforms and their government is non-existent. The North Vietnamese had a standing army and they had uniforms. The Viet-Cong did not. There was a difference between NVA regulars and the viet-cong but I don't think your brain could handle that.

Back to Google for you. Fetch little boy, fetch.
jc100

join:2002-04-10

1 edit

Re: Watch and learn...

A) The Taliban HAD A GOVERNMENT. Similar to Vietnam. it was TOPPLED like we tried to do to Vietnam. Both had FORMAL ARMIES. When you have a FORMAL GOVERNMENT the army used to defend it is recognized. SIMPLE.

B) The Vietnamese HAD NO UNIFORMS. They HID AMONG the people and fought Guerrilla Style and ALSO had no formal army towards wars end. The NVA and Army both were one towards the end. They used Guerrilla tactics and hid with the people. Still, WE DID NOT USE TORTURE and Secret Prisons against the NVA or Army, now did we.

C) You forget, that A and B don't matter. We're the ones who SIGNED the geneva convention. We're stuck abiding by it as WE SIGNED AND AGREED TO IT. Even if others countries did not. Still it's recognized for all. See my other post.

Back to your Klan Rally.