Hetzer said:
However, on the larger subject, I think there is a real and relevent difference between the soldiers of a regular army and something like al Queda.
[...]
The idea seems to be that if we must have wars, then at least set them up so that soldiers fight other soldiers in some controlled way so as to minimize the civilizational damage caused by the conflict.
But all of this falls apart when dealing with a terrorist-type enemy that deliberately targets civilians and for whom "civilizational damage" is the whole point. This kind of conflict is not "soldiers fighting soldiers" and does not deserve the same considerations.
So, as far as Repro's point that the folks in question should enjoy due process of law unless it can be reasonably shown that they're al Queda or something similar, then I would agree.
simply put, bullshit. you're still rationalizing not treating them fairly because they don't belong to a pre-described image that you have of what a soldier should be.
what do you think would be reasonable punishment for them? hang them up in a public square perhaps? or should the "justice" you're wanting involve something a little more swift and furious, beheading maybe?
the very second that we withhold the rights of a human being, any human being, then we cease to be the true, just, and fair nation that we purport to be. you can't just say, "well, these guys are Al Quaeda, not German Nazi Officers, they don't deserve due process."
it's similar (though not the same) to the Abu Gharib scandal. what gives us the moral high ground if that type of shit is allowed when we're the ones in charge, not the dictator? you don't even have to take it that far. how many civilians have we killed in the invasion and occupation of Iraq? there are standards of decency and there are double standards. guess which one i think you're advocating?
again, all of this is beside the point. the fact is that these people were held for an inordinate amount of time without being charged, without having access to counsel (until now), and without the benefit of a right to see their accusers and see the evidence before them. that is wrong, and this judge's decision is a step in the right direction i am addressing the issue of what you would do if they did turn out to be Al Quaeda.
as for the "brown people" comment: if the shoe fits...
simply put, bullshit. you're still rationalizing not treating them fairly because they don't belong to a pre-described image that you have of what a soldier should be.
Actually, aren't such distinctions a key part of the GenCon? To set rules defining who is and is not a "soldier? "
It seems to me that the whole GenCon thing only works if both sides of the conflict agree that it's a worthy goal to minimize or reduce the collateral damage to civilians or "cultural property" from warfare - since we can't do away with war entirely. But what happens when the foe is not any kind of regular military force looking for a military victory? What happens when their victory conditions are precisely those of avoiding regular military confrontation and killing as many civilians as possible?
I liken it to a boxing match. As long as the rules can be (and are) enforced, both fighters should follow them
But if one guy pulls a knife, it's no longer a boxing match. It's a knife fight.
The whole point to groups like al Queda is to pull the knife. I do not see why they should given the same consideration as actual soldiers of a regular army when they are no such thing.
Hetzer said:
I liken it to a boxing match. As long as the rules can be (and are) enforced, both fighters should follow them
But if one guy pulls a knife, it's no longer a boxing match. It's a knife fight.
The whole point to groups like al Queda is to pull the knife. I do not see why they should given the same consideration as actual soldiers of a regular army when they are no such thing.
so then we should just go ahead and torture them, hold them for years without charging them or producing evidence, behead them, etc., etc.
we are supposed to be the good guys. just because "they did it first" doesn't mean we have to play by the same rules. this isn't a juinor-high playground altercation or even a back-alley brawl; this is, in our esteemed leader's words, "freedom on the march." what does that freedom mean if we use it to justify tortue and the like. isn't the whole point of this war to prove that our way is superior? if we act exactly the same as the dictator we deposed, then why should they bother to trust us? if we don't submit to the rules of fair play, then why should anyone believe anything we say ever? treating the supposed criminals fairly, even when they would nto do the same is what is supposed to be giving us the moral high ground. as of right now, we're crawling in the gutter.
can you not see that this is why the iraqi people aren't too hip on our brand of "democracy"? they think we're...what's the word...hypocrites.
Hetzer said:
I liken it to a boxing match. As long as the rules can be (and are) enforced, both fighters should follow them
But if one guy pulls a knife, it's no longer a boxing match. It's a knife fight.
The whole point to groups like al Queda is to pull the knife. I do not see why they should given the same consideration as actual soldiers of a regular army when they are no such thing.
so then we should just go ahead and torture them, hold them for years without charging them or producing evidence, behead them, etc., etc.
we are supposed to be the good guys. just because "they did it first" doesn't mean we have to play by the same rules. this isn't a juinor-high playground altercation or even a back-alley brawl; this is, in our esteemed leader's words, "freedom on the march." what does that freedom mean if we use it to justify tortue and the like. isn't the whole point of this war to prove that our way is superior? if we act exactly the same as the dictator we deposed, then why should they bother to trust us? if we don't submit to the rules of fair play, then why should anyone believe anything we say ever? treating the supposed criminals fairly, even when they would nto do the same is what is supposed to be giving us the moral high ground. as of right now, we're crawling in the gutter.
can you not see that this is why the iraqi people aren't too hip on our brand of "democracy"? they think we're...what's the word...hypocrites.
The only issue I would have here would be that we follow the same procedures that we did in WWII. Unlawful combatants have no rights under the GenCon
As far as the GenCon itself, isn't observance of it restricted to prisoners taken from regular, uniformed armed forces of recognized, signatory goverments?
Even then, it's not a blanket protection for those governments who ARE signed on, is it? I believe that, for example, spies and undercover saboteurs do not enjoy equivalent protection to regular soldiers who are POWs.
[Edited on Nov 09, 2004 11:10AM]
what are you nuts
of course the Geneva Convention protects people who arent fighting
there is a whole list of civilian prisoner rules in the document
but
beside that
the gitmo prisoners are all considered war combatants
since they were arrested related to an act of war
rottenart
Norman, OK
February 2004
NOV 10, 2004 12:34 PM