Amazon 7 #26 July 7, 2003 QuoteUSA should know better, than to resort to actions more fitting to trird world rag head dictatorships. KEWL man.. nice to know racism is alive and well in Finland/ Europe.... smooth move ex-lax... so while you are beratting us herei n the USA in several threads for being all the things you have..... its good to see hypocrisy is alive and well. Amazon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crazy 0 #27 July 7, 2003 QuoteCan you imagine the US bombing a building full of civilians and then using the excuse "they were supporting the war through the payment of their taxes"? I don't think you can. Remove the carricatural aspects, and of course i am convinced that economic infrastructures are good military objectives. In the "The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict", L.C. Green explicitely refers to "economic targets that indirectly but effectively support enemy operations". It's not a new idea and there are many historical references. QuoteSupport of the enemies war effort is usually defined as some type of material or combative support. It might be nice to argue this in the classroom but it is not practiced by the military. In addition to the economic infrastructure, there are the communications and information infrastructures as well. Not really material or combative support to the war effort, but very good military objectives. Again, not a new idea, with many historical references. Even though, i acknowledge that military practices vary a lot i'm wondering how you got these surprising views of military practices. QuoteNon-regulars ie militias and freedom fighters are recognized by the Geneva Convention as combatants so long as the following requirements are met: [one of the definitions of a Prisoner Of War] Next time you refer to the Geneva Convention, at least read the title. POW are not exactly combattants.-- Come Skydive Asia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #28 July 7, 2003 >Terrorist. because there is no negotiation....it is there way or they kill >you....that is what makes them a terrorist group... Uh, most invading forces don't give the invaded country a choice to negotiate; they just invade. Doesn't make them terrorists, just makes them unreasonable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #29 July 7, 2003 QuoteQuoteThe truth the way I see it is that it all depends on which side you are on as to which description fits. fundamentally wrong! the "Law of armed conflict" would dictate(Im paraphrasing) that a soldier is one who is wearing a uniform and has openly delcared some "declaration." he/she also represents a COUNTRY. al quida are viliganties,terrorists, etc. an Iraqi soldier is a soldier as long as they arent in civilian clothes. did you know that during a war if ANYONE picks up a weapon they are considered a legal target? man woman, child or NEWSREPORTER( also goes for medic and chaplains) According to the third Geneva Convention, those arrested in a war zone for bearing arms while not wearing a distinctive uniform (or while wearing the uniform of their opposition) are fair game and are also subject to summary execution (espionage). That's international law, folks, codified by treaty. There are two dramatic examples of this-- A group of German saboteurs were arrested during the late days of WWII. They were wearing American uniforms. They were tried for war crimes, found guilty, taken outside, put against the wall, and shot, still wearing the American uniforms. Note - this is not anecdotal, nor is it a Snopes item. The US Army filmed the proceedings, including the executions, which were signed off by Eisenhower himself. Likewise the infamous photo of the Saigon Chief of Police, capping a "suspected" VC with a .38 revolver during the '68 Tet Offensive. What they don't tell you about that incident was that the chap in question had just been caught moments before machine-gunning unarmed civilians with his AK-47. As shocking as the photo was, it didn't tell the whole story. The Saigon Chief of Police was within his rights by International Law to summarily execute that Viet Cong. here is another example from WWII."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clownburner 0 #30 July 7, 2003 QuoteQuoteonly the Congress can declare war. They didn't declare war but they did pass a resolution in support of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, they agree with our actions, as a body, but have not enacted the other actions that occur when a war is declared. The reduction of civil rights has usually been justified by labeling members of terrorist groups as enemy combatants. We didn't give Nazi or Vietnamese POWs access to lawyers during WWII or Vietnam either. No other countries have ever given POWs access to lawyers. The way I see it, there are two key differences in this case: 1) The president has usurped powers using 'sneaky' legislation passed without debate, like the USA PATRIOT act, that were previously only available during a formal declaration of war. 2) The 'enemy combatants' in this case are sometimes US Citizens, who, despite the governments intentions to protect us from 'terrorists' are GUARANTEED due process by the Constitution, which is not subject to repeal by the government. At least until recently. http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,262269,00.html And they're not POW's - they are being denied the rights allowed to POWs under the geneva convention as well. It's a sad day when the US participates in the kinds of civil rights violations we're 'liberating' people from.7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
