livendive

Your suspicions don't mean squat. If they were in uniform (republican guard, etc), then it's name rank serial number and hands off. We agree on that point. I happen to believe that at the start of hostilities, most of the prisoners we took were surrendering soldiers, even though that's not the case now. I don't know whether you agree with that or not. You are incorrect. Read Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. For organized armed militias there are four requirements. Did you even read that while you were quoting it? Did you notice the "1." in my quote? There are 6 ways to qualify as a POW. I listed the first way (1.). You've listed the 2nd (in part), which starts "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: " followed by the four conditions you've listed. Note those conditions apply only to the second way of qualifying as a POW, not the first. In addition, there are 4 other ways to qualify, including paragraph 6 which you mention below. What is it with people lately, that every section of law that doesn't agree with you becomes a loophole. How about showing a little respect to the people who wrote the law (in this case Convention) were actually capable of writing what they meant. OK, don't call it a loophole. It doesn't change the fact that there are standards for how to treat people who were fighting against you and have since laid down their arms and are now under your care. If you want to argue that treating some of them less humanely than others is both moral and humane, be my guest. How about if you mention Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention, you actually read it first. Article three applies to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm I'm quoting the UN supplied text of the Third Geneva Convention. The Fourth convention, the one you were talking about on the Red Cross page, applies to I did read it. I made a type-o, and meant article 3 of the fourth convention, not the third convention. However can you please point out the difference between the two quotes you've made above (i.e. applicability of each convention)? I don't see the difference. What I DO see, is that the fourth convention does apply to persons who are taking no active part in hostilities. Are you arguing that the prisoners are still taking an active part in hostilities? I assume you understand the phrase "hors de combat by...detention"? Well that would be the case if they were still taking an active part in hostilities. I think you'll have a tough row to hoe making that case though. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

OK, a little more definitive, just the first two paragraphs: "The new Socialist government in Spain has caved in to the terrorist threats" Well, that and/or decided fighting the war was not in their best interest and withdrawn its troops from Iraq. Fact...sort of. I believe there are still some Spanish troops in Iraq, but I'll concede the point they are slated to return home. So have Honduras and the Dominican Republic. I do not know if Honduras and/or the Dominican Republic have withdrawn their support, and if they have I won't presume to know their reasons. They are unlikely to be the last. I agree they are not likely to be the last countries to pull their troops out of Iraq With the security situation expected to worsen before it improves, we have to accept that a few more countries--which do not appreciate how much the world has at stake in building a free Iraq--will also cut and run. Hubris No matter how the retreating governments try to spin it, every time a country pulls out of Iraq it is al Qaeda and other extremists who win. Supposition. They draw the conclusion that the coalition of the willing is weak and that the more terrorist outrages, the more countries will withdraw. Presumptuous. While it may be true in some cases, I do not know how the author can assume to know how a country will "spin" their withdrawal nor what conclusions extremists will draw from such moves. Example: If Poland were tomorrow declare that they no longer wish to team with a country who treated their prisoners the way they're seeing on television and are therefore withdrawing their troops, how do the terrorists claim that victory? The US did it to itself. Anyhow, I thought the article was full of a lot of assumptions. While nicely packaged, it was still fundamentally an opinion piece terribly short on facts. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Trudeau's "retraction" on that thing was awesome. From the AP: Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I don't know if I'm one of the "usual suspects", but I thought it was a reasonably stated argument if one ignores all the supposition. In some of those cases, I agreed with the author, in others I disagree, and in some I can neither agree nor disagree because I have insufficient information to form an opinion. As Mr. Ramos-Horta is not here to defend himself and the questionable statements are of the "reasonable persons may disagree" sort, I saw no reason to elaborate. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Assuming they're all upstanding religious folks, which side is God gonna help? From the Chicago News Tribune Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Not hot irons, but... From the ICRC report: Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I get it...kind of like removing my truck's drain plug is my primary reason for crawling underneath the truck every 3000 miles. Changing my oil is only a secondary objective because I can't do that till after I remove the plug. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Well, that's how you get the information you need if you're not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. 3rd Convention, Article 17 "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion..." Remember now, it's: Name, Rank, Serial Number. That's it. If we want to go beyond that, we can disengage ourselves from the Conventions, as long as we understand that removes the protections our troops enjoy as well. How many of these assholes were wearing uniforms with unit insignia? Don't call every captured asshat a prisoner of war. Not all of them qualify. ps - I'm still waiting for those protections to be given to our troops by any enemy. First of all, understand that just because this story is coming out now does not mean it happened recently. The ICRC started complaining about our treatment of "detainees" in March of last year, when I suspect the vast majority of them were in fact in uniform. Secondly, I believe one might be able to make the case that an organized, armed militia defending or trying to take a specific building or area can be reasonably considered to be POWs by virtue of "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." Note the lack any requirement for an insignia by this definition. This is the section that would have covered any Northern Alliance POWs taken in Afghanistan. Of course this would not include those who are trying to suicide bomb us etc, but those who are fighting by means of conventional weaponry (mortars, RPGs, automatic weapons, etc) would be covered. Thirdly, if we assume that nations became signatories to the Geneva Conventions because they represent moral, humane standards for treating prisoners, it stands to reason that exploiting a loophole to circumvent the standards is both immoral and inhumane. Fourthly, ALL detainees (not just POWs) are protected from "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" per Article 3 of the third convention. You might be surprised by the level of care we owe them, things like an allowance, a canteen (with tobacco available), daily showers with sufficient soap, etc. If you're bored, you might skim it here. Fifthly, the ICRC has reported that 70-90 percent of detainees have been arrested by mistake. Art. 33 of the fourth convention states "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed." Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

A quote from this article: Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Actually, al-jazeera hasn't been showing these pictures to nearly the extent the US media has. I can only assume it's for the same reason we are not showing the Nicholas Berg video...i.e. it's truly offensive. Given normal muslim dress, I guess I'll have to take them at their word that being shown naked is much more humiliating to them than it would be to me. I don't get it, but then I don't understand why many cultures eat the nasty-ass things they do either. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Good post Ron. I agree with almost every point. Points of disagreement: From their perspective, we weren't pretty much ignoring them before 9/11, because we were supporting Israel. While this war definitely has a religious aspect, I do not believe converting the US to Islam is even in Al Quaida's top 10 list. I do not believe that any group is so stupid as to believe that by killing our innocents, they will convince us to join them in worship of Allah. I guess I'm just a bit more optimistic than you in that I'm confident there is a way out (rather than just delaying the inevitable). I simply don't know what it is right now. For starters, I wouldn't completely withdraw support from Israel, but I would substantially reduce it and make them fall back to 1968 borders. I would also establish normal diplomatic relations with a Palestinian state. I would attempt to set up Iraq for success and get our troops out of there as quickly as possible (by the end of this year), and I would work to establish an international agency solely responsible for the tracking and elimination of "terrorists". None of those groups would be safe to practice their form of resistance (intentionally attacking innocents), regardless of whether they are Palestinian, Irish, Philippino, African, Russian, South American, or for that matter American. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

A. no excuse. B. The same website with this comment Beheading Americans in Iraq should be seen as a colateral damage as US went to Iraq under false pretext and mallafide intention. In a war enemy never should be conceded. Or this comment: " Why is not there coverage of the american head being cut off on this website. We would love to see his head being cut off. This is a dream for islam!! It should shown in all its glory! Islam should feel proud that we do things like this!" You have to be kidding me. For one thing, you're quoting an international discussion forum, not any sort of official statement. That's not to say it's a *bad* thing to read, because it does give us perspective into folks presumably as "average" as those of us using THIS forum are, but for pete's sake, you ignored a fair amount of the condemnation to find that support, e.g. Also understand that the topic in that forum is supposed to be "Abuse against one human's dignity is abuse against me and you. Share what can be done to stop the mistreatment of prisoners worldwide.", and what they're responding to are things like this (NSFW - contains scenes of apparent rape) The scroll across the top says "al-Azhar Scholars Denounce Berg's Beheading" and "Iraqis Condemn Beheading of American Civilian", and the top ad on the page shows a picture of Berg and takes one here, where Berg's killing is stronly condemned. I'm not sure of your point with that link. There are a couple articles, and then links to many bulletin-board postings (i.e. anyone can write in...it's forums like this one). Would you say Dropzone.com is horribly biased against the Iraqi people simply because some people yesterday were calling for us to nuke them? Agreed, however I can see where other's who've seen things we haven't might mistakenly reach a different conclusion. I won't go so far as to post picture of dozens upon dozens of dead Iraqi babies and children (many of whom likely suffered for longer than Nicholas Berg), but I hope you can understand that people who do see those things, in real life, might become so enraged and full of hatred as to respond in an unjustifiably brutal manner. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Well, there was this, as seen from this perspective. It's not much of an excuse, but it does provide a different perspective. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

See this thread. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Check this article, or this one. All you have to do is look, and that's tough to do with your eyes closed. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

This small group of men beheaded one guy. There are respondents to this thread who believe the proper retaliation is to kill every man, woman, and child in the region. I think it's safe to say that not all the people over there are "savages", nor are all of the "savages" over there. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I don't know the significance of the difference in fatalities between people who win wars and people who lose wars, but I do know that all of the population reduction happens to communities that *fight* wars. Then again, the surviving members of the winning population will likely have better food, shelter, and wealth with which to afford things like technological and medical advances, so I guess you have a point. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

A good answer and one I'd already kind of supposed. Next question: Given all the subsequent battles, wars, etc, all of which kill off people who "apply" the trait to intraspecific competition, why hasn't the trait gone the way of the tonsil or slowly become something less damaging to the species? Homeostasis? Edit to add: Just a second...How does the concept of teaming require a group to assume superiority over another? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

What do you think another animal - any animal would think? My guess is that there wouldn't even be sadness. I suspect you're right for most if not all other species in the example I gave (passing a dead animal on the side of the road). Then again I've seen animals mourn the loss of their mate & offspring, so they do have *some* capacity for understanding and sadness. Remember this? Or better yet did you ever read of this? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Photographic proof of an Iraqi using a child as a shield attached. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

What is it about humans that makes us want to feel superior to others? We hold our species in higher regard than others, and are more disturbed by our own carcasses. Most people can drive by a dead cat on the road with entrails hanging out etc without feeling much more than mild sadness, but an awful lot of people would feel physically ill if it was a human in the same condition. We hold our nations as superior to others, whether it's in a vicious manner such as that imposed by the Nazi's, or simple arrogance, such as "My country is the greatest country in the world." We hold our religions as superior to others, postulating that only those of our particular sect will enjoy a wonderful "afterlife" and others will not (or in atheist/agnostic realms, we'll enjoy a better present life and there is no "afterlife"). We like to hold our geographical regions as superior, sometimes joking but often "on the square", (east coast/west coast, damn yankees, queerafornians, don't mess with Texas, etc). We want to believe our schools are the best (high school rivalries, alma mater loyalty, etc). Hell, we generally pick something as trivial as our favorite sports team based on one of two things...them being from our "region" or them being perceived as "winners." I'm just curious if anyone has any ideas why we do these things. Do you think it's genetic or cultural? I'm leaning toward a hard-wired trait of the species, simply because it seems to have been a human tendency for all of recorded history. IF it's physical, do you suppose it's an evolved trait that helps the survival of the species? The current political situation is a good example of the negative aspects of this trait, and I'm just wondering what people think of it. Is nationalism good for each individual country? Is it good for humanity as a whole? I don't know. I do know that everyone seems to be trying to dehumanize their enemies or in some other manner demonstrate superiority (be it moral, intellectual, religious, etc). Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Well, that's how you get the information you need if you're not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. 3rd Convention Article 17 "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." Remember now, it's: Name, Rank, Serial Number. That's it. If we want to go beyond that, we can disengage ourselves from the Conventions, as long as we understand that removes the protections our troops enjoy as well. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Starting at 10:00, I watched this subject on Fox News for 10 minutes, until they switched to a different topic, then CNN where they covered it for another 20 or so. CNN "expert analysis" of the prison abuse stuff followed the beheading stuff and last about 10 minutes. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

You mean, like, judge all of them based on the disgusting actions of a few sadist nutcases? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

On top of what Michele noted, I've seen nothing indicating Nick Berg's nationality, religion or previous experience (it was his second trip to Iraq). His nationality was American, his religion was Jewish. He apparently wore some type of religous device under his clothes that his father said would have probably sealed his fate if his abductors/murderers were on the fence as to whether to kill him. I'm not sure how Michelle turned my comments into something "prejudiced." I was considering going to Iraq with Bechtel. The pay is nothing to shake a stick at. They impose pretty strict restrictions on the movement of their employees, and they have the military providing all their security (on the project I was considering), and I STILL had to weigh the risks of working in such an environment versus the reward for surviving the experience. All I was saying was this guy did not have the security services of a major corporation, much less the military, and thereby had to recognize his additional risk exposure. What's prejudiced about noting that? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)