Paging Amnesty International.

[Proletariat]

Paging Amnesty International. Amnesty International to the front gate please:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/vincent200506140801.asp (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/vincent200506140801.asp)



“Twenty five years ago,” he begins, ..., “my brother Samir was playing football in a field here in Basra. On the highway nearby passed a convoy of Baath-party officials. Someone shot at the Baathi — or perhaps simply fired a weapon in the air, who knows? Unsure who was responsible or why, the Baathists arrested everyone playing football and took them to prison.”

Months went by, and the government refused to say what happened to Samir. With his family growing increasingly distraught, Ali took the hazardous step of visiting the party’s Basra headquarters to ask about his brother’s whereabouts. . . . “I was sent to prison for trying to find out if my brother was alive or dead,” Ali says.

At one point in his imprisonment, the Baathists took Ali to a “special” interrogation room, and ordered him to strip off his clothing. The interrogator then offered Ali a choice — either he allowed torturers to shove a large bottle up his rectum, or hammer a nail into his back. “I chose the nail,” Ali recounts in a flat tone. Twisting in his chair, he lifts up his t-shirt to exhibit a quarter-sized lump in his shoulder blade. “Believe me, sir, you have not felt such pain.”

Nine months later, the Baathists released Ali from prison — without, however, disclosing Samir’s whereabouts. Not until the collapse of Saddam nearly a quarter century later did information about missing Iraqis began to filter out to the public. “I met a man who was imprisoned with Samir,” Ali relates. “He said that my brother had gone crazy and began shouting — excuse my language, sir — ‘F**k, Saddam! F**k him! Why is he f**king us like this?’ Because of that, the regime sentenced him to death in a ‘slicing machine.’”

I hope Galloway is proud.

[Proletariat]

Well, this makes two threads in the last month I've done this with. BKS, backroom please?


My apologies.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Don't worry about it.

[Tribesman]

I hope Galloway is proud.
And the link to Galloway is ????

“Twenty five years ago,”
So that would be 3 years before Rummy went to shake hands with Saddam
So... I hope Donald is proud ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

Drawing relativity is a weak tactic Tribesman.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The question at hand:

Would that be considered a "gulag"?

I mean, Gitmo is one...

:no:

[PanzerJaeger]

According to AA, to be a gulag the people being mistreated have to be terrorists.

These poor guys were just playing soccer when they were picked up and thrown in the slicing machine - obviously not a gulag in AA's eyes. ~:rolleyes:

[Proletariat]

Hey look! They're (http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=82AFEE4B414DC6D180256FE90052E0E1) on it!


...repeatedly called on the UN Commission on Human Rights to appoint a special rapporteur on Iraq

And despite this forceful and effective effort, Samir still got fed through a paper shredder. I'm shocked that Saddam Hussein did not listen to this incredibly important group! And the UN! Wow, this must be the first time they've ever been unsuccessful in prosecuting abuses of human rights. Thank God groups like AI and the UN with their "special rapporteurs" are looking out for my safety. Where would I be without them.

I wonder if any members of the Iraqi Parliament got up and compared Samir's prison conditions to those of the Gulag, and Republican Guard soldiers to Nazi's. I wonder. Wonder.

[Proletariat]

"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." - Galloway to Hussein, after Desert Storm

What a guy. I wonder if he admired Saddam's slicing machines.

[Productivity]

Hey look! They're (http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=82AFEE4B414DC6D180256FE90052E0E1) on it!


I seem to be missing something here. What are you suggesting they should have done? Raised an army and invaded personally?

As far as I can tell, AI is an organisation devoted to trying to apply non-violent pressure upon those who violate human rights (in it's view), and lobbying for a fair system of justice, regardless of who is on trial. Isn't that what they did/are doing here?

I haven't completely read the article, but I skimmed it, and the synopsis seems to be that they have called out throughout the SH years, for something to be done, and are now criticising the justice system that has been created for the trying of those who allegedly committed crimes during the SH years, because said justice system in their view contains grievous flaws. It then proceeds to spend ~3/4 of the article going over those flaws.

I am not getting the idea that they don't want justice to be done, they simply want it to be done fairly, and in a open and transparent way, which in their view the current system will not facilitate.

[JAG]

Why bring into this a perfectly good and very productive charity for human rights and those imprisoned, abused and punished without any form of justice and a politician found guilty of nothing but stating some bad choices of phrase at Saddam?

The mind boggles...

The only way a charity gets any praise by certain members of a certain country is if it sucks up to corporations, bows down before Bush's dick or has 'Christianity' in the title.

:no:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

He chose the nail????!!!!

In god's name why!

[GoreBag]

He chose the nail????!!!!

In god's name why!

... The nail was a good choice.

Well, that's a pretty tough story, and a tough storyteller. Where is Saddam involved?

[ICantSpellDawg]

where is the bush admin involved in guantanamo or abu gharib?

[GoreBag]

where is the bush admin involved in guantanamo or abu gharib?

Well, I heard that Rumsfeld was doing all the directing in Guantanamo's case.

[Franconicus]

Sorry, I am lost in this discussion.

Is it about:
1. Saddam and his regime were very bad
2. UN and Amnesty are unable to stop things like these
3. Bush/US did
4. However, US/Bush are hurting the human right themselves
5. US/Bush are as bad as Saddam?

Here my comments:

1. I agree
2. Yes. They can put pressure on the dictators but have no means to stop them. International court and laws would help!
3. Yes! And this is the best result of the war. However, even the US influence has limits. They are not able to stop these kind of things in China, for example.
4. Yes! Even though this has been discussed controversial, I agree.
5. That statement would be redicolous.

[English assassin]

where is the bush admin involved in guantanamo or abu gharib?

Hang on. Either they are involved, or American forces are out of control. neither is a particularly pleasant scenario.

On topic, forgive me for saying it but isn't this rather a manichean view of the world? Everyone is either wholly good or wholly evil? Because saddam was bad, anything done to get rid of him was good, so anyone complaining about any part of it was bad?

Isn't it possible that bad things have been done in the process of getting rid of a bad person? And shouldn't AI condemn all bad things, whether Saddam doers them or whether the U does them?

[Proletariat]

It points out how absurd the accusations are by AI and Durbin.


JAG, gee, you really have my number. Read my like a book. W's dick and Christianity. That's all I think about. (Classy remark for an Englishman, btw.)





1. Saddam and his regime were very bad


Undeniable. (Even though he had courage and was indefatiguable)



2. UN and Amnesty are unable to stop things like these


I've never seen them stop anything like this.



3. Bush/US did


Credit where credit's due?



4. However, US/Bush are hurting the human right themselves


Agreeing with this requires a cognitive dissonance that only preconcieved notions can nurture.



5. US/Bush are as bad as Saddam?


I wonder who'll be the first to say, "Before we answer what's bad, can we define it? What if what they thought they were doing wasn't bad?!"

[Franconicus]

Agreeing with this requires a cognitive dissonance that only preconcieved notions can nurture.
Proletariat,
I really love the way you write. But can you express it in simple words so that a barbarian from the north can follow?

[Proletariat]

I meant that in order to compare the human rights abuses between a place like Iraq to the US (which AI basically equated with their 'Gulag' non-sense) requires a serious predisposition against the US.

My apologies, Franc. I'm a fan of the way you reason, btw.

[Spetulhu]

I meant that in order to compare the human rights abuses between a place like Iraq to the US (which AI basically equated with their 'Gulag' non-sense) requires a serious predisposition against the US.

But if the US lowers their official standards in order to get rid of someone worse, when will it stop? Perhaps lowering standards just a bit more could give even better results?

[doc_bean]

The problem isn't just that the US broke human rights (and whatever else) to get rid of Saddam, that might be classified under 'necessary evil'. The problem is that they continue to break them.

But yes, the US is not nearly as bad as Saddam, AI never achieved anything but to raise awareness and the UN doesn't do much about civil rights either. Of course, the UN security council isn't really about civil rights, it's about preventing war. I agree the UN needs reforms.

But let's not forget, no one went to war because saddam was evil, that's was just an added benefit. The war was stated because he was manufacturing WMD and aiding terrorists. Both of those reasons are false.

Getting rid of saddam was good, but don't pretend that was the main idea all along.

[PanzerJaeger]

The problem isn't just that the US broke human rights (and whatever else) to get rid of Saddam, that might be classified under 'necessary evil'. The problem is that they continue to break them.

I fear that this is becoming one of those things that if said enough - it becomes quasi-fact in the minds of those who dont think for themselves.

What human rights laws are we breaking?



In any event, I wont take anything AI says seriously until they figure out what the word "gulag" means. What idiots. :dizzy2:

[doc_bean]

I fear that this is becoming one of those things that if said enough - it becomes quasi-fact in the minds of those who dont think for themselves.

What human rights laws are we breaking?


Amnesty International always finds a few ~:)


reports of torture and ill-treatment, religious humiliation and arbitrary detention

The last bit is worrying, the rest is mostly whining :bow:

[PanzerJaeger]

Ok - the only thing i give any credence to is the arbitrary detention, but even that isn't breaking any rules.

Gawain made the case best, but ill take a shot at it.

Al Queda, in writing, declared war on the US. However, they do not where military uniforms, therefore the geneva convention laws do not apply to them. No uniforms = no POW status. So we are well within our rights to hold these enemy combatants until the war they started is over.

[Franconicus]

Ok - the only thing i give any credence to is the arbitrary detention, but even that isn't breaking any rules.

Gawain made the case best, but ill take a shot at it.

Al Queda, in writing, declared war on the US. However, they do not where military uniforms, therefore the geneva convention laws do not apply to them. No uniforms = no POW status. So we are well within our rights to hold these enemy combatants until the war they started is over.
You are joking, aren't you, Panzer? If AQ is not a military organisation, how can they declare war? If they are terrorist - they are criminals, bad ugly criminals. But still they have rights.

[Franconicus]

I meant that in order to compare the human rights abuses between a place like Iraq to the US (which AI basically equated with their 'Gulag' non-sense) requires a serious predisposition against the US.

My apologies, Franc. I'm a fan of the way you reason, btw.

Proletariat,
Please believe me that it was not my intention to compare the HR abuses of Saddam with what the US did, not in my wildest dreams. But there were abuses and they were bad.

[PanzerJaeger]

You are joking, aren't you, Panzer? If AQ is not a military organisation, how can they declare war? If they are terrorist - they are criminals, bad ugly criminals. But still they have rights.

They are a paramilitary organization. Dont tell me they cant declare war - tell them. ~;)

As far as Im concerned theyve got no rights. Call me a heartless conservative, but affording rights to a person that would love to cut my throat doesnt sound appealing.

People dont seem to understand how serious the situation is. Do you realize people released from Gitmo go right back into the fight. Surely you are joking if you expect America to treat these terrorists as anything else than what they are: blood thirsty killers.

[Byzantine Prince]

I refrained from posting in this when I read the article and had nothing to add. But seriously what is this thread even about, it seems quite pointless.


Yes we know that people were tortured and executed under Saddam's regime, what else is new?

[PanzerJaeger]

Some people would rather forget that. It doesnt fit into their world view of America being the Great Satin.

[Proletariat]

But let's not forget, no one went to war because saddam was evil, that's was just an added benefit. The war was stated because he was manufacturing WMD and aiding terrorists. Both of those reasons are false.

Getting rid of saddam was good, but don't pretend that was the main idea all along.

Has there ever been a war that was waged on one myopic and specific issue? WMD was just the easiest sell from a myriad of reasons.





In any event, I wont take anything AI says seriously until they figure out what the word "gulag" means. What idiots.

Exactly.


Proletariat,
Please believe me that it was not my intention to compare the HR abuses of Saddam with what the US did, not in my wildest dreams. But there were abuses and they were bad.

I know you didn't, but AI did (calling Gitmo a Gulag might as well be doing so.). And like Panzer said, it makes them look pretty idiotic.

If we treated these unarmed combatants under the Geneva Convention we could execute them all for being spies.

[Proletariat]

I'm putting this here, since Iraq and Saddam are being discussed here.

In the latest Atlantic Monthly, Wolfowitz agrees to a sort of "exit interview" (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200507/bowden) with Mark Bowden. A subscription is needed to view the article but here are a (believe it or not) few excerpts. It is actually four separate interviews over a six month period (the last being April of 2005) where he goes through his impressions on our policies in Iraq. Definitely worth the read.

On the establishment of an Iraqi Authority:

"It was my own view before the war that we ought to go in and establish an Iraqi provisional government the day we got there. Nobody agreed with that. And maybe they were right. It's not black and white. But some people were against it because they said it would be a government of 'externals.' It refers to Iraqis who were in exile in northern Iraq, outside of Saddam's control. You can't call them all exiles, because you can't call Jalal Talabani [the Kurdish leader who is currently the president of Iraq] and Masoud Barzani [the current leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party] exiles. They've been in Iraq all this time. So you call them externals. So we took fourteen months, and we came up with a prime minister who is an external, a president who is an external, a deputy prime minister who is an external, two deputy vice presidents who are externals, and a cabinet which I think, if you look at it, would be seventy-five to eighty percent externals. I think it was a nutty idea from the beginning. It sort of had ingrained in it the notion that those who ran away were cowards, didn't suffer. A lot of them who ran away ran because they were suffering even more than others." On the preconceived notion of military action against Iraq:

"I changed my view after 9/11," he said. "Contrary to the myth that I have been waiting all along for an excuse to invade Iraq, before then I really didn't want to even think about sending in U.S. ground forces. I had always thought the idea of occupying Baghdad was both unnecessary and a mistake. What was needed was to arm and train the Iraqis to do the job themselves—the way, in effect, the Afghans did, by taking advantage of the fact that a third of the country was already liberated. I advocated supporting them with air power if necessary. I remember congressional testimony where I think I may have used the phrase—maybe someone else did—'reducing Saddam to the mayor of Baghdad,' at which point he would collapse. It was sometimes called the enclave strategy, disparagingly, although I still don't know what was wrong with it. I have a general strong bias in favor of empowering other people to liberate themselves rather than using American force to do it. I don't like using American troops, and I believe the best alternative to using American troops is to get allies. And the best allies are people who are trying to liberate themselves. Part of what is wrong with the view of American imperialism is that it is antithetical to our interests. We are better off when people are governing themselves. I'm sure there is some guy that will tell you that philosophy is no different from the Roman Empire's. Well, it is fundamentally different." and

"I remember a conversation with the president at Camp David on September 15 during a coffee break, and the president said that the Iraq options prepared by the military didn't offer very much. I agreed, and said that it would be very simple to enable the Iraqi opposition to take over the southern part of the country and protect it with American air power. That would have included a large chunk of Saddam's oil revenues. And the president said, 'That's an imaginative idea; how come you didn't say so?' And I said, contrary to what is in Woodward's book, 'It is not my place to contradict the chairman of the joint chiefs unless the secretary of defense asks me to do so.' In fact, I believe that in the directive—it is all coming back to me now—the president signed to Rumsfeld to put together a plan for Afghanistan, it specifically mentions the option of taking control of the southern part of Iraq in some form." On Sadam versus other dictators:

"But you must also consider the costs of inaction. When people say Saddam was a bad guy, I immediately know what is going to follow: 'So are a lot of other dictators.' But Saddam was not just a bad guy. I feel like paraphrasing Lloyd Bentsen in the Dan Quayle debate: I knew Ferdinand Marcos, I knew Suharto, and neither dictator was a Saddam Hussein. There is such a world of difference between many dictators and the rare ones that torture children in order to make their parents talk. The point is, this has something to do, I think, with the morality of what we did. But it also has a lot to do with the nature of the enemy we are still fighting. The use of force to liberate people is very different from the use of force to suppress or control them, or even to defeat them. This gets back to the idea of America imposing its idea on other people. It doesn't mean there is some simplistic course of taking on all dictators indiscriminately. It doesn't mean you don't do a deal with Qaddafi when there is something to do a deal on. It doesn't mean you pull all the plugs on Mubarak. But you don't take a complete pass when Egypt locks up a guy like Saad Ibrahim, who represents the desire for a civil society."

[GoreBag]

It doesnt fit into their world view of America being the Great Satin.

Hahaha! That's a rather important typo.

[Xiahou]

If we treated these unarmed combatants under the Geneva Convention we could execute them all for being spies.Truly- precedent indicates that unlawful combatants could've been tried by a tribunal and executed. I guess keeping them prisoner and feeding them, clothing them and providing them with Korans is worse.
People bemoan how unstable Afghanistan is, and then complain that we haven't released captured combatants back into the country to create even more instability.

[Proletariat]

powerlineblog.com/archives/010806.php (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010806.php)


Hugh: Any violence, in terms of physical brutality of the prisoners you observed?

Pete: Absolutely not. In fact, my men and I spent nine hours on a runway waiting to try and get a detainee to go back home who had refused to do so because he wanted to stay at Guantanamo because he was being treated so well.


Hugh: Are you proud of the way your men conducted themselves vis-a-vis these prisoners?

Hugh: Absolutely. I mean, you've got guys from New jersey who were just, you know, minutes away from the Towers when they fell, who knew family members who died that day. And the professionalism with which they conducted themselves around men who may have been involved in those attacks was extraordinary.
www.hughhewitt.com/#postid1730 (http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid1730)


If Democrats want to taken seriously as other than a desperate group of out-of-power ideologues willing to trash everything and everyone in an attempt to get some traction with the public that has evaluated their collective fitness for leadership in time of war and ejected them from power, they will begin by defending our defenders, articulating the necessity of long term imprisonment for would be terrorists and the interrogation of those terrorists, drop the absurd and dangerous demand for "due process" for unlawful combatants, and help shoulder the burden of explaining to the world that America is the most humane of all jailers, and rigorous in its prosecution of its representatives who violate the rules of detention.

[Tribesman]

Truly- precedent indicates that unlawful combatants could've been tried by a tribunal and executed.
Precedent indicates that both those who executed "unlawful combatants" and those that drew up the laws on their definition , treatment and formation of tribunals ended up on war crimes charges at Nuremburg .
So you have to be very careful about what "precedent" you wish to use as an example .

[The Black Ship]

I did not know that Hitler had proclaimed, Jews, Roma, the mentally retarded, etc. as "unlawful combatants".

Is that what's printed in your history books?

Even the Japanese mistreatment of POWs wasn't based on the concept of "unlawful combatants".

[Redleg]

Truly- precedent indicates that unlawful combatants could've been tried by a tribunal and executed.
Precedent indicates that both those who executed "unlawful combatants" and those that drew up the laws on their definition , treatment and formation of tribunals ended up on war crimes charges at Nuremburg .
So you have to be very careful about what "precedent" you wish to use as an example .

I just love this one Tribesman - did you not in just another thread berate another for not knowing there history?

Actually precedent does not show what you just stated. What history shows is that if the executed individual does not fit within the definition of the Hague Convention - then the leaders and the ones who did the execution can be tried for war crimes.

Big difference in actual facts surrounding Nuremburg and what you just stated.

[Tribesman]

Is that what's printed in your history books? ~D ~D ~D
I did not know that Hitler had proclaimed, Jews, Roma, the mentally retarded, etc. as "unlawful combatants".
Do you think that those charged at Nuremburg were only those involved involved in the holocaust ?
Amongst the many examples of "illegal combatants" you will find some very strange ones , like the Royal Naval crew of an MTB captured in uniform yet still executed as "Illegal Combatants" in accordance with the "law" .
So like I said , be careful when you cite a "precedence" .

[Tribesman]

Big difference in actual facts surrounding Nuremburg and what you just stated.
How ? The authorities drew up the laws , the laws were acted upon , the people who followed their laws were later tried as war criminals .
The laws went into many specifics , even as far as how many vehicles or persons were on the ground in a target area for a captured airman to be treated as an "unlawful combatant" .
Since you yourself have said that you were writng to your government to protest that some of the detainees were not "unlawful combatants" and are wrongly classed and detained as such then what is the difference (apart from the carrying out of executions) ?

As an interesting note , many charges were bought concerning "war of aggression" . Since neither the Afghan or Iraq governments attacked America are Americas actions a "war of aggression"? ~;)

[Xiahou]

Truly- precedent indicates that unlawful combatants could've been tried by a tribunal and executed.
Precedent indicates that both those who executed "unlawful combatants" and those that drew up the laws on their definition , treatment and formation of tribunals ended up on war crimes charges at Nuremburg .
So you have to be very careful about what "precedent" you wish to use as an example .
Seriously? FDR was tried for war crimes in Nuremburg? They never covered that when I was in school. Did they also try the supreme court? ~:eek:

[Tribesman]

Seriously? FDR was tried for war crimes in Nuremburg?
No they had to abandon that trial when they found they could't fit the coffin in the stand ~:cheers:

[Xiahou]

Seriously? FDR was tried for war crimes in Nuremburg?
No they had to abandon that trial when they found they could't fit the coffin in the stand ~:cheers:
Are you trying to say then that FDR would have been tried for war crimes if he hadn't died? What about the Supreme Court justices? They certainly helped shape the policy. Or maybe the fact is that the execution of unlawful combatants was determined legal and not a war crime.

[Redleg]

Big difference in actual facts surrounding Nuremburg and what you just stated.
How ? The authorities drew up the laws , the laws were acted upon , the people who followed their laws were later tried as war criminals .

Name one individual who was tried and convicted for following the Laws of War as prescribed by the Hague Convention of 1907. I can name several that were acquitted because the court deemed their actions had fallen within the contraints of the Hague Convention.



The laws went into many specifics , even as far as how many vehicles or persons were on the ground in a target area for a captured airman to be treated as an "unlawful combatant" .

Have you read the Hague Conventions of 1907? I have read it several times both in the past and recently and have never run across any such article or paragraph. Care to provide the source with the link.




Since you yourself have said that you were writng to your government to protest that some of the detainees were not "unlawful combatants" and are wrongly classed and detained as such then what is the difference (apart from the carrying out of executions) ?


I know what the difference is.

For instance the Taliban militia falls within the scope of the Hague Conventions and should be treated according to the Geneva Conventions. However Terrorists caught under arms fighting against a legimated force do not fall within that catergory. They fall under the catergory of criminal activity as covered in both the Hague Conventions of 1907 and also in the Geneva Conventions.

Just like I have stated numerous times.


Foreign fighters going to another country to fight - are not protected by the Hague Conventions. As an examble In 1976 some mercenaries were tried and executed for particapating in a civil war in Africa. An easy search will provide the case.

Insurgents are protected under the Hague Convention because they are covered by the spontaous (SP) defense of their homes clause of the Hague Conventions. However if your a foreign fighter - particpating in such fighting - you are once committing an act that can get you executed. Just like the mercs that were executed in a country in Africa in 1976. They are given absolutely no protection under the Hague Conventions - and limited protection under the Geneva Conventions.





As an interesting note , many charges were bought concerning "war of aggression" . Since neither the Afghan or Iraq governments attacked America are Americas actions a "war of aggression"? ~;)


Try researching and let us know.

[Productivity]

Right, so this is a bash AI for complaining about the US, and using a little too much hyperbole.

Even if you think that AI devotes a disproportionate (to the level of the crime) amount of time to criticising the US, that can be rationalised by devoting your resources to where they are effective. The US government can be influenced. Saddam's Iraq could not.

Not one of your better threads Proletariat. If you're going to try and bash AI, at least fire shots that aren't blanks...

[The Black Ship]

"a little too much hyperbole"...he, he, that's funny :book:

[Productivity]

"a little too much hyperbole"...he, he, that's funny :book:

Or even a great deal too much... ~:)

Doesn't hugely change the argument...

[PanzerJaeger]

Not one of your better threads Proletariat. If you're going to try and bash AI, at least fire shots that aren't blanks...

This is an excellent thread because it highlights the current state of affairs in the world.

We are already fighting a war with one hand tied behind our back, yet organizations like AI continue to criticise America and simply lie about our policy.

This emboldens our enemies and hurts public moral.

To some people its just a little bit confusing that an organization would condemn America as modern day soviets for not allowing people who remove the heads of their living enemies access to our legal system.

Personally, Im f***ing sick of hearing about these poor "human beings", (i love how they have changed from terrorists to POWs and now to human beings), are being subjected to Christina Agulara and are upset that we dont wash our hands before handling the Korans we give them. Im f***ing tired of hearing about how its "not the American way" to hold this scum. Its the American way to win - not to pander to the anti-american left.

Im sure my fellow conservatives have a more refined view of things - but I want to know how much time those who advocate for these terrorists devote to thinking about the 9/11 victims and the soldiers that were killed by them.

There is something seriously wrong with a country that - in the middle of a war - is debating whether its a good thing to hold the enemy in captivity. How did it come to this - we are so weak. :embarassed:

[Franconicus]

Surely you are joking if you expect America to treat these terrorists as anything else than what they are: blood thirsty killers.
Now we agree. Treat them for what they are: blood thirtsy killers. I am sure that you meant: push them to the cour of justice and punish them. That is all we want. But treat them as human beings. Because that is what they are, too.

[Franconicus]

If we treated these unarmed combatants under the Geneva Convention we could execute them all for being spies.
If that is true, why didn't you?

[Xiahou]

Now we agree. Treat them for what they are: blood thirtsy killers. I am sure that you meant: push them to the cour of justice and punish them. That is all we want. But treat them as human beings. Because that is what they are, too.
Ignoring the logistical impossiblity of having trials in civilian criminal courts for that many people, why would we? I don't think any of the prisoners in Gitmo are accused of committing crimes in US territory. Most have been captured in the field of battle in Afghanistan. Personally, I don't see why you should have a criminal trial for someone who was captured while engaged in battle against our armed forces- that would be pretty unheard of. I'd like to see them stay in Gitmo until the Afghan government is stabilized- then, turn them over to the Afghan government. I don't see where that denies their humanity.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

There is no problem with holding prisoners... Keep the people that you captured on the battlefields.

But as far as I know, the war with Afghanistan is over now. Just like after any wars, it's time to release the prisoners and send them back home.

If you deem any of them guilty of crime of wars, then organise a fair trial, and if guilty they are, let's send them to jail for an appropriate amount of time. That's the work of Justice.

I find it hard to believe that such a rich and powerfull country as the USA, which spends millions to inquire about a blowjob, can't organize a fair trial for a few hundreds detainees. Who are you kidding?

Louis,

[Tribesman]

Name one individual who was tried and convicted for following the Laws of War as prescribed by the Hague Convention of 1907.
Where have I mentioned The Hauge convention as the laws that these people were making or following .
I have read it several times both in the past and recently and have never run across any such article or paragraph.
Since when did I refer to the Hauge convention Redleg ?
even as far as how many vehicles or persons were on the ground in a target area for a captured airman to be treated as an "unlawful combatant" .
Oh yes , air warfare was such a common phenomemon in 1907 it must be the Hauge convention ~:confused:
So Mr. Redleg were the "laws" that people were tried for following "national" laws or "international" ones ?
Because there have been a lot of people saying lately on this forum that "national" laws take precedent over international ones . If that were true then very few of the people tried at Nuremburg could have been tried or convicted as they followed the laws written by their Government , Judiciary and Military , but broke international ones .
Is that why certain governments are so opposed to international war trimes tribunals ?
Try researching and let us know.
Is that why the commander of the British Forces refused to go into Iraq until hey was in reciept of full legal advice showing that he or his troops could not be charged as war criminals , (legal advice which is still being challenged on a daily basis in Britain)


Are you trying to say then that FDR would have been tried for war crimes if he hadn't died?
No Xiahou , I am responding to your silly statement in an similar manner .

[Spetulhu]

Foreign fighters going to another country to fight - are not protected by the Hague Conventions. As an examble In 1976 some mercenaries were tried and executed for particapating in a civil war in Africa. An easy search will provide the case.

Interesting. Does this hold true for the US troops in Iraq too? ~D

Seriously, are foreigners unlawful combatants even if they join the local army or militia as volunteers? Use the same equipment, follow the same rules and obey the same leaders?

[Franconicus]

There is no problem with holding prisoners... Keep the people that you captured on the battlefields.

But as far as I know, the war with Afghanistan is over now. Just like after any wars, it's time to release the prisoners and send them back home.

If you deem any of them guilty of crime of wars, then organise a fair trial, and if guilty they are, let's send them to jail for an appropriate amount of time. That's the work of Justice.

I find it hard to believe that such a rich and powerfull country as the USA, which spends millions to inquire about a blowjob, can't organize a fair trial for a few hundreds detainees. Who are you kidding?

Louis,
They can. They did it in Germany after WW2.

[Franconicus]

Interesting. Does this hold true for the US troops in Iraq too? ~D

Seriously, are foreigners unlawful combatants even if they join the local army or militia as volunteers? Use the same equipment, follow the same rules and obey the same leaders?
What was the situation in WW2. Many polish and french soldiers fought the Germans and Italians after their countries had capitulated. I know that after a tough fight Hitler ordered Rommel to sentence them to death (do not know if they were Polish or French). Rommel refused to do so.
Has anybody more information about that issue. Was Rommel correct or was Hitler's order correct?

[Tribesman]

Was Rommel correct or was Hitler's order correct?
Thats where it gets complicated , national law stated that Hitler would have been correct , but international law stated that he would be wrong , if Rommel refused to execute prisoners then international law would (under most circumstances) make him correct , but national law would make him wrong , though if he didn't execute them himself but refused to hand them over to the SD for execution he would also be breaking national law .

As for French and Polish fighters , that is even more complicated . For Poland the government in exile was the legal government under the constitution until liberation , so fighters linked to that government would be legal , whereas the Vichy regime was the legal government for France so the FFI and Free French would be illegal combatants .

[A.Saturnus]

As far as Im concerned theyve got no rights. Call me a heartless conservative, but affording rights to a person that would love to cut my throat doesnt sound appealing.

You`re a heartless conservative, which is mostly what AI complains about.
BTW, fighting with a hand behind your back is usually not considered as weakness.

[Franconicus]

We are already fighting a war with one hand tied behind our back, yet organizations like AI continue to criticise America and simply lie about our policy.

This emboldens our enemies and hurts public moral.
There is something seriously wrong with a country that - in the middle of a war - is debating whether its a good thing to hold the enemy in captivity. How did it come to this - we are so weak.
This is not a war like WW2 were you bomb your enemy until he has enough and then think about the demage. And it is time that America realise this. This is about terror. This is highly complex. The people that fight the free world hate us so much that they are willing to die for and willing to kill innocent people. There are also others that hate us or at least do not like us. So we should use a strategy based on two principles:
1. Get every terrorist you can get and dispose him.
2. Try to make the others realize that we are not evil, that we are not a threat, that we are better than the dictators they are used to. That we really want to help them and be true friends. This includes: avoid everything that creates more terrorists.
All I see is that the US is following strategy 1, but they do the opposite of point 2. They have lost most of their allies, they created a new El Dorado for terrorists in Iraq, they make bad news every week. This torture story may have been a mistake of only a few people, but for the fight against terror it was worse than a lost battle.
Best thing the US and the American troops did was the help after the tsunami.

There is something seriously wrong with a country that - in the middle of a war - is debating whether its a good thing to hold the enemy in captivity. This gives me hope that the US will soon be the leader of the free world once again.

[Redleg]

Name one individual who was tried and convicted for following the Laws of War as prescribed by the Hague Convention of 1907.
Where have I mentioned The Hauge convention as the laws that these people were making or following .

Then you are confuse what the Law of War or being to sarcastic in your approach to the arguement. Sarcasm is loses its impact in typed discussions. Now back to the discussion point I was making

The Hague Convention of 1907 is considered the International Law of War and is the basis for the charges against the Nazi's at the Nuremberg Trails. Those charged at Nuremberg attempted to defend themselves often with the defense of "I was just following orders," and were convicted because that defense did not override the Hague Conventions that are considered the Laws of War.



I have read it several times both in the past and recently and have never run across any such article or paragraph.
Since when did I refer to the Hauge convention Redleg ?
even as far as how many vehicles or persons were on the ground in a target area for a captured airman to be treated as an "unlawful combatant" .
Oh yes , air warfare was such a common phenomemon in 1907 it must be the Hauge convention ~:confused:
So Mr. Redleg were the "laws" that people were tried for following "national" laws or "international" ones ?

Refer to your post numbers 36 and 40 - you refered to the Hague Conventions when you made that statement. It was an indirect reference - but you did clearly state in your posts.

Precedent indicates that both those who executed "unlawful combatants" and those that drew up the laws on their definition , treatment and formation of tribunals ended up on war crimes charges at Nuremburg .
So you have to be very careful about what "precedent" you wish to use as an example .

The Precedent established was done under the Hague Conventions - that is the basis of the Nuremberg Trail's Charter.

and

How ? The authorities drew up the laws , the laws were acted upon , the people who followed their laws were later tried as war criminals .
The laws went into many specifics , even as far as how many vehicles or persons were on the ground in a target area for a captured airman to be treated as an "unlawful combatant" .

The Numerberg Trails were based upon the Laws of War - otherwise known as the Hague Conventions. Once again provide the reference to show that the laws went into the specifics you claim they did. Hell you don't even have to refer to the Hague Conventions - but when you mention Nuremberg - one must remember where the base foundation for the trails came from - and the International Law of War Treaty known as the Hague Convention of 1907 served as the primary foundation for the Nurember War Crimes Trail.

Futhermore those charged at Nuremberg were primarily charged under International Laws of War that again referes to the Hague Conventions of 1907. Article 6 of the Charter for the states it clearly.


ARTICLE 6

The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

and here is the laws of war that they based their judgements upon.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

Futhermore you still should provide the quote and link about the The laws went into many specifics , even as far as how many vehicles or persons were on the ground in a target area for a captured airman to be treated as an "unlawful combatant." While it sounds like something the Nazi government might have done - I have never seen the documents that support such a comment.


Because there have been a lot of people saying lately on this forum that "national" laws take precedent over international ones . If that were true then very few of the people tried at Nuremburg could have been tried or convicted as they followed the laws written by their Government , Judiciary and Military , but broke international ones .

Then this is what you should of initially stated. But when you refered to the Nuremberg Trails - you clouded what your point was. Nuremberg was not based upon "national" laws but upon the international treaty - ie the Hague Conventions of 1907. The conventions also clearly state what can happen to those that violated the rules of war.



Is that why certain governments are so opposed to international war trimes tribunals ?

I know why I am against it - not all the reasons for the my government though. THe international crimes tribunal has been supported by the United States government several times - but I guess that fact has escaped your noticed. edit: we are even now discussing one of the times the United States government support the International War Crimes Tribunal. And then there is Bosnia and Kosovo.



Try researching and let us know.
Is that why the commander of the British Forces refused to go into Iraq until hey was in reciept of full legal advice showing that he or his troops could not be charged as war criminals , (legal advice which is still being challenged on a daily basis in Britain)


That was not the statement. Trying to duck and run? Or just once again attempting to be overly sarcastic? And yes I know which one it is Tribesman but I am having an honest discussion with you - not a sarastic one.

So again to remind you of your statement. As an interesting note , many charges were bought concerning "war of aggression" . Since neither the Afghan or Iraq governments attacked America are Americas actions a "war of aggression"?

[PanzerJaeger]

But as far as I know, the war with Afghanistan is over now. Just like after any wars, it's time to release the prisoners and send them back home.

This is the mindset we are having to fight at home while we are trying to fight our enemies abroad.

I cannot believe the complete idiocy of some people who honestly believe we should let our enemies go in the country we caught them in! It boggles the mind.. especially since people we have released from gitmo were found fighting us in Afghanistan. :dizzy2:

[Redleg]

Interesting. Does this hold true for the US troops in Iraq too? ~D

Seriously, are foreigners unlawful combatants even if they join the local army or militia as volunteers? Use the same equipment, follow the same rules and obey the same leaders?

As defined by the Hague Conventions of 1907 - if they are not part of the local army then they can be considered unlawful combatants. Foreign national fighting in the armed forces of another nation are covered in the Hague Conventions - and therefore protected under the Geneva Conventions.

Militia's and sponatous insurgency has a clear definition in the Hague Conventions and are to be treated as POW's if they fall within those areas.

However foreign nations claiming they are preforming a sponatous insurgency - are not covered under the Hague Conventions to the best of my knowledge.

A link has been provided to the site that contains most if not all of the International Treaties about warfare in my reponse to Tribesman

[Redleg]

What was the situation in WW2. Many polish and french soldiers fought the Germans and Italians after their countries had capitulated. I know that after a tough fight Hitler ordered Rommel to sentence them to death (do not know if they were Polish or French). Rommel refused to do so.
Has anybody more information about that issue. Was Rommel correct or was Hitler's order correct?

Rommel would be correct if such an order happened.

[PanzerJaeger]

1. Get every terrorist you can get and dispose him.
2. Try to make the others realize that we are not evil, that we are not a threat, that we are better than the dictators they are used to. That we really want to help them and be true friends. This includes: avoid everything that creates more terrorists.

You spend most of the thread talking poorly about the US and gitmo, but now you want to "dispose" of all the terrorists we catch? Also, we are not interested in being true friends with them.

[Ser Clegane]

I cannot believe the complete idiocy of some people

No ad hominem attacks, please :stare:

[Franconicus]

You spend most of the thread talking poorly about the US and gitmo, but now you want to "dispose" of all the terrorists we catch? Also, we are not interested in being true friends with them.
I did not want to talk poorly about the US. I just do not agree with some things the US is doing. Gitmo is part of it.
Is dispose the wrong word? I am not a friend of any terrorist, no one is. If they deserve it, hang them. But please give them a fair trial. Do not hide them in some dark places. Looks like the US has something to hide.
No need to become friend with terrorists. (they will hang soon anyway). But you should find an arrangement with those moslems who are not terrorists yet.

[Proletariat]

Right, so this is a bash AI for complaining about the US, and using a little too much hyperbole.


Gulag, I'm sorry, is a bit more than 'too much hyperbole.' It's borderline seditious, considering some of the rampaging that these articles and headlines have brought about recently.



Not one of your better threads Proletariat. If you're going to try and bash AI, at least fire shots that aren't blanks...

Sorry.




If that is true, why didn't you?

Not a bad question.



1. Get every terrorist you can get and dispose him.
2. Try to make the others realize that we are not evil, that we are not a threat, that we are better than the dictators they are used to. That we really want to help them and be true friends. This includes: avoid everything that creates more terrorists.


Maybe we could avoid a little 'too much hyperbole' from irresponsible organizations and seditious Senators?

[Redleg]

Right, so this is a bash AI for complaining about the US, and using a little too much hyperbole.




Hy Proletariat - I didn't know you wrote a lot of Love Poetry.

a figure of speech that is an intentional exaggeration for emphasis or comic effect. Hyperbole is common in love poetry, in which it is used to convey the lover's intense admiration for his beloved. An example is the following passage describing Portia:

I guess you really love AI. ~D

[Tribesman]

Then you are confuse what the Law of War or being to sarcastic in your approach to the arguement.
Not at all , in the cases I am talking about they were following the laws of their Nation , the laws of the State were in violation of international law .
Therefore it is an example of possible precedent .
The Hague Convention of 1907 is considered the International Law of War and is the basis for the charges against the Nazi's at the Nuremberg Trails.
Yes and the "illegal combatant" laws were German laws which were in violation of that treaty , the "commando" law was one of the first it was later extended to cover all sorts of people , such as airborne troops , naval personel , escaped prisoners of war , air-crew (plus there was the other law which prevented the police from intervening to stop lynchings of downed aircrew) , military missions (I am sure you are familiar with the US Military mission to the Balkans , captured in Uniform who were taken straight to a concentration camp and neck shot in accordance with the German "law") .

Then there are some others , like the "commisar law" which removed commisars from the POW status they should have been afforded , and then the later "law" which stated that the Hague conventions do not apply to the Eastern Front at all (though Cannaris did object to that "law" it became law anyway) .
But you are familiar with all this , it is all in the links you provided in the blue and red books , Nihkor is a good site on it aswell .
As for the specifics concerning the designation of downed airman as illegal combatants I will see if I can find it , it was an extention of the "commando law" I think it is Session 18 of the Nuremburg trials .

[Redleg]

Then you are confuse what the Law of War or being to sarcastic in your approach to the arguement.
Not at all , in the cases I am talking about they were following the laws of their Nation , the laws of the State were in violation of international law .
Therefore it is an example of possible precedent .


Which was countered by the effects of the Nuremberg Trails which followed the aspects of the Hague Conventions. The presedence was established by the Nuremberg Trails that certain national laws will be countered by international law - when applied by the victor.



The Hague Convention of 1907 is considered the International Law of War and is the basis for the charges against the Nazi's at the Nuremberg Trails.
Yes and the "illegal combatant" laws were German laws which were in violation of that treaty , the "commando" law was one of the first it was later extended to cover all sorts of people , such as airborne troops , naval personel , escaped prisoners of war , air-crew (plus there was the other law which prevented the police from intervening to stop lynchings of downed aircrew) , military missions (I am sure you are familiar with the US Military mission to the Balkans , captured in Uniform who were taken straight to a concentration camp and neck shot in accordance with the German "law") .


And again research into the subject some more - several German Officers and soldiers were acquitted of war crimes because many of the actions did happen to fall within the Hague Conventions. The ones that were convicted were found to be in violation of the Hague Conventions.

For examble escaped POW's not in an allied uniform - violated the Law of War and therefor fall into the catergory of spies. Now if I remember correctly those charged with this offense had a few convicted because the escape POW was still wearing their uniforms.



Then there are some others , like the "commisar law" which removed commisars from the POW status they should have been afforded , and then the later "law" which stated that the Hague conventions do not apply to the Eastern Front at all (though Cannaris did object to that "law" it became law anyway) .

And like I stated those laws all fell under the knife of the Hague Conventions of 1907 when it came time for the Nuremberg Trails. Your point was about Presedence (SP) The Nuremberg Trails established that the Hague Conventions of 1907 were the basis for Laws of War.



But you are familiar with all this , it is all in the links you provided in the blue and red books , Nihkor is a good site on it aswell .
As for the specifics concerning the designation of downed airman as illegal combatants I will see if I can find it , it was an extention of the "commando law" I think it is Session 18 of the Nuremburg trials .

Not all that familiar with the downed airmen laws passed by the Germans. Most of what I know comes from the ground combat aspects, POW's and the partisan warfare. In some cases the German's were able to prove that their actions against the partisan's did not violated the Hague Conventions - and they were acquitted of those charges. Fortunately for justice those same individuals committed other war crimes in which they were found guilty.

[Xiahou]

There is no problem with holding prisoners... Keep the people that you captured on the battlefields.

But as far as I know, the war with Afghanistan is over now. Just like after any wars, it's time to release the prisoners and send them back home.

Ask just about any Democrat- they'll tell you Afghanistan is a mess and some even say we're losing the fight there. Taliban and other fighters are certainly still active. If you just turned the prisoners loose you'd have every reason them to go back to fighting- in fact its already happened.


Are you trying to say then that FDR would have been tried for war crimes if he hadn't died?
No Xiahou , I am responding to your silly statement in an similar manner .I honestly have no idea what you're on about. I said there is a precedent for people deemed as unlawful combatants being tried via tribunal and executed. FDR did so, and the Supreme Court upheld his actions. There were no Nuremberg trials resulting from this as you claimed.
You make statements about dragging his coffin into court and Im being silly? ~:confused:

[Tribesman]

You make statements about dragging his coffin into court and Im being silly?
Xiahou , were any allies tried at Nuremburg ? So what do any charges of war crimes levelled against the allies have to do with Nuremburg ?

The presedence was established by the Nuremberg Trails that certain national laws will be countered by international law - when applied by the victor.
So if the unthinkable happens and the terrorists win they can (in theory)challenge American laws concerning "non combatants" by countering them with International law . As you have stated , there have been breaches of the Hague conventions .

several German Officers and soldiers were acquitted of war crimes because many of the actions did happen to fall within the Hague Conventions. The ones that were convicted were found to be in violation of the Hague Conventions.
But they were not in violation of the German laws . The laws themselves were in violation of the conventions and those that drew up those laws were convicted (in the Judiciary trials sessions) alongside those that had followed those laws .

[Xiahou]

You make statements about dragging his coffin into court and Im being silly?
Xiahou , were any allies tried at Nuremburg ? So what do any charges of war crimes levelled against the allies have to do with Nuremburg ?
That's what I want to know- you brought up Nuremburg, not me.


Truly- precedent indicates that unlawful combatants could've been tried by a tribunal and executed.
Precedent indicates that both those who executed "unlawful combatants" and those that drew up the laws on their definition , treatment and formation of tribunals ended up on war crimes charges at Nuremburg .
So you have to be very careful about what "precedent" you wish to use as an example

[Redleg]

The presedence was established by the Nuremberg Trails that certain national laws will be countered by international law - when applied by the victor.
So if the unthinkable happens and the terrorists win they can (in theory)challenge American laws concerning "non combatants" by countering them with International law . As you have stated , there have been breaches of the Hague conventions .

A possible scenerio - however more likely the current what will happen is several other governments will attempt to fill war crime charges against the current administration. And if my memory serves me correctly several have tried - but failed. They will have to overcome one major obstacle to charge the Bush Adminstration with war crimes however - and that is the Hague Convention itself.



several German Officers and soldiers were acquitted of war crimes because many of the actions did happen to fall within the Hague Conventions. The ones that were convicted were found to be in violation of the Hague Conventions.
But they were not in violation of the German laws . The laws themselves were in violation of the conventions and those that drew up those laws were convicted (in the Judiciary trials sessions) alongside those that had followed those laws .


Your attempting to either mix the conditions together as one and the same - or you did not understand what I wrote.

If the German Law did not violate the rules of war as proscribed by the Hague Convention of 1907 - any German soldier that followed the German Law was not convicted of a war crime. Only those who followed a course of action that violated the Hague Conventions were convicted (for the most part anyway.)

And that Tribesman goes back to my orginial point.

You initial stated this - citing the Nuremberg Trails.

Precedent indicates that both those who executed "unlawful combatants" and those that drew up the laws on their definition , treatment and formation of tribunals ended up on war crimes charges at Nuremburg .
So you have to be very careful about what "precedent" you wish to use as an example .

which lead to my comment of

Actually precedent does not show what you just stated. What history shows is that if the executed individual does not fit within the definition of the Hague Convention - then the leaders and the ones who did the execution can be tried for war crimes.

Big difference in actual facts surrounding Nuremburg and what you just stated.


The precedent that established what is to be considered a a war crime or not a war crime was established by the Hague Convention of 1907 which formed the basis of the Nuremberg Trail Charter. The United States has also established predence on what is considered an "illegal combatant" per a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States.

It is interesting to note that the when the German's applied the same standard to spies and sabatours captured in Germany - no one involved in executing those spies or sabatours were brought forth on a war crime charge.

[Tribesman]

The precedent that established what is to be considered a a war crime or not a war crime was established by the Hague Convention of 1907 which formed the basis of the Nuremberg Trail Charter. The United States has also established predence on what is considered an "illegal combatant" per a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States.
But since some of those detained as illegal combatants do not fit the definition of what is considered an "illegal combatant" is that a war crime ?

BTW I still havn't been able to locate the actual extentions to the commando order specifically concerning downed airman (it was something I stumbled across while reading about the SSRF and coastal forces) , but there is quite a bit about it in the transcripts of the trials from 7th-19th June .

[Redleg]

The precedent that established what is to be considered a a war crime or not a war crime was established by the Hague Convention of 1907 which formed the basis of the Nuremberg Trail Charter. The United States has also established predence on what is considered an "illegal combatant" per a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States.
But since some of those detained as illegal combatants do not fit the definition of what is considered an "illegal combatant" is that a war crime ?


Very possible - it would be an interesting trail to place the administration under to see if they can argue theirselves out of the charge by siting relative International law, ie primarily the Hague Convention of 1907 and Geneva Conventions. Part of it would have to go with what was the intent of the measure was, however such a circumstance would be a very minor war crime and most likely not prosecuted under the same conditions as given during the Nuremberg Trails.

Edit: On a side note I hope I got the year right - in a previous arguement I stated 1906 which to my embrassment was the wrong year.




BTW I still havn't been able to locate the actual extentions to the commando order specifically concerning downed airman (it was something I stumbled across while reading about the SSRF and coastal forces) , but there is quite a bit about it in the transcripts of the trials from 7th-19th June .

I will attempt to find the transcripts for those trails - I don't doubt you - I just have never seen it before.

[Franconicus]

Gulag, I'm sorry, is a bit more than 'too much hyperbole.' It's borderline seditious, considering some of the rampaging that these articles and headlines have brought about recently.
AI is an organisation with integrity. The notion 'Gulag' however is inappropriate to Guantanamo. It was foolish to use it. It prevents a factual discussion about the topic. It is similar to those foolish Hitler comparisons.