Paging Amnesty International.

[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.

[Redleg]

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

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

[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.

[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?

[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.