[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Fozzy

You've obviously never read the Geneva accords especially the part about un-uniformed people who conduct miltary operations in civilian areas. They are NOT POW's in any way shaped or form.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Fozzy!

Actually, I JUST got through re-reading them so I wouldn't make a stupid statement!

I will respond to your misunderstandings shortly, but for now, I only point out that regardless of how THEY act, WE are not allowed to line 'em up against a wall and shoot 'em! :lol: :lol:

Your ignorance continues to "slay me!" :lol:

[Fozzy]

It's too late for you not to make the stupid statements. You have to define what a POW is, and the insurgents do not fall into that category. They are univerisally know as criminals and can be killed without anything happening under the Geneva Conventions that the nerf worlders are crying about.

[Fozzy]

Can you (according to the Geneva Convention) shoot or hang or otherwise impose capitol punishment on spies or those who are conducting miltary operations while dressed in another country's uniform?

What criteria must be met to be considered a POW and why do you feel that the insurgents meet this criteria?

[golfhobo]

Excerpts from the Geneva Convention

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

Article 5

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Article 9

The provisions of the present Convention constitute no obstacle to the humanitarian activities which the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other impartial humanitarian organization may, subject to the consent of the Parties to the conflict concerned, undertake for the protection of prisoners of war and for their relief.

Article 10

When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

If protection cannot be arranged accordingly, the Detaining Power shall request or shall accept, subject to the provisions of this Article, the offer of the services of a humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, to assume the humanitarian functions performed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention.

Whenever in the present Convention mention is made of a Protecting Power, such mention applies to substitute organizations in the sense of the present Article.

From another article:

Irregular Forces

Another issue that may emerge as the Coalition forces make headway into Iraq are the Amn Al-Khas (Special Security Service/Office) and the Fedayeen Saddam (Saddam’s Martyrs/ “Men of Sacrifice”). These are not regular army personnel or members of the Republican Guard Special Forces. Rather, they are paramilitary organizations who are fiercely loyal to Saddam and known to operate in plain clothes. By most accounts, they are led by Saddam’s sons.

In the present conflict, the Al-Khas and Fedayeen have been providing assistance and enforcing loyalty to the regular Iraqi forces in cities like Nasiriyah. According to some reports, these forces fight without a uniforms, identification and/or without openly carrying their arms. In this case, these forces are “illegal combatants” – that is, private persons who do not have the right to take part in the conflict. These individuals may face trial for their participation.

If a combatant who is not a member of a recognized armed force wishes to be accorded POW status, he/she must adhere to Article 4 of the Third Convention: 1) to be under the command of a person responsible for his subordinates (part of a hierarchical organized force); 2) having a fixed or distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; 3) carrying arms openly, and; 4) conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. It is uncertain at this point how well the Al-Khas and Fedayeen have complied with these four requirements. [HOWEVER...]

The exception to this would be if the Al-Khas and Fedayeen are considered to be participating in a levée en masse (a general uprising of the population against an invading force). It is doubtful that the US will regard their participation as a part of such a movement. [However, by designating them as "insurgents," we have acquiesced to this status.]

However, being designated an ‘illegal combatant’ does not mean that any such individual is not protected under the Conventions. Rather, instead of being given POW status under the Third Convention, they would be protected under the Fourth Convention as civilians.

Respecting the Conventions is crucial to launching complaints when the rights of one’s own troops are abused. Any time one side in a conflict shows less than full compliance with the rule of law, they have diminished their moral stature and made it easier for their opponents to refuse to comply. It is hoped that the damage done over the rights of prisoners in Afghanistan will not result in a tougher time for Coalition POWs in Iraq. It is in the interest of all warring parties to adhere to international humanitarian law at all times.


P.S. An American soldier wandered outside the wire yesterday, and was kidnapped by "insurgent" forces. He is of Arabic descent. Unfortunately, the MEDIA "outed" him as a translator. To some of us, this indicates he is an "intelligence officer" (regardless of his rank.) I fear for his safety, as I'm SURE he is being tortured to no end! The only way to HOPE for his wellbeing, is to afford THEIR captives the same humanitarian treatment guaranteed by the Geneva Convention.

Like I said earlier, Fozzy. BUSH declared this as a WAR. First on Iraq (which is a signatory of the Convention,) and THEN on the "irregular forces" of the terrorists. If he does not want this to get even uglier than it already IS, HE needs to conduct this war under SOME guidelines of humanitarianism.

To do otherwise, is to become less than the Barbarians he claims them to be. And by doing so, drag us ALL down to the level of the immoral "infidel" they accuse us of being. I don't know about YOU.... but, I prefer to maintain SOME appearance of morality in the World!

Hobo

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Twilight Flyer

Gotta love a good conspiracy theory. :shock: Doesn't matter who's president, we can always be treated to a good theory about the president doing away with laws in order to stay in power forever. Now, where's my tinfoil. :wink:

"Conspiracy Theories" or not, the Constitutional implications can not be ignored.

General Tommy Franks stated that if we were subjected to another terrorist attack such as 9-11, then the U.S. Constitution would be reduced to (in his words) "a relic".

Today, Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld warned critics of the war in Iraq and Bush Administration policies that "they had better back off". Now, while it can be argued that these new laws signed by Bush apply only to foreigners, there will be little to stop Bush, or ANY future president from expanding the use and applications of these laws to silence and oppress ANYONE who dares to disagree or voice opposition.

Yes, sadly I can see that unless the shadows remain unaltered, the day may well come when ordinary citizens receive that "knock on the door in the dead of night".

[OverTheRoad]

I almost thought about reading this copy and paste post until I scanned over this statement.....

Can George W. Bush be trusted with absolute power? Here are some things he has done with his unchecked power:

· Stolen two presidential elections.

oops.... the author went right off the deep end with that statement. Sorry I'm not into conspiracy theories. :wink:

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Fozzy

Can you (according to the Geneva Convention) shoot or hang or otherwise impose capitol punishment on spies or those who are conducting miltary operations while dressed in another country's uniform?

What criteria must be met to be considered a POW and why do you feel that the insurgents meet this criteria?

These are some pretty good questions, Fozzy! I take back everything I ever said about you! .....NOT!!! :lol:

But, I will discuss this without quoting a 'higher source."

As for your base question about whether you can shoot spies (according to the Geneva Convention,) I would say NOT without first giving them two things.

1) The protections of the convention against torture, and

2) A fair trial under, at least, a MILITARY Tribunal. [Which Bush has resisted]

I'll admit, I'm just a little confused about the uniform thing, [not their lack of one, but as to your question] and I'll tell you why:

When I flew on a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance plane, clearly marked as American, I had "rip-off" patches for my name, rank and unit. Why?

Yet, I was told that, if captured, I would be afforded protection under the Geneva Convention because I was in UNIFORM. There WERE CIA types, wearing civilian clothes and flying in unmarked planes, who might NOT!

I'll have to admit, Foz, that I'm a little confused about this. I KNOW that I was supposed to identify myself as an American Soldier IN UNIFORM, yet I was supposed to destroy certain evidence of this. As I understand it... it was so that I would be treated no differently than any other American soldier, and they wouldn't be able to cross reference my name or unit patch and know that I was "intel." And therefore, if they were signatories to the Convention, they had to afford me general POW status.

But, it comes real close to being a civilian spy, doesn't it?

I think the definition of a "spy" has something to do with trying to blend in with the indigenous peoples, while subverting their government, and IN THEIR country. But, if I got shot down IN their country, even if I wasn't supposed to BE there, I would think it would be important to be dressed in a U.S. uniform. That is supposed to afford me POW status.

So, if an Iraqi "insurgent" is caught wearing a U.S. uniform, and amongst OUR troops, I guess that would be a spy. But, if he's outside the wire, in his OWN country, wearing the "dress" of the average person (which IS their uniform,) he would HAVE to be awarded "combatant" status, AND POW protection under the convention.

The world has changed, and wars are no longer always fought by militaries in uniform. We must accept that. Perhaps, it is time for another "convention" in Geneva. But, the fact remains that, if we want OUR soldiers to be afforded ANY decency that comes with being a combattant, we should also afford them the same thing.

As far as I know, and I'm no expert, the ONLY times in history that people have been lined up against a wall and shot (as a spy,) were when they were caught in the uniform of the shooter, and engaged in gathering intel for the enemy.

Milosevic shot people who were wearing their OWN clothes, just because they were the enemy. But, THAT is why he was being tried for war crimes.

As a point of argument in your favor, I might think that the Iraqi government COULD treat any insurgent, dressed in the common clothes of a countryman, as a spy if they want to. And I'm SURE that we have explored this legal loophole now that we have installed such a government, but it would be against the Geneva Convention for US to shoot them, once captured, as a spy.

Again, we must consider the slippery slope we go down when we treat captives under ANY guidelines that don't conform to the Convention. And any legal maneuverings by our President to do otherwise, is a violation of the TRUST of Humanity that we, as Americans, claim to uphold.

Hobo

[One]

:P: Good job Hobo, thanks for digging that up for us! It clears a lot of questions!

I persieve this passage to be particularly important:

"The exception to this would be if the Al-Khas and Fedayeen are considered to be participating in a levée en masse (a general uprising of the population against an invading force). It is doubtful that the US will regard their participation as a part of such a movement. [However, by designating them as "insurgents," we have acquiesced to this status.]

However, being designated an ‘illegal combatant’ does not mean that any such individual is not protected under the Conventions. Rather, instead of being given POW status under the Third Convention, they would be protected under the Fourth Convention as civilians. "

[Useless]

I strongly agree with GolfHobo that we are indeed on a very slippery slope.

Abraham Lincoln was allowed to detain military combatants, but that was during a period of a civil war being waged upon American soil. The U.S. Supreme Court held that The Civil War and The Military Combatants were a genuine threat to the preservation of The Union, and that The President of The United States had a constitutional duty to "Preserve, protect, and defend" The Constitution of The United States".

Additionally, during the time of The Civil War, Lincoln did not openly advocate immigration policies that would invite Confederate terrorists to funnel into The Union under the guise of "labor shortages"!!

What I see as being different is that although I held Saddam in disdain, there is NO compelling evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks of 9-11, nor were we attacked by Iraq. Were there WMD's?? Perhaps there were at one time, (after all, he gassed his own people!!) but we have found absolutely NO evidence to support the claims that Bush made about them.

In short, there has never been ANY evidence to prove that Iraq was an imminent threat to our Constitution. Again, I will remind everyone that we have taken NO military action against many of the countries who WERE involved in providing training and support to the terrorists of 9-11.

How short term our memories seem to be. Remember Vietnam?? We could not conquer the enemy because we did not know who the enemy was!! I see much the same taking place in Iraq. We entered into Vietnam without an exit strategy. And, as in Vietnam, the friends in high places in Washington are making very handsome profits, while the blood of others is being shed.

Unfortunately, I believe that we will continue to see an erosion of our civil liberties, as we trade them for "security" against terrorists. But after the The Constitution of The United States is reduced to "A Relic" who will protect us from our own government???

[golfhobo]

Thanks, ONE. But, I want to be clear that the part in brackets, [However, by designating them as "insurgents," we have acquiesced to this status.] Is MY comment... and not part of the original article.

And, for the record, I don't condone giving them "civilian" status. I prefer to modify, or delete, the term "illegal" before the word combattant. I don't feel the current situation allows for the same understanding of legality. IMHO, they should be treated as (legal) combattants, not civilians.

This was written some time ago, and I'm not sure we were using the word "insurgent" yet.

I included all the parts of the "accords" that most people use to back up their argument against treating them as POW's, but stressed the fact that the accords were written 'with a view' to future possible engagements.

It seems that those who MAKE laws and guidelines always try to be inclusive, wheras those who would "cherry pick" them to advance their OWN opinons or actions, ignore the totality and context of the works.

And it should not be ignored nor forgotten that Bush, KNOWING the guidelines of the convention, went out of his way to have these "combattants" held in countries that we were friendly with, that were NOT signatories to the convention. I just can't help wondering WHY??? :roll: