Geneva Convention

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

How come the terrorists get to break the rules, and we dont... I am starting to think that the only way to win the war is to ditch the Geneva conventions, and play as dirty, ugly and scary as the enemy, otherwise we have a situation where there are cheaters and goody-goodys, and we cant win then. I have not read the GC, but does it say that people who dont play by the rules are not protected by them?

[Soldier]

Because stooping to their level does nothing for us. We are better than them, because we do play by the rules.

[Albatros]

Violence creates more violence (as you can see). Your opinion sounds like a bad joke. Do you know why you think that way? Because you think, you could win this conflict without rules. What happens if you are wrong?
And if the USA doesn't follow this conventions why should any other country do?

[noodle]

because the geneva convention doesn't really protect terrorists, thats why.
the geneva conventions protect civillians, people who are still alive and wounded after the battle, and people who are captured.
the idea is that if they aren't fighting you anymore because they were wounded/sick/captured/etc., you no longer have the right to kill them. moreover, you need to take care of them.

what would the UN do about the terrorists for breaking the geneva convention, anyway? ban exports from the terrorist nation? impose sanctions? impose a no-fly zone over their country? since terrorists aren't really at war, per se, with us, nor do they represent any nation in particular or sign any of the conventions, they don't have to follow them. i doubt they know about them. just because they happen to be hiding in one country doesn't necessarily mean they can't go/be somewhere else. i mean, osama's group aren't the only terrorists in the world, you know.

but we do have to follow it because we signed it.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Because stooping to their level does nothing for us. We are better than them, because we do play by the rules.

no we don't. And I'm not even referring to what's going on in Iraq. Where in the rules does it say that we can have such a thing as an "enemy combatant"? where does it say that they have no rights under any set of laws? where does it say we can hold them indefinitely without charge, appeal, or due proccess of any kind?

-m

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

no we don't. And I'm not even referring to what's going on in Iraq. Where in the rules does it say that we can have such a thing as an "enemy combatant"? -m

This is because we have crossed over a boundary that has never existed before in any large scale sense.

We now have people making war on us that have no real nationality and no real identifiable country. We can identify countries they hide in and train in and identify governments that finance them. But they are soldiers who don't fit the normal definition of "soldier". And I don't know if rules and treaties have this covered yet.

Perhaps you could google it for me.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Tireur

This is because we have crossed over a boundary that has never existed before in any large scale sense.

We now have people making war on us that have no real nationality and no real identifiable country. We can identify countries they hide in and train in and identify governments that finance them. But they are soldiers who don't fit the normal definition of "soldier". And I don't know if rules and treaties have this covered yet.

Perhaps you could google it for me.

well, if they don't qualify for international protection as either soldiers or civillians, then they qualify for domestic protection as criminals. it's one or the other. there is no option three. now, if we want to CHANGE international law to create a new designation, it needs to be done with other nations, not unilaterally. btw, let's take a look at the policies this administration has created:
1) The ability to designate anybody (including citizens) an "enemy combatant" based only on the affidavit of a single government official saying "I've seen sufficient evidence," but not specifying the nature of that evidence.
2) That "Enemy Combatants" have no rights under any section of law, domestic or international.
3) New and widespread powers to spy based on the sole orders of one man (Attorney General). (btw, patriot act laws have been used to investigate hookers in Reno, lest anybody claim that they're being responsible with them)
4) "Enemy Combatants" can be held indefinitely without charge, and in the case of those who they do charge can be held even after they're acquitted.
5) "Enemy Combatants" can be held incommunicado

While I haven't done rigorous research into this, I believe we'd all be chagrined to look at the list of nations in the past century who have had similar policies to this. some that I know had them are the USSR (used to varying degrees by various rulers), Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Pinochet's Chile, North Korea, Iran, and Hussein's Iraq. I don't know of one other pluralistic, modern, democratic country which has such laws. This is because such laws are opposed to pluralistic and democratic society.

There are, in fact, numerous cases where such policies have been the precursor to the end of democracy (Germany in the thirties comes to mind first). Let me be absolutely clear: I'm not saying that this administration plans that or anything like it. All I'm saying is that they have put the mechanisms for abuse in place, and I for one am not comfortable with those mechanisms being available to ANYBODY. the reasonable don't need them, and the unreasonable can't be trusted with them.

btw, just what boundary have we crossed that's never been crossed before? independant paramilitary organizations have been in existence for thousands of years, and terrorist organizations specifically have been in existance for at least a century.

-m

[Tireur]

This I tend to agree with you. However, we are sending our military into combat against these organizations and there is no official declaration of war. So, until something else comes up, what do you do with a vast criminal organization, that seeks our destruction, not just our overthrow, that acts like it is at "war" with us?

Let the Geneve Convention come up with a new category and then let us abide by it.

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

(btw, patriot act laws have been used to investigate hookers in Reno, lest anybody claim that they're being responsible with them)
m

Ok, I missed this, but, the 9/11 hijackers did like to party in Vegas, so.....if there is a suspected connection that might help catch others, I say go for it.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Tireur

Ok, I missed this, but, the 9/11 hijackers did like to party in Vegas, so.....if there is a suspected connection that might help catch others, I say go for it.

nope, everybody agrees that it has nothing to do with terrorism:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...view_in_vegas/

btw, the source this time is the Boston Globe, so I trust you'll not try to discredit it.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Tireur

This I tend to agree with you. However, we are sending our military into combat against these organizations and there is no official declaration of war. So, until something else comes up, what do you do with a vast criminal organization, that seeks our destruction, not just our overthrow, that acts like it is at "war" with us?

Let the Geneve Convention come up with a new category and then let us abide by it.

but, we're not talking about combat. many "enemy combatants" weren't in combat. in the case of Jose Padilla, for example, he's a US citizen arrested in Chicago. he was treated as a normal criminal, an arraignment was set, and he was appointed a PD. when his PD showed up for the arraignment, she was told she no longer had a client because Padilla had been declared an "enemy combatant" and was no longer entitled to a lawyer. What makes this case particularly galling is that they were pursuing criminal charges until they realized that they had no real evidence (basically, it was some very loose talk, not a "plan" to do ANYTHING with a dirty bomb). It was only when they realized that they couldn't win the case that they declared him an "enemy combatant". If this doesn't illustrate the MASSIVE dangers, I don't know what does.

As for what we do, look to other nations that have dealt with this issue. how does Spain deal with Etta (sp?)? How does Britain deal with the IRA? how does France deal with Algerian terrorists? how does Greece deal with November 17? this problem is NOT new or unique. Deal with it two ways:
1) aggressively (but within the bounds of laws and legal protections) pursue their organizations, as well as infiltrating them. this is the short term interdiction portion, which Bush is doing a good job of, though I think he could do it without the broad new policies.
2) undercut their base of support. the only way to defeat a group like this in the long run is to reduce the recruitment of new members. How do we do this? by improving our reputation in the Arab world and lowering poverty levels in the Arab world. while the leaders (like Osama) come from upper class, the footsoldiers are largely poor and discontent. this won't kill the terrorist organizations (unless we stop supporting Israel, but that's a bad idea), but it will HEAVILY weaken it.

-m

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

the source this time is the Boston Globe, so I trust you'll not discredit it.-m

No, no, it's too good. I like it just the way it is.


Part of the law, Section 314, allows federal investigators to obtain from stockbrokers, banks, and other financial institutions the records of people "suspected, based on credible evidence, of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering."

Since the law does not specifically require that the money laundering relate to terrorism, the application in a public corruption probe such as "Operation G-Sting" is permissible.

A Justice Department spokesman, Mark Corallo, insisted the section was inserted at the request of then-Senate Banking Committee chairman Paul Sarbanes, Democrat of Maryland, who sought to give the FBI new tools to fight money laundering.

But the disclosures have led to sharp rebukes from Senator Harry Reid and Representative Shelley Berkley, both Nevada Democrats. Berkley, who represents Las Vegas, has sent a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking whether he believes this use of the law was appropriate.

"When I voted for the Patriot Act one day and one month after Sept. 11, I was voting to give the FBI the necessary tools to fight terrorism," Berkley said. "It was never my intention that this act would be used in garden-variety crime or political corruption cases."

A Las Vegas politician, I'll bet it wasn't his intention!!!

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Tireur

No, no, it's too good. I like it just the way it is.


Part of the law, Section 314, allows federal investigators to obtain from stockbrokers, banks, and other financial institutions the records of people "suspected, based on credible evidence, of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering."

Since the law does not specifically require that the money laundering relate to terrorism, the application in a public corruption probe such as "Operation G-Sting" is permissible.

A Justice Department spokesman, Mark Corallo, insisted the section was inserted at the request of then-Senate Banking Committee chairman Paul Sarbanes, Democrat of Maryland, who sought to give the FBI new tools to fight money laundering.

But the disclosures have led to sharp rebukes from Senator Harry Reid and Representative Shelley Berkley, both Nevada Democrats. Berkley, who represents Las Vegas, has sent a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking whether he believes this use of the law was appropriate.

"When I voted for the Patriot Act one day and one month after Sept. 11, I was voting to give the FBI the necessary tools to fight terrorism," Berkley said. "It was never my intention that this act would be used in garden-variety crime or political corruption cases."

A Las Vegas politician, I'll bet it wasn't his intention!!!

Just so we're clear, I wasn't saying by any stretch of the imagination that the FBI wasn't within the powers granted them by the Patriot Act, I'm just pointing out that those extra powers have broader implications than often indicated. This time they were used to sting politicians with bribes, but the same statutes could easily be used in a new version of CoIntelPro, and I don't think any of us want to return to that.

-m

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Just so we're clear, I -m

Just so long as we duly note, this was not part of the original act, but was inserted by a Democrat committee chairman.

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

in the case of Jose Padilla -m

Let's see, he travelled to Afghanistan or Pakistan for the express purpose of hooking up with Al-Qaida. They trained him in bomb-making and gave him money. He then travelled back to the US to implement his new skills.

Hmmm, I think they made a mistake putting him in criminal court in the first place....

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Tireur

Just so long as we duly note, this was not part of the original act, but was inserted by a Democrat committee chairman.

yeah, I know. and voted for by nearly every democratic senator. I'm not impressed with the record of democratic senators (yes, including Kerry) on the patriot act.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Tireur

Let's see, he travelled to Afghanistan or Pakistan for the express purpose of hooking up with Al-Qaida. They trained him in bomb-making and gave him money. He then travelled back to the US to implement his new skills.

Hmmm, I think they made a mistake putting him in criminal court in the first place....

can you present proof of all that? no? neither could the governement! there's a reason that we have protections in this country. if you can't prove a crime, you don't get to hold them! And I don't want to live in a society where that's not true.

do I really need to compile a list of people who've been arrested and tried for planning bombings in this country? We've always followed due proccess, even with anti-government bombers. why stop now?

-m

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

can you present proof of all that?
-m

No, just reading the account in Time magazine. The one that was pro-Padilla.

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

do I really need to compile a list of people who've been arrested and tried for planning bombings in this country? -m

Maybe just the ones who were trained and funded in Al-Qaida camps......

[telkanuru]

Can't we just say that you two have some unresolvable differences and leave it there