Anti-Terrorism, civil liberties and fearmongering.

[Coito ergo sum]

People on foreign battle fields are soldiers aren't they ? people who take an army to another country are invaders .The geneva convention states that spies may be held for a short peroid of time incomunicado It specfically states that this should NEVER be used to deny someones human rights under the convention !

To qualify as a "soldier" you have meet certain specifications, like wearing a uniform. Being a solider in a declared war is also part of that.

Yes, according to the Geneva Conventions, a soldier, to be protected by the Geneva Conventions, must carry the Geneva Convention ID card, be wearing a uniform, etc. That's why "spies" are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. The whole idea of robed, covert, "freedom fighters" masquerading as civilians being protected by the Geneva Conventions on POWs or otherwise protected as soldiers is a new standard being applied to the US that was never applied to anyone else. If you're a civilian you're protected as a civilian. If a civilian turns covert combatant, then he isn't protected at all, except against torture (as that term is defined under international law, which is ambiguous in certain areas) and inhuman treatment. That's why a guy like Gary Powers, the US U2 pilot shot down in the Soviet Union had no Geneva Convention rights afforded to combat soldiers. That's why the German soldiers in WW2 who landed in the US and started working on blowing up bridges and stuff were NOT considered POWs when they were captured. They weren't entitled to shit.

[Feck]

People on foreign battle fields are soldiers aren't they ? people who take an army to another country are invaders .The geneva convention states that spies may be held for a short peroid of time incomunicado It specfically states that this should NEVER be used to deny someones human rights under the convention !

To qualify as a "soldier" you have meet certain specifications, like wearing a uniform. Being a solider in a declared war is also part of that.

So if Merika was invaded then you would not fight ? and those that did would have given up all their rights under the geneva convention ? and the invading country could take them away and torture them for years?

What is the status of US 'civilian' contractors then ?

I've quoted the convention before on this point and it's not a new standard recently applied to Merika .So if merika does not actually declare war then the convention doesn't apply ?,and what does the convention say about the treatment of civilians then .Where does it say parisans and freedom fighters can be tortured with impunity ?

[Hermit]

People on foreign battle fields are soldiers aren't they ? people who take an army to another country are invaders .The geneva convention states that spies may be held for a short peroid of time incomunicado It specfically states that this should NEVER be used to deny someones human rights under the convention !

To qualify as a "soldier" you have meet certain specifications, like wearing a uniform. Being a solider in a declared war is also part of that.

Exceptions apply. Members of the French Resistance were not exactly notorious for wearing uniforms. Nor were the partisans in various other countries. Today they are regarded as soldiers in a declared war. I guess the difference between being a heroic freedom fighter and an unlawful combatant is determined by whose side you are on when you are looking at one such individual.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People on foreign battle fields are soldiers aren't they ? people who take an army to another country are invaders .The geneva convention states that spies may be held for a short peroid of time incomunicado It specfically states that this should NEVER be used to deny someones human rights under the convention !

To qualify as a "soldier" you have meet certain specifications, like wearing a uniform. Being a solider in a declared war is also part of that.

So if Merika was invaded then you would not fight ? and those that did would have given up all their rights under the geneva convention ? and the invading country could take them away and torture them for years?

Where did I say I wouldn't fight?

[/quote]
What is the status of US 'civilian' contractors then ? [/quote]
Mercenaries, as far as I'm concerned, but they don't qualify as soliders.

I've quoted the convention before on this point and it's not a new standard recently applied to Merika .So if merika does not actually declare war then the convention doesn't apply ?,and what does the convention say about the treatment of civilians then .Where does it say parisans and freedom fighters can be tortured with impunity ?

You really need to get out there and see the elephant, Feck.

[Coito ergo sum]

People on foreign battle fields are soldiers aren't they ? people who take an army to another country are invaders .The geneva convention states that spies may be held for a short peroid of time incomunicado It specfically states that this should NEVER be used to deny someones human rights under the convention !

To qualify as a "soldier" you have meet certain specifications, like wearing a uniform. Being a solider in a declared war is also part of that.

So if Merika was invaded then you would not fight ? and those that did would have given up all their rights under the geneva convention ?

If a civilian fights, then he's not a civilian. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to them, but they aren't a POW if they aren't a soldier.

and the invading country could take them away and torture them for years?

Everyone is protected against torture and unlimited detention. Civilians can't just be taken away and tortured, legally.

What is the status of US 'civilian' contractors then ?

Civilians, unless they are covert operatives in which case they'd be spies.

I've quoted the convention before on this point and it's not a new standard recently applied to Merika .So if merika does not actually declare war then the convention doesn't apply ?,

It depends on the Convention you're talking about. The Convention on POWs applies to de facto as well as de jure states of war, though.

and what does the convention say about the treatment of civilians then .Where does it say parisans and freedom fighters can be tortured with impunity ?

Who in the world ever said that anybody could be tortured with impunity?

See the Fourth Geneva Convention (Concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons During Times of War):

Article 2 states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared and in an occupation of another country's territory.
Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.
A number of articles specify how Protecting Powers, ICRC and other humanitarian organizations may aid Protected persons.

But, they're not soldiers....or POWs....

[Coito ergo sum]

People on foreign battle fields are soldiers aren't they ? people who take an army to another country are invaders .The geneva convention states that spies may be held for a short peroid of time incomunicado It specfically states that this should NEVER be used to deny someones human rights under the convention !

To qualify as a "soldier" you have meet certain specifications, like wearing a uniform. Being a solider in a declared war is also part of that.

Exceptions apply. Members of the French Resistance were not exactly notorious for wearing uniforms. Nor were the partisans in various other countries. Today they are regarded as soldiers in a declared war. I guess the difference between being a heroic freedom fighter and an unlawful combatant is determined by whose side you are on when you are looking at one such individual.

A person may well be both a heroic freedom fighter, and an unlawful combatant.

If country A and country B go to war, and country A takes over part of country B, it may well be that some civilians of country B do some heroic things to try to push country A out of country B. Those civilian fighters might get captured, and the would not be POWs protected by the Geneva Convention on POWs. The would, however, be protected as human beings under the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. They would NOT be soldiers, just because their fighting was just. They would NOT be entitled to be housed in a common barracks, for example and/or retain their "rank" (as between the prisoners), etc. Civilian combatants would not be entitled to Section 5 rights to send mail and other communications to their home countries, etc.

[Feck]

People on foreign battle fields are soldiers aren't they ? people who take an army to another country are invaders .The geneva convention states that spies may be held for a short peroid of time incomunicado It specfically states that this should NEVER be used to deny someones human rights under the convention !

To qualify as a "soldier" you have meet certain specifications, like wearing a uniform. Being a solider in a declared war is also part of that.

Yes, according to the Geneva Conventions, a soldier, to be protected by the Geneva Conventions, must carry the Geneva Convention ID card, be wearing a uniform, etc. That's why "spies" are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. The whole idea of robed, covert, "freedom fighters" masquerading as civilians being protected by the Geneva Conventions on POWs or otherwise protected as soldiers is a new standard being applied to the US that was never applied to anyone else. If you're a civilian you're protected as a civilian. If a civilian turns covert combatant, then he isn't protected at all, except against torture (as that term is defined under international law, which is ambiguous in certain areas) and inhuman treatment. That's why a guy like Gary Powers, the US U2 pilot shot down in the Soviet Union had no Geneva Convention rights afforded to combat soldiers. That's why the German soldiers in WW2 who landed in the US and started working on blowing up bridges and stuff were NOT considered POWs when they were captured. They weren't entitled to shit.

Do you not think that using Nazi Germany's treatment of prisoners as an example proves my point ?

[Coito ergo sum]

People on foreign battle fields are soldiers aren't they ? people who take an army to another country are invaders .The geneva convention states that spies may be held for a short peroid of time incomunicado It specfically states that this should NEVER be used to deny someones human rights under the convention !

To qualify as a "soldier" you have meet certain specifications, like wearing a uniform. Being a solider in a declared war is also part of that.

Yes, according to the Geneva Conventions, a soldier, to be protected by the Geneva Conventions, must carry the Geneva Convention ID card, be wearing a uniform, etc. That's why "spies" are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. The whole idea of robed, covert, "freedom fighters" masquerading as civilians being protected by the Geneva Conventions on POWs or otherwise protected as soldiers is a new standard being applied to the US that was never applied to anyone else. If you're a civilian you're protected as a civilian. If a civilian turns covert combatant, then he isn't protected at all, except against torture (as that term is defined under international law, which is ambiguous in certain areas) and inhuman treatment. That's why a guy like Gary Powers, the US U2 pilot shot down in the Soviet Union had no Geneva Convention rights afforded to combat soldiers. That's why the German soldiers in WW2 who landed in the US and started working on blowing up bridges and stuff were NOT considered POWs when they were captured. They weren't entitled to shit.

Do you not think that using Nazi Germany's treatment of prisoners as an example proves my point ?

Where, exactly, did I use Nazi Germany's treatment of prisoners as an example?

I wrote: "That's why the German soldiers in WW2 who landed in the US and started working on blowing up bridges and stuff were NOT considered POWs when they were captured. They weren't entitled to shit." I was referring to the US treatment of captured German soldiers who removed their uniforms to engage it bridge-bombing and other activities "covertly."

[Hermit]

A person may well be both a heroic freedom fighter, and an unlawful combatant.

Indeed, but the Geneva Convention states:

• 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.

In short, individuals suspected of being unlawful combatants are entitled to POW status until it is established that they are in fact unlawful combatants. That is not happening, is it?

Regardless of their status, they are also entitled to a trial. Languishing for six years or more in Guantanamo or elsewhere without even being charged, let alone brought to trial, and then released seems to make a mockery of that entitlement.

And then we have the abuses. People like you tend to regard them as aberrations, but the Stanford prison experiment points to that sort of thing happening as inevitable. Allowing unlawful combatants to be handled in extra-judicial ways guarantees that they will be subjected to far graver violations of very basic human rights - and on a greater scale - than the volunteers that were the prisoners in that experiment. 'Homeland' type laws that facilitate this are undermining those basic human rights all over the world.

[Coito ergo sum]

A person may well be both a heroic freedom fighter, and an unlawful combatant.

Indeed, but the Geneva Convention states:

• 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.

In short, individuals suspected of being unlawful combatants are entitled to POW status until it is established that they are in fact unlawful combatants. That is not happening, is it?

The determination is not required to be made by a court. "Should there be any doubt" does not necessitate that a charge be leveled and a trial ensue on the issue of status. The detaining country makes that determination.

Can you point to examples where Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Holland, etc. - the enlightened countries - put the non-combatant status of captured persons in war before "competent tribunals?"

Regardless of their status, they are also entitled to a trial.

They aren't, not necessarily. One thing is for sure, if they are POW's then they most assuredly are NOT entitled to a trial. They haven't even committed a crime, generally speaking. Soldiers aren't criminals. That's why the get to go to POW camps subject to the Geneva Convention on POWs. They sit there until the hostilities are over, without trial, indefinitely.

What would you try them for? Firing at the enemy?

Languishing for six years or more in Guantanamo or elsewhere without even being charged, let alone brought to trial, and then released seems to make a mockery of that entitlement.

What entitlement? If they are POW's they HAVE NO SUCH ENTITLEMENT! Unless, of course, they committed some crime. Going to war is NOT a crime! A soldier, enlisted in his or her countries army, is not a criminal. So, what are you going to try POW's for? "Coming before the court, your honor, is John Q. Person, he is charged with being in the military forces of country X and discharging his weapon at American soldiers during a time of war." WTF?

1. If the Al Qaeta fighters, not representing any country, not wearing uniforms, not carrying POW ID cards, are Geneva Convention POW's then they are not "entitled" to any trial. They are "entitled" to go to a prisoner of war camp, retain their rank held before capture, send letters and packages to their homes and families, and receive same, and sleep in common barracks like on Hogan's Heroes and in the movie Escape from Stalag 17, among other POW benefits.

2. If they Al Qaeta fighters are not Geneva Convention POW's and are fighting covertly on the side of the enemy in a war or other hostilities, then they are equivalent to Gary Powers, who was shot down over Russia in his U2 and equivalent to covert German spies captured in WW2 in the US. They aren't entitled to speedy trials. They aren't entitled to jack shit. If the detaining country wants to put them on military trials for war crimes or something like that, fine. But, remember the cold war saying about spies? "If you're captured, you're on your own?" That's what the rule was, and that's what it is now. Spies could be shot - and there was no fucking trial. The fact is, the US is treating these shit bags way better than US, British, French, German and Russian non-uniformed combatants were treated during the Cold War.

And then we have the abuses. People like you tend to regard them as aberrations, but the Stanford prison experiment points to that sort of thing happening as inevitable. Allowing unlawful combatants to be handled in extra-judicial ways guarantees that they will be subjected to far graver violations of very basic human rights - and on a greater scale - than the volunteers that were the prisoners in that experiment. 'Homeland' type laws that facilitate this are undermining those basic human rights all over the world.

People like me?

Of course they happen - every war - by ever country. When they do happen, whether or not they are aberrations, they should be vigorously prosecuted and if American soldiers commit murders, rapes, etc., they should be convicted and executed or jailed.