This Iraq war, as it is called, is unlike any conflict known in recent history. Before this, war was considered a battle between opposing military groups. Now, the soldiers are fighting a different battle against various religious factions. These secular groups do not follow the protocols of the Geneva Convention, which is supposed to govern the rules of war, but the military is still bound by these rules. Whether you love Bush or hate him, does anybody think that this fight can be realistically won under these conditions?

This Iraq war, as it is called, is unlike any conflict known in recent history. Before this, war was considered a battle between opposing military groups. Now, the soldiers are fighting a different battle against various religious factions. These secular groups do not follow the protocols of the Geneva Convention, which is supposed to govern the rules of war, but the military is still bound by these rules. Whether you love Bush or hate him, does anybody think that this fight can be realistically won under these conditions?


Uhhh, where have you been the last 60 years?  Every war over the past 6 decades has been an ugly, nasty affair.  One in which at least one side does gross violations of the Geneva Convention.

Now remember, I was in the Infantry.  So I have great respect for the "Geneva Convention" and the "Laws of Land Warfare".  But almost every conflict the US has been involved in since the end of WWII has had the other side violate them time and time again.  And it happens in almost every conflict.  Iraq and Iran both violated them numerous times in their conflict.  As did Iraq when it attacked Kuwait.

The Soviet Union violated them in Afganistan, and both Vietnam and North Korea-China violated them in the Korean & Vietnam wars.

But the last thing I would ever want to see happen is for the US to purposefully violate them themselves.  However, I do not loose much sleep over the insane concoctions that most people claim are "violations".

Making a captured prisoner (who under the "Geneva Convention" is not even entitled to their protections) wear underwear on his head is a violation worthy of a Nuremburg trial, yet cutting the head off of a captured soldier is not?  That is insanity at it's finest.

And here, let's be perfectly honest.  The vast majority of people we are fighting in Iraq and Afganistan are not even covered under the "Geneva Convention".  In fact, it would be perfectly legal under that treaty to summarily execute them.

Myself, I say that if anything else, we more closely follow the Geneva Convention.  And those 600 detainees that the US wants to release from Gitmo?  Release them.  Send every one of them back to their home nation.  But oh no, we can't do that.  Because almost every one of them is already under a death sentence, or will face long years in a prison.

When one side of a conflict refuses to follow the convention, it "takes the gloves off" in many ways for the other side.  But the US does not work that way.  So we will continue to put captured combatants into prisons for years, and they will continue to cut the heads off of ours.  And they are not like that just with us.

In Afganistan, it was the same way against the Soviets.  Captured soldiers were beheaded, and none were ever reported to the Red Cross.  Israel turns over everybody it captures, but the soldiers kidnapped last year by Palestine and Lebanon have yet to be seen by the Red Cross (or it's sister agencies).  Our prison camps are open to Red Cross and UN inspectors, while the opponents "Prison Camps" are really just ditches and alleys that they dump the bodies in after they are finished torturing them.

No, we still need to follow the Geneva Convention.  But I think we need to follow it more closely.  And for the vast majority of combatants captured, that would mean executions.

And the same thing would follow if Israel followed the Convention more closely.

You could call it a war.  I call it an occupation.

I'll have to re-familiarize myself on the Geneva Conventions to comment.  I did not know you could just execute detainees without so much as a trial.

I'll have to re-familiarize myself on the Geneva Conventions to comment.  I did not know you could just execute detainees without so much as a trial.


There is a legal definition for enemy combatants who do not follow a clear chain of command, and blend into the general population by wearing civilian clothes.

It is called "Spy".  And Spies are purposefully excluded from the Geneva Convention.  In fact, the convention says something along the lines of "you can treat them however you wish, as long as it is humane".

If Vietnam was a war then so is Iraq.

There is a legal definition for enemy combatants who do not follow a clear chain of command, and blend into the general population by wearing civilian clothes.

It is called "Spy".  And Spies are purposefully excluded from the Geneva Convention.  In fact, the convention says something along the lines of "you can treat them however you wish, as long as it is humane".

Ah, yes:
Combatant who are captured while spying do not have the right to prisoner of war status unless they were wearing their military uniforms. (Protocol I, Art. 46)

How many spies are imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere in American custody? 

Also:
"The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions."

So it is debatable.  But how many prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were caught in the condition described above? We do not know why a lot of the prisoners are there.  Some of them were picked up on a tip-off after being ratted out by somebody else. 

And:
"In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)"

In this case the "combatants" are our "combatants" who arrested what our government is calling "non-combatants."  The Conventions still require us to treat them humanely, and there is a lot of inhumane treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. 

"Judicial" versus "extrajudicial" executions is a great loophole.  If our government calls executions "judicial" and the U.N. disagrees, let the U.N. tryy and do something about it. 

In fact, the whole question of the Geneva Conventions is moot because our unitary executive president has effectively declared himself exempt and free to conduct himself however he chooses.


If Vietnam was a war then so is Iraq.

The last declared war we had in this country was WWII, which might be the last declared war we shall ever have because the president is now allowed to do whatever he wants without consent of congress.

The United States (government) wants to make Iraq a colony.

The United States (government) wants to make Iraq a colony.


  The 52nd state, actually...

  I just bought a timeshare there...

Er... is there even a 51st state?

In fact, the convention says something along the lines of "you can treat them however you wish, as long as it is humane".



There it is, that pesky concept,  humane.

Er... is there even a 51st state?



Good catch, Doms.  No, there isn't.

These secular groups do not follow the protocols of the Geneva Convention


The US doesn't either (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc.) so it doesn't really matter. If it doesn't apply to us, it shouldn't apply to them either.

The US doesn't either (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc.) so it doesn't really matter. If it doesn't apply to us, it shouldn't apply to them either.


This is a circular arguement.

The "Enemy Combatants" fall outside of the Geneva Convention, so there is no requirement to treat them under the convention.

In addition, the people captured do not follow the Convention.  They torture and sumarily execute prisoners.  They hide in schools, religious shrines, and medical facilities.  They take refuge in civilian areas.

And finally, the Geneva Convention actually states that crimes against the Convention are to be handled with a Military Tribunal.

Er... is there even a 51st state?


  Israel...

The US doesn't either (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc.) so it doesn't really matter. If it doesn't apply to us, it shouldn't apply to them either.

The US government, no. But the military is still legally bound by these rules. I didn't say that they follow them all of the time, just they are legally bound by the terms in the agreement., that's all

   Israel...

You've got it backwards.  We're a suzerainty of Israel!
::)

  ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION : Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land Section II : Hostilities Chapter II : Spies
    Art. 30. A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial.

 
  Part I : General provisions
  (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.

  groove ;) on...

This Iraq war, as it is called, is unlike any conflict known in recent history. Before this, war was considered a battle between opposing military groups. Now, the soldiers are fighting a different battle against various religious factions. These secular groups do not follow the protocols of the Geneva Convention, which is supposed to govern the rules of war, but the military is still bound by these rules. Whether you love Bush or hate him, does anybody think that this fight can be realistically won under these conditions?


   Civil war...

   Reading the news as it is presented to us, it certainly seems as though the Shiite Arabs are using their new-found freedom from tyranny as a springboard to tribalist anarchy rather than a steppingstone to harmony and nationhood...

   OT: When will this poor planet finally develop the cojones to shake off the curse of Abrahamism groove ;) on...


You've got it backwards.  We're a suzerainty of Israel!
::)


   Israel 51st State  Who is WE, Max, who is WE..! 

   Warning:  It's your pal Buchanan, so well...you know... ;)

   Civil war...

   Reading the news as it is presented to us, it certainly seems as though the Shiite Arabs are using their new-found freedom from tyranny as a springboard to tribalist anarchy rather than a steppingstone to harmony and nationhood...

   OT: When will this poor planet finally develop the cojones to shake off the curse of Abrahamism groove ;) on...

   Israel 51st State  Who is WE, Max, who is WE..! 

   Warning:  It's your pal Buchanan, so well...you know... ;)


Pat has some unpleasant notions about who we is and who we ain't.  See, Pat's a socialist...a national socialist!
More than once he's declared America a "White, English-speaking nation," once asking, "What would you rather see in Virginia, a million Englishment or a million Zulus?"
"Zulus," Pat?
I seem to recall something about the "Zulus" of Virginia not being given much choice in the matter!
::)
Pat still gets on TV because, unlike his fellow bigot Michael Savage (nee Weiner), the media bosses never deemed Pat as going "too far."  Michael Savage got his own show on MSNBC--what FOX calls the far left, loony, liberal network--and the third week he had his Saturday afternoon spot (he put the "turd" back in Saturday), he told a gay caller
"You're one of those sodomites....you should only get AIDS and die, you pig!"
Pat Buchanan never went that far, though he did say...I don't recall the quote exactly...the jiz of it was,
"Why is it in this country it's not O.K. to be a practicing bigot, but it is O.K. to be a practicing sodomite?"
We'll meet you half-way, Pat, here's the deal, we'll allow the first thing, but all bigots must be sodomized!

My issues with Israel have everything to do with politics and nothing to do with Jewish people.  A tiny percentage of Jewish people in the world live in Israel, and a miniscule percentage of them are the policy brokers who make all the trouble.
::)