JMS Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 You took my statement and morphed it into killing prisoners. Congratulations. Unless I misread the article this kid threw a grenade at our soldiers injuring two. He should have never left the battle field, this shouldn't be an issue. So exactly how did I "morph" your intended meaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 You took my statement and morphed it into killing prisoners. Congratulations. Well, that was kind of what your post looked like. That's why I asked if you were making a different point. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 My point was that best case this kid should have been killed in the act of attacking our soldiers. Unfortunately that didn't happen and now we are stuck in the position of holding him as a prisoner. Fair enough. He is a prisoner of war. We get lots of those. I thought GITMO was for terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyBird Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 I think my point is pretty clear. Kid commited act of war and should have been killed doing it. Unfortunately that didn't happen so now we have another prisoner to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyBird Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Fair enough. He is a prisoner of war. We get lots of those.I thought GITMO was for terrorists. GITMO is a joke and so was Bush's whole "illegal combatant" BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 Yeah because liberals know preteens don't have an evil bone in their body including the 9 year old who offed his dad with a gun who was living with a male companion instead of the boy's mom. He was just confused but an excellent shooter. Or the 13 year old carjacker arrested a couple of weeks ago. Well before you knock liberals I would just state that most of our best wartime leaders have been liberals. From Washington, to Lincoln, to Wilson, to the Roosevelt Boys. So before you go knocking liberals on ability to comprehend wartime issues I would just check that nonsense at the door. To your broader point, so is that an argument to execute all children found on the battlefield? Because some children have done some messed up things? What's your point? you want to renegotiate the Geneva convention, or do you just want to rewrite the constitution which requires us to actually adhere to our international agreements? What's your point? What does "conservatism" mean to you. Never having to uphold your laws or international agreements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 I thought GITMO was for terrorists. No, not just terrorists. The worst of the worst terrorists, we were told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Oh now it's an act of war. I wasn't sure because the Bush administration argued for 7 years it wasn't an act of war. If it is indeed an act of war then it's a done deal. By international agreement 4th Geneva convention children under the age of 15 do recieve special rights as protected status, even when used as soldiers against a signatory force.Thanks for clearing that up. Yeah these arm chair generals who haven't sniffed a situation involving an exchange of gunfire IEDs, or snipers still ignore we are at war with terrorists. And the foolish declaration of a helpless combatant is comical when they only become "helpless" after triggering a bomb or running out of ammo though several did pretend to be helpless and then went the suicide bomber route after some of my troops attempted to capture oops "arrest" them. Geneva convention applies to those in uniform representing a nation / country. Then again liberals were calling the terrorists freedom fighters who accidently tortured and killed the population of the country they sneaked into post Iraq war part deux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 ...who accidently tortured and killed the population of the country...So now our own soldiers are terrorists? At least they FIGHT, unlike you, who was probably a REMF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Then again liberals were calling the terrorists freedom fighters who accidently tortured and killed the population of the country they sneaked into post Iraq war part deux. I don't know a single liberal who has ever said anything remotely like that. But then again, we normal people have gotten used to NavyDave lying through his angry teeth about what liberals say and do, and we don't worry about it much anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 You took my statement and morphed it into killing prisoners. Congratulations. You took this prisoner and morphed it into returning fire on the battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 And now, for something completely different. Yeah because liberals know preteens don't have an evil bone in their body including the 9 year old who offed his dad with a gun who was living with a male companion instead of the boy's mom. He was just confused but an excellent shooter. Or the 13 year old carjacker arrested a couple of weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 Yeah these arm chair generals who haven't sniffed a situation involving an exchange of gunfire IEDs, or snipers still ignore we are at war with terrorists. And the foolish declaration of a helpless combatant is comical when they only become "helpless" after triggering a bomb or running out of ammo though several did pretend to be helpless and then went the suicide bomber route after some of my troops attempted to capture oops "arrest" them. Every living chairman of the joint chiefs of staff not appointed by Bush, 5 of them, along with 70 other generals and high ranking Pentagon officials, is who you are calling "arm chair" generals.... Then you are promoting the judgment of Cheney, Feith, and Wolfowitz who collectively never served a day in the uniform as your models of military judgemnt... thanks for playing :doh: Geneva convention applies to those in uniform representing a nation / country. Then again liberals were calling the terrorists freedom fighters who accidently tortured and killed the population of the country they sneaked into post Iraq war part deux. That's what bush argued. Argued incorrectly according to US laws and hte Supreme court and about 70 years of precident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 My point was that best case this kid should have been killed in the act of attacking our soldiers. Unfortunately that didn't happen and now we are stuck in the position of holding him as a prisoner. Your point is that any time the US Military captures an enemy combatant, it's a less than optimal result? Or is that only when the combatant is a child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyBird Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Your point is that any time the US Military captures an enemy combatant, it's a less than optimal result? Or is that only when the combatant is a child? It's unfortunate that every enemy combatant doesn't meet a very timely death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Geneva convention applies to those in uniform representing a nation / country. Not according to the people who wrote them. Link. (Internationatoinal Committee of the Red Cross, commentary on the 4th Geneva Convention of '49.) PARAGRAPH 4. -- PERSONS PROTECTED BY OTHER CONVENTIONSThe definition of protected persons in paragraph 1 is a very broad one which includes members of the armed forces -- fit for service, wounded, sick or shipwrecked -- who fall into enemy hands. The treatment which such persons are to receive is laid down in special Conventions to which the provision refers. They. must be treated as prescribed in the texts which concern them. But if, for some reason, prisoner of war status -- to take one example -- were denied to them, they would become protected persons under the present Convention. [4th Convention.] There are certain cases about which some hesitation may be felt. We may mention, first, the case of partisans, to which Article 4, A (2) Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article', of the Third Convention refers. Members of resistance movements must fulfil certain stated conditions before they can be regarded as prisoners of war. If members of a resistance movement who have fallen in to enemy hands do not fulfil those conditions, they must be considered to be protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention. That does not mean that they cannot be punished for their acts, but the trial and sentence must take place in accordance with the provisions of Article 64 . . . and the Articles which follow it. Doubts may also arise concerning the case of members of the crews of the merchant navy and civil aircraft. The Third Convention lays down that they are to be prisoners of war unless they enjoy more favourable treatment under other provisions of international law. The reference here is in particular to the Eleventh Hague Convention of 1907 relative to certain restrictions on the exercise of the right of capture in maritime war. It is possible that under certain circumstances [p.51] application of the present Convention may constitute the more favourable treatment referred to above. . . . In short, all the particular cases we have just been considering confirm a general principle which is embodied in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that that is a satisfactory solution -- not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. Kinda tough to wiggle around that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 If he kills somebody after he's released it will likely have more to do with how he's been treated and what he's learned over his last 6.5 years in a terrorist detention facility with no rights or priviledges and less to do with who he was when he was arrested at the age of 12....Advocating the killing of 12 year olds. You sir are more of a problem than any 12 year old could be. I am actually more worried about you taking the side of someone who had the power to pull the pin on a hand grenade and nearly kill two of our soldiers. I am with Ax on this one, if we find cells of people willing to fight or even indicating they want to fight, we wipe out the whole cell. This will eliminate the problem of treating captured terrorist fairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I am actually more worried about you taking the side of someone who had the power to pull the pin on a hand grenade and nearly kill two of our soldiers. I am with Ax on this one, if we find cells of people willing to fight or even indicating they want to fight, we wipe out the whole cell. This will eliminate the problem of treating captured terrorist fairly. It is sad that you really think that someone is "taking the side of the bad guys" if they ask whether murdering captured 12 year old prisoners is a good idea. I might add that military intelligence would not get much good information to assist our troops if all they hade was a bunch of corpses. Carry on, however. If it makes you feel more secure in your opinions to assume that everyone who questions the treatment of prisoners is a terrorist sympathiser, go right ahead. Me and George Washington are going to sit over here with the civilized people. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 If he kills somebody after he's released it will likely have more to do with how he's been treated and what he's learned over his last 6.5 years in a terrorist detention facility with no rights or priviledges and less to do with who he was when he was arrested at the age of 12.... Oh, wow. Yep you're right. He was only captured trying to kill our soldiers. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Oh, wow. Yep you're right. He was only captured trying to kill our soldiers. :doh: About one million Iraqi soldiers were trying to kill our soldiers too. Not all of them became terrorists after the fighting was over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 It is sad that you really think that someone is "taking the side of the bad guys" if they ask whether murdering captured 12 year old prisoners is a good idea.I might add that military intelligence would not get much good information to assist our troops if all they hade was a bunch of corpses. Carry on, however. If it makes you feel more secure in your opinions to assume that everyone who questions the treatment of prisoners is a terrorist sympathiser, go right ahead. Me and George Washington are going to sit over here with the civilized people. :laugh: So people in our military are uncivilized? I have always thought they could open fire on targets that fired on them first? Are we suppose to start doing back ground checks first, before firing back? The kid is lucky to be alive, he fires on our soldiers, to be honest I am not sure why they didn't shoot him. They didn't know if he was 12, 18 or 65 when he threw the grenade, as Ax said, he should thank us for giving him a chance to live. Well if we hold them for questioning we catch heat for putting spiders in their cells and making them cry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 About one million Iraqi soldiers were trying to kill our soldiers too. Not all of them became terrorists after the fighting was over. Maybe he should have found a uniform before chucking the grenade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 If he kills somebody after he's released it will likely have more to do with how he's been treated and what he's learned over his last 6.5 years in a terrorist detention facility with no rights or priviledges and less to do with who he was when he was arrested at the age of 12.... Even more justification to have killed him at the time he was tossing grenades at our troops. Or do you think we should just give him an "Amnesty For Life" card and set him free. Maybe him and his victims could have a beer with the President! Advocating the killing of 12 year olds. That one in particular? Damn right. What would you advocate, a trip to Disney World? Maybe a PS3 and all the latest war games? You sir are more of a problem than any 12 year old could be. Yeah, obviously me getting some peoples panties all up in a bunch by posting thoughts on a message board, is much more of a problem for our troops than "any 12 year old" tossing grenades at them. But hey, if that's what you need to feel better about yourself, have at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 If he kills somebody after he's released it will likely have more to do with how he's been treated and what he's learned over his last 6.5 years in a terrorist detention facility with no rights or priviledges and less to do with who he was when he was arrested at the age of 12....Advocating the killing of 12 year olds. You sir are more of a problem than any 12 year old could be. So the throwing of a grenade at someone was an 'accident' and it was because he was in gitmo from 1yr of to 12yrs old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.