Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

[Earthborn]

Of course, this position obviates the central tenet of the Geneva Conventions

It is not a 'position', it is simply a statement of fact: modern uniforms make soldiers a lot less obvious than traditional redcoats. Don't attribute opinions to me when I express none.

which is strange, since you seem to argue for them a priori when applied to US forces.

Do I? I haven't noticed.

A tactic which violates their responsibility against acts of perfidy, in carrying their arms openly, in wearing a fixed distinctive sign and in conducting operations within the laws and customs of war - all requirements that must be met to qualify for POW protection.

No argument there.

It is not.

That's what I thought.

I do not.

Noted.

Nope. The reason for the rule is to shield, as much as possible, the surrounding non-combatant population from the affects of the ongoing conflict.

That too.

For the Third Geneva Convention it does per Article 4.

That's not the way I read it. It says that people with some characteristics are to be considered POW and need to be treated in a particular way. But it does not say that people who fall short of this lose their protections.

 

[Earthborn]

Why is it that "progressives" (snip)

I am a "progressive" now, am I? Okay, whatever... If you say so.

(snip) who supposedly want to stand up and encourage us all to act more humanely and civilized towards one another seem to end up supporting ideas that are unimaginably barbaric?

Explain how pointing out that soldiers wear camouflage equals supporting ideas that are unimaginably barbaric.

 

[Elind]

That's one question I can't answer.

Because it's fun?

 

[Elind]

That's not the way I read it. It says that people with some characteristics are to be considered POW and need to be treated in a particular way. But it does not say that people who fall short of this lose their protections.

Tell us again, just for the hell of it, what protection should they have?

(This could get boring if we don't repeat the mantras every now and then)

 

[Earthborn]

Tell us again, just for the hell of it, what protection should they have?

Define "should". Do you mean "should according to international law" or are you trying to entice me to express a purely personal opinion on the matter? Sorry, you won't hear any moral judgements from me. You would just disagree with them anyway.

Also, a much more interesting question is: what do you think what protections people detained by the US military should have?

 

[Ziggurat]

Explain how pointing out that soldiers wear camouflage equals supporting ideas that are unimaginably barbaric.

You equated camouflage with combatants dressing as civilians. They are not remotely equivalent, from a practical standpoint, a legal standpoint, or a moral standpoint. Your comparison trivializes the crimes of those who engage in combat wearing civilian clothing and do not carry their arms openly.

 

[Earthborn]

You equated camouflage with combatants dressing as civilians.

If by "equated" you mean pointing out there are a few similarities, yes.

They are not remotely equivalent, from a practical standpoint, a legal standpoint, or a moral standpoint.

From a legal standpoint, they are not remotely equivalent. From a moral standpoint, it depends on which morality one believes in. But practically there are similarities among the obvious differences: both are intended to make a combatant harder to spot.

Is pointing that out is "supporting ideas that are unimaginably barbaric" ? Or are you just desperately trying to attribute an opinion to me by interpreting my words in the most negative way possible? Even if it has nothing to do with what I said?

 

[Elind]

Sorry, you won't hear any moral judgements from me. You would just disagree with them anyway.

Then why the hell are you bothering posting here? Do you seriously think it's because you are considered the world's authority on these issues, and therefore we will base our opinions on you pronouncements? We are exchanging opinions, and often information. You are expressing emotions. We all do that perhaps. Right now I'm expressing emotion about your lack of intelligence because I would have liked to see more of it; but that too will pass.

 

[Cylinder]

both are intended to make a combatant harder to spot.

Not true. Using a civilian ruse does not make combatants harder to spot - it makes them harder to identify as a combatant. Wear of camo does not make one harder to identify as a combatant - it makes one harder to see or spot.

Yes - it's splitting hairs. In this case splitting hairs is also the substance of the requirement.

 

[Elind]

Not true. Using a civilian ruse does not make combatants harder to spot - it makes them harder to identify as a combatant. Wear of camo does not make one harder to identify as a combatant - it makes one harder to see or spot.

Yes - it's splitting hairs. In this case splitting hairs is also the substance of the requirement.

Splitting hairs is the substance of Earthborn.

 

[a_unique_person]

Splitting hairs is the substance of Earthborn.

Abusing forum members appears to be your stock answer of last resort these days.

 

[Elind]

That's 14 words. Control yourself.

 

[Ziggurat]

From a legal standpoint, they are not remotely equivalent. From a moral standpoint, it depends on which morality one believes in.

I would have thought that I could take it as a given that we all think minimizing civilian casualties is important. If we all believe that, then it doesn't MATTER if someone else believes something different: we judge things by OUR values and beliefs, and doing otherwise is a perverse sort of moral relativism or cowardice.

But practically there are similarities among the obvious differences: both are intended to make a combatant harder to spot.

Even there, you're wrong: dressing as a civilian depends on the soldier considering firing at you refraining from doing so because they choose not to kill civilians. It abuses a set of decisions that one side (namely, us) chooses to operate under. The effectiveness of camouflage does not depend upon ANY choice being made by the enemy.

Is pointing that out is "supporting ideas that are unimaginably barbaric" ?

I'm not going to defend the particulars of someone else's criticism, but you were wrong. Not a little bit wrong, not wrong on a detail. You were wrong on a major issue, in fundamental ways, and you remain wrong on the issue. It probably is hyperbole to say that you were "supporting ideas that are unimaginably barbaric". But what you DID do, and what you CONTINUE to do, is intentionally blur the line between acts that are not only criminal but also barbaric and evil, and acts that are an unavoidable and acceptable part of even the most moral wars. Do you understand why someone might take offense to you comparing a practice that our troops legally engage in (camouflage) with despicable crimes of our worst enemies?

 

[Earthborn]

Do you seriously think it's because you are considered the world's authority on these issues

Does someone consider me the world's authority on these issues? Do I know that person?

therefore we will base our opinions on you pronouncements?

Gosh, I hope not. That would be very unwise.

We are exchanging opinions, and often information.

Some of us are here to be challenged in debate, or to challenge others.

You are expressing emotions.

Perhaps. Can you point them out for me so I can try harder to avoid them?

Right now I'm expressing emotion about your lack of intelligence

That's okay. "Intelligence" is a meaningless explanatory fiction anyway...

 

[Earthborn]

In this case splitting hairs is also the substance of the requirement.

In determining whether someone falls under the GC definition of prisoner of war, certainly. It's not relevant to BPSCG's claim that combatants need to be correctly identified before they strike.

The effectiveness of camouflage does not depend upon ANY choice being made by the enemy.

Unless of course the enemy choses to shoot trees...

But what you DID do, and what you CONTINUE to do, is intentionally blur the line between acts that are not only criminal but also barbaric and evil, and acts that are an unavoidable and acceptable part of even the most moral wars.

That is just the result of my refusal to pass moral judgement on things that are not mine to judge. How does that make me "wrong" ?

Do you understand why someone might take offense to you comparing a practice that our troops legally engage in (camouflage) with despicable crimes of our worst enemies?

Of course I understand that some people feel offended when I dare to compare one single characteristic of something they consider good with something they consider evil. But I can only understand by assuming they read too much into what I write then is actually there.

 

[Elind]

Does someone consider me the world's authority on these issues? Do I know that person?

Gosh, I hope not. That would be very unwise.

Some of us are here to be challenged in debate, or to challenge others.

Perhaps. Can you point them out for me so I can try harder to avoid them?

That's okay. "Intelligence" is a meaningless explanatory fiction anyway...

Answer something with more than cutsies, please.

 

[The Fool]

You seem to be claiming that because you are not personally aware of the evidence that led to someone being held at Gitmo that is reason to believe there is no such evidence. I personally am aware of many people who have been held at Gitmo and who have been discussed specifically in these forums, including David Hicks, but I am not aware of anyone who was held without reason.

I’m hoping you can name one such person, and then we can discuss that person.

your claim: Evidence is required before someone can be put in Gitmo.

my request: where is this evidence?



You cannot identify a single piece of evidence held by the US on a single prisoner at gitmo because the US will not reveal it...to you, the accused or anyone else....you just accept it exists in each case...even the cases that have been released with no evidence produced......interesting position to be in.

You paint yourself into these corners constantly. Either there was never any evidence against those released or the US is releasing people they have evidence against...which position are you going to salute? Or maybe you will prefer a change of subject or a swift sidestep like your introduction of the claim "not aware of anyone held without reason"...are you going to abandon the none imprisoned without evidence claim and rewrite it to a none imprisoned without reason claim?

Don't ever forget these are the "worst of the worst".....maybe you can rewrite that too.

lets face it Mycroft...for all you know you could be holding a kabul cab driver in there for the last four years who's only crime is that he annoyed a northern alliance warlord by short changing him....you seem to not know or care.

Places like Gitmo happen not because there are people in the world who want to construct them....that is always going to be a fact....its because a lot more people don't care.

 

[Elind]

your claim: Evidence is required before someone can be put in Gitmo.

According to fools perhaps, but in reality capture is required first

 

[BPSCG]

In determining whether someone falls under the GC definition of prisoner of war, certainly. It's not relevant to BPSCG's claim that combatants need to be correctly identified before they strike.

Explain to me what the Islamist terrorists' purpose is in wearing civilian clothing instead of camoflage, since you seem to think they are pretty much equivalent, when, by wearing camoflage and carrying their arms openly, they could avail themselves of the protections of POW status under the GC.

 

[a_unique_person]

According to fools perhaps, but in reality capture is required first

Are you saying you should capture and imprison people first, then build your case for doing so?