The War On The War On Terror

[Larkinn]

nope, there are distinctions between combatants. Those that hide behind civilians and set off IED are not covered.

Actually, hiding behind civilians and setting off IED's does not disqualify you from the protections of the geneva conventions.

 

[Annie]

Actually, hiding behind civilians and setting off IED's does not disqualify you from the protections of the geneva conventions.

and you reach that conclusion how?

 

[Larkinn]

and you reach that conclusion how?

Umm because it specifically states who is under the protections of them and it never mentions setting off IED's nor killing civilians as either a requirement for protection nor a reason to deny protection. Therefore those acts do not effect the protections that one recieves under the GC, and hence one can recieve them even when one has committed those acts.

 

[Superlative]

Yes, they do define where they apply. However that the terrorists did not sign them is irrelevant. Whether they are combatants or not and fall under the provisions of the GC depends on their status as fighters, NOT whether they signed the GC or not.

nope, there are distinctions between combatants. Those that hide behind civilians and set off IED are not covered.

Umm because it specifically states who is under the protections of them and it never mentions setting off IED's nor killing civilians as either a requirement for protection nor a reason to deny protection. Therefore those acts do not effect the protections that one recieves under the GC, and hence one can recieve them even when one has committed those acts.

Bring it all here

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=49403

 

[red states rule]

Umm because it specifically states who is under the protections of them and it never mentions setting off IED's nor killing civilians as either a requirement for protection nor a reason to deny protection. Therefore those acts do not effect the protections that one recieves under the GC, and hence one can recieve them even when one has committed those acts.

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

Terrorists are NOT covered under the GC

 

[Annie]

Umm because it specifically states who is under the protections of them and it never mentions setting off IED's nor killing civilians as either a requirement for protection nor a reason to deny protection. Therefore those acts do not effect the protections that one recieves under the GC, and hence one can recieve them even when one has committed those acts.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

Third Convention Geneva Conventions:

...Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.

6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Convention.

7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict.

8. In addition to the categories of persons mentioned in Article 13 of the First and Second Conventions, all members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as defined in Article 43 of this Protocol, shall be entitled to protection under those Conventions if they are wounded or sick or, in the case of the Second Convention, shipwrecked at sea or in other waters.

Article 45.-Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities

1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.

3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, an such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.

 

[Larkinn]

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack.

Does that talk about killing civilians or setting off IED's? No? Then why the hell is it bolded as if it was a reasonable response?

 

[red states rule]

Does that talk about killing civilians or setting off IED's? No? Then why the hell is it bolded as if it was a reasonable response?

Were you dropped on your head at birth? Facts do not seem to be able to make it through to your brain

 

[Larkinn]

Were you dropped on your head at birth? Facts do not seem to be able to make it through to your brain

Whup...rsr agrees with you Kathianne. Thats a relief...now I know you are wrong.

 

[red states rule]

Whup...rsr agrees with you Kathianne. Thats a relief...now I know you are wrong.

Libs are the biggest ally the terrorists have in the US

 

[Annie]

Does that talk about killing civilians or setting off IED's? No? Then why the hell is it bolded as if it was a reasonable response?

Why, are the soldiers supposed to just run over the IED's? The deal is to avoid civilian casualties, which they not only do, but put their own lives at risk trying to avoid civilian casualties while routing out the insurgents that hide in their homes. Like the Constitution, the GC are not a suicide pact.

And you are wrong in them pertaining to one side only, that's patently false and ridiculous. The rules our military people follow are based upon the GC, but they do not require them to always be right or face court martial-which is what you are setting up, war crimes.

 

[red states rule]

Whup...rsr agrees with you Kathianne. Thats a relief...now I know you are wrong.

Agreeing with Kathy - I could not be more right and correct on the issue

She is a class act