I am so f***ing sick of this garbage

[Hagbard Celine]

The same Iraqi judiciary that's putting Saddam on trial for war crimes. Come on man, pay attention.

Iraqi courts try insurgents

Saddam charged and found to be cocky

 

[no1tovote4]

The main problem is that these people are released without trials whatsoever, even by the Iraqi Tribunals that other people are tried by. Releasing them for Ramadan? That's like releasing Christians without trial because Christmas is coming. They are held until their trials because they are a flight risk. I see no problem with Civil Rights, but I do see a problem with releasing people that haven't been tried just because a religious holiday is coming up.

 

[Said1]

I do not take back what I said. The Geneva Convention affords POWs due process of law and the same human rights our own soldiers get pure and simple.

International Human rights are not the same as American Civil rights. Due process under the Geneva Convention is much different than due process for civilians in America.

Also:

Art 84. A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

Obviously there are exceptions, more than likely where military courts do not exist, as is the case in Iraq, unless I missed something.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Does anyone know why these people are set free without trials? I think it has something to do with Shariah law, but I can't find anything in my notes on the subject.

International Human rights are not the same as American Civil rights. Due process under the Geneva Convention is much different than due process for civilians in America.

Just for the record, I never said "American" civil rights were afforded to prisoners in wartime, just civil rights. And, in reviewing the posts, I believe I am correct in that assessment.

 

[no1tovote4]

Does anyone know why these people are set free without trials? I think it has something to do with Shariah law, but I can't find anything in my notes on the subject.

I was looking for it as well to see if there was something in Islam which particularly regards this as the right thing to do. I have been unable to find something. As far as I understand it there is no reason to absolve these people of crimes because of Ramadan.

Just for the record, I never said "American" civil rights were afforded to prisoners in wartime, just civil rights.

It is true that a Military Tribunal is all that is required as prisoners of war. I would assume that those released are not such prisoners.

 

[Zhukov]

To expect adrenalin-driven soldiers trained to kill (not trained to police) in life or death situations to judge each and every potential combatant's worth as a prisoner is a little naive in my opinion.

Um, it's called a pre-mission briefing. They show you a picture and say don't shoot this guy, we need him. I'm pretty confident our boys can handle that.

 

[theHawk]

Insurgents cannot be classified as Prisoners of War, since they are illegal combatants to begin with.

 

[no1tovote4]

Insurgents cannot be classified as Prisoners of War, since they are illegal combatants to begin with.

By order of the CIC the Insurgents are still treated as POWs regardless of legal status. That is why those who stepped out of bounds at Abu Ghraib were convicted of crimes.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Um, it's called a pre-mission briefing. They show you a picture and say don't shoot this guy, we need him. I'm pretty confident our boys can handle that.

Um, as if, whateverrrrrrrrrr. Not all missions are manhunts. They make arrests whenever they encounter someone suspicious. The point I made is that soldiers can't be expected to judge the pros and cons of every person and situation and then decide to arrest them. We can only expect them to arrest everybody they see as a threat to their security. After they make their arrests, the judicial process can decide guilt or innocence.

 

[Zhukov]

The point I made is that soldiers can't be expected to judge the pros and cons of every person and situation and then decide to arrest them.

The point you were trying to make was based on incorrect assumptions made about what I wrote.

I wrote:

There might be specific people we are looking for to take prisoner to acquire intelligence from

You replied:

To expect adrenalin-driven soldiers trained to kill (not trained to police) in life or death situations to judge each and every potential combatant's worth as a prisoner

Do you see your mistake?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Exactly. The solution here is to stop taking prisoners.

There might be specific people we are looking for to take prisoner to acquire intelligence from, but otherwise...

Do you see the "but otherwise..." you wrote there? This statement doesn't take into account those missions where soldiers might run into potential combatants and need to arrest people they weren't looking for. (in the most sarcastic, undermining, full of myself tone imaginable) Do you see your mistake Mr silly megalomaniac?

 

[Said1]

Do you see the "but otherwise..." you wrote there? This statement doesn't take into account those missions where soldiers might run into potential combatants and need to arrest people they weren't looking for. (in the most sarcastic, undermining, full of myself tone imaginable) Do you see your mistake Mr silly megalomaniac?

What's that prove?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

What do you mean "what's that prove." It proves I won the argument between him and me. Didn't you read posts 19, 26, 29, 30, & 31?

 

[Said1]

What do you mean "what's that prove." It proves I won the argument between him and me. Didn't you read the posts?

It proves nothing. Didn't you understand the original post Zuk made, to which you are arguing?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Yeah, I quoted it. He said the solution should be for us to stop arresting people unless they were specifically targeted for capture. I pointed out the necessity for soldiers to arrest people in other situations. Then he told me I misunderstood. But I didn't because all he said was that soldiers need to stop arresting people. He left out the possibility of soldiers having to arrest people for things other than questioning, like shooting at coalition forces or having bomb parts in their house. Or even stealing an old lady's handbag.

 

[Said1]

He left out the possibility of soldiers having to arrest people for things other than questioning, like shooting at coalition forces or having bomb parts in their house. Or even stealing an old lady's handbag.

No he didn't, he was saying shoot them.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

No he didn't, he was saying shoot them.

Yeah that's definitely the undertone I picked up from that post...

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Hahaha, blow up the brown people. :soul: :arabia:

How can he be taken seriously?

I picked up the "shoot 'em all, let God sort 'em out" vibe too, but I didn't want to dignify it.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Hahaha, blow up the brown people. :soul: :arabia:

How can he be taken seriously?

I picked up the "shoot 'em all, let God sort 'em out" vibe too, but I didn't want to dignify it.

The middle guy looks like a black Ernie... and the last guy is most definitely yellow. Jeez.

 

[Said1]

Hahaha, blow up the brown people. :soul: :arabia:

How can he be taken seriously?

Wow, cutting rebuttal. I'm utterly speachless, even though the humor was found in you and your little jig of joy of misunderstanding, junior.