Iraq feels the liberal way of the west...

[Pirog]

The one prohibiting countries to invade other countries.
I'm not going to look it up and phrase it as it is written, or find the number of the paragraph, if that is what you wanted.

The treatment of the so called "non-combatants" are also violating international law, since that clearly states that you are either a civilian or a prisoner of war.

[Meh]

Meh>

I really think we should take west's advice
Let's take this chance to get a civilized discussion going again.

EYE, SKIN, AND HAIR COLOR SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTLY INDICATED IN CANTR.

BE WARNED! WE ARE POISED AND READY TO INVADE IRELAND TO MAKE SURE THE THREAT OF DIRECT INDICATIONS ARE ELIMINATED.

[Pirog]

Meh>

You are getting stranger with every post

[Meh]

Meh>

You are getting stranger with every post

Time change.
Twice a year we change our clocks by an hour.
Screws everyone up for about a week.

[nitefyre]

The treatment of the so called "non-combatants" are also violating international law, since that clearly states that you are either a civilian or a prisoner of war.

Yes very interesting, I wrote an entire report on that to prove my point, with full citations. Its too bad you couldn't find the actual law, that really flaws an arguemnt when they cite something they don't know if it exists.

Prisoner of War?

After the Terrorist strikes by the Terror Organization Al Qaeda on September 11th against civilian Targets such as the World Trade Center and Civil Air Liners, as well as Military Targets like the Pentagon, the President of the United States Convened an emergency session of Congress as well as addressed the World Community of the intentions of the United States. The Patriot Act was signed through both the House and the Senate of Congress and became United States Law, in order, ?to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.? [Patriot Act] The President of the United States recognized the United Nations of New York City upon arrival there, to discuss the matter with over 180 other World Leaders and Representatives. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, also decrees that the Geneva Convention, and its amendment of 1949, is International Law upon treating Prisoners of War. This amendment of 1949 was adopted by the Diplomatic Conference for Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War was signed by the United States in that year, prior to it?s entry into force on 21 October 1950. The United States therefore agree, ?The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.? [Article I, Convention III] The United States in light of their prior Agreement to the Geneva Convention has begun holding ?Enemy Combatants? as detainees at the United States Naval Facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; and unlike their current treatment, should receive Legal Protection and Treatment as entitled to them in International Law and the Constitution.

?The prisoner of war, not a criminal, not a transgressor, merely an unfortunate who has been defeated in an armed struggle has nearly always been unwanted, the most unwanted person on earth. In the old days, if he were rich enough to buy his own freedom, that he was allowed to do; if he were physically fit and strong he might be kept as slave labor, for a slave is what he became, but otherwise, beyond the fact that the captor had to deny his enemy the services of his captives what to do with them was a real problem.? [13 Reid] Prisoners, or rather nothing but mere slaves, was just one way the glory of the Prisoner of War (P.O.W.) became. ?The Institution of slavery gave human life a value it had not previously had, making healthy men and women a source of wealth.? [14 Reid] Prisoners of War had no rights, not even to life, and their captors were the only ones to decide their fate; there was no Internationally agreed on convention, and Fairness was rare. Being sent off to the Galleys or sold off to slavery was quite a common practice for POWs. Even the mighty Romans would do such things as ?at once took him to the cross?and after the infliction of exquisite tortures took down the latter?s body and fastened Hannibal, still living, to this cross?.? [16 Reid] King Wau off in China was considered the ?Just King? when all he did was slice an ear off all his enemies, and upon that, released them to freedom. The Greeks would blind their captives before letting them free. These were scars that would rest in their enemy?s ranks and deter them from assaulting back. Even until the Medieval Period, these practices were held, where in 1198 Richard Coeur de Lion blinded 14 knights, and left one with one eye, to lead the troops back to France. Finally by the Enlightenment, Vattel decreed upon surrender, ?his life was sacrosanct,? and a new wave of humanist thinking came through. [Reid]

The United States of America has held Enemy Prisoners of War in the past decades, heeding their signatures to the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of Prisoners of War. Their record is not with out blemishes, as seen in World War II, prior to the Geneva Convention. Record amounts of Japanese Immigrants and other German Immigrants were removed from the General population and displaced into camps. They were segregated from their fellow Americans based on heritage, and the suspicion that they would sabotage the war effort, and in hind sight, even the Americans knew this was wrong. The United States of America also helped prosecute War Crimes done by the Germans, following the War, in the city of Nuremberg, where 21 of the German War Criminals were hung. Two War Crimes Tribunals were set up, one for the German War Criminals, and one for the Japanese War Criminals, of the many Japanese that had bayoneted their prisoners and maltreated them to bones, only 7 were executed. [World History] In the years that followed, the United States and the new World Powers helped write the Convention I-IV, the third directed to the treatment of POWs [Convention III]. Later followed the International Criminal Court, established by the United Nations in 1998, presently based in Hague, but with out ratification by the United States present at the United Nations Security Council. [World History]

The United States, usually a pro-active supporter of the Geneva Convention, and war waged conventionally, and as cleanly as possible, has unfortunately for them, never received the same treatment in return. One of these situations came when Japanese Americans were hauled off to camps, and the United States involvement had just begun. General Wainwright, commander of the American forces in the Bataan peninsula remarked, ?A terrible silence settled over Bataan about noon on April 9.? [Capture and Death March] What ensued was a surrender of 70,000 American Soldiers along with Filipinos, to the Japanese, who believed that it was dishonorable for people to surrender, didn?t care at all for their Captives. Horrors like, ?First thing I did was receive a good beating. And everything I had in my wallet, in my pockets was taken from me. And as I was marched down that road, where they captured me, I passed my battalion commander, Major James Ivy, and he had been tied to a tree and he was stripped to the waist and he was just covered with bayonet holes. He was dead obviously. And he had bled profusely. He had been bayoneted by many, many bayonets. And that's when I knew we had some troubles on our hands. We were in for deep trouble?? as recorded by Bataan death march survivor Richard Gordon. [PBS] Later in Vietnam, the Hanoi Hilton housed many of the American POWs in isolation, in direct violation of the Geneva Convention?s articles pertaining to freedom of movement, and from isolation and abuse, as the famished Senator John McCain was housed there. The United States of America has had a history of having their soldiers treated brutally upon surrender. [Capture and Death March]

The brutal murder of thousands of American and foreign civilians by terrorists on September the 11th, called for an equally unconventional response to the problem. The United States of America signed into law, the Patriot Act to combat terrorism, foreign and domestic. Such matters as authorizing wire taps on phones and computers, freezing suspicious bank accounts and forming a Department of Homeland Security were all installed. Congress placed dozens of measures, and more capabilities in the Justice Department to prosecute crimes then ever before, due to the vulnerable state of the Nation. The United States Government needed to protect its citizens from future strikes against completely unarmed and innocent civilians, and it was evidently a war that was unconventional, and would require measures to be extended. After the attacks, the Immigration and Naturalization Service began detaining illegal aliens as well as those that had did not have the correct papers to be in country. Although it may seem as if this was a repetition of what had occurred with the Japanese population many decades before, it was not an overreaction, as these persons that were detained, did not have the proper papers to be in country, and for some, it was merely bad luck and timing to be in Country, when it was attacked, and the population wanted action. [Patriot Act]

?Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy? Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces?[which] fulfill the following conditions?That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; That of carrying arms openly; That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.?[Article 4, Convention III] The United States of America therefore need not recognize the Al Qaeda fighters that have surrendered as POWs since they do not meet the criteria as recorded by the Geneva Convention. They do not hold recognizable markings, or flags in combat, or on their uniforms to display their origin or country, which they are fighting for. The Al Qaeda terrorists may carry arms openly at times, but when committing terrorist acts such as hijacking an airplane, they concealed their weapons until they struck. As for obeying the laws and customs of war, they?ve attacked two legitimate targets, the U.S.S. Cole and the Pentagon; but have killed thousands of civilians in civil targets like the World Trade Center and the Embassies in Africa, which they claimed credit for. Therefore these terrorists and combatants should not be recognized upon their surrender, as POWs, with the exception of, Taliban fighters since they are, ?Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.? [Article 4, Convention III]
As aforementioned, Al Qaeda terrorists are not entitled to POW treatment as prescribed by the Geneva Convention, but Taliban fighters are in fact permitted to receive such treatment. The United States did forewarn anybody who aided and abetted Terrorists, would be treated as such, and no distinction will be made between them. This in the eyes of the United States means that the United States will not treat the Taliban fighters any worse or better than their Al Qaeda allies. This policy, no matter how held by the World, is United States policy [Patriot Act] and it is that, since these Al Qaeda terrorists are not abiding by the same rules as by the United States agreed to. This hence forms a turmoil whether the administration should hold true to the Geneva Convention, in such trying times. It is therefore a matter of debate whether the United States of America is to treat the Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists as POWs since they do not qualify for such criteria, during such trying times. This is in fact legal by International Law, since it should only apply to, ?all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.? [Article 2, Convention III] Since Afghanistan?s Taliban nor the Al Qaeda are one of the High Contracting Parties, the United States need not support the Convention in such circumstances.
The United States of America is required though, to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In the case of American Citizens that are caught, such as Yaser Hamidi and Jose Padilla, they are not permitted, as ruled by the 2nd Circuit Courts of Appeals in New York, to be held by the United States Military. The United States 9th Circuit Court said, ?the Government cannot indefinitely lock up some 660 foreign fighters who were captured in Afghanistan and are being held?If upheld, the ruling in New York could force Padilla-held incommunicado for almost 19 months-into the Civilian Court system.? The Panel addressed the Constitutional Rights, ?Under any scenario, Padilla will be entitled to the Constitutional protections extended to other citizens.? The President?s plan for detaining United States citizens did not fair well with the 9th Circuit, as they said, ?Detainees at the naval base in Guantánamo should have access to lawyers and the American Court system.? Judge Stephen Reinhardt summed up? ??Even in times of National Emergency?it is the obligation of the Judicial branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the executive branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike.?[McCaffery] The Supreme Court will make the final decision, whether the military must turn over the Detainees to a fairer court then the Military Tribunals, although they are actually based not on American Soil, but rather in Cuba. There lies the final argument of Jurisdiction of the Prisoners, since the Sovereignty of the Guantánamo Bay must be questioned, in order to maintain whether the United States Military has the Jurisdictional power there, as maintained by Solicitor General Theodore Olson; but according to the Supreme Court, ?the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?incorporated no assumption about whether the base was or was not outside the sovereign territory of the United States.? [Greenhouse]
The Geneva Convention, and especially the United Nations, does not support the United States treatment of POWs at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The United States should depend on its Supreme Court decision on how to deal with the Detainees, not POWs, and not use a Military Tribunal. Since the International Community did form an International Criminal Court, the United States should utilize it to prosecute those who are being held indefinitely or if able, release them to the Civil Court system in the cases of American Citizens. The Geneva Convention yet entails for the United States, as a High Contracting Party to execute the fair treatment of its Prisoners, ?undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.? This undermines the legitimacy of claiming that the Convention must only be held in cases involving multiple High Contractors. [Convention III] Finally the United States has also received, ?strong condemnation from the International Red Cross,? [Irish Times] which is the same organization permitted by the Geneva Convention to enter and inspection Prison Camps. [Convention III]
?It is simply beyond belief that human beings can be treated in such an appalling fashion and the governments of the world just stand by without scarcely a word of protest?Prisoners are shackled and the light is left on in their cells 24 hours a day. They are denied proper legal counsel and are not permitted to see their families?there have been 32 suicide attempts.? [Irish Times] The United States, a nation that pursues Liberty, Equality and other such values is creating a blemish, ?nothing short of a human rights scandal,? by such people like British Labour MP Kevin McNamara and Justine Goldstone, former Prosecutor at the UN War Crimes Tribunal. Mr. Begg, the father of one of these Detainees said, ?If he has done something wrong, he should be punished, if not, let him go!? ?The United States has set itself above international law and is quite willing to behave in an inhuman and unlawful manner in pursuit of its own interests. The very least one can would expect is that our Government would condemn this evil practice in the strongest of terms.? [Irish Times] The United States, rather than being the outcast of other western hypocritical regimes, that have their own reasons to insult the United States, such as oil contracts in Iraq, or their alliance with past enemies in the case of Ireland, should instead, become a role model by treating their captives fairly, and follow the words of Vattel.
The United States of America was struck, and lost thousands of its citizens by the actions of twenty terrorists that ignored the rules of war, to instill fear in the American people. The United States government with the Patriot Act and forming Detainee camps for these enemy terrorists and combatants. These camps that leave more room for treatment, but hail as the Waldorf Astoria without checkout, in comparison to how POWs, including Americans were treated in the past. Yet to please the Judicial, the Administration shouldn?t break Constitutional values and place such an argument between the Judicial and the Executive in a time of War, and instead, heed the Circuit Court?s ruling to give the Detainees legal representation and a trial in front of a Civil Court in the United States, should they be American Citizens. And on the words of Mr. Begg, ?If he has done something wrong, he should be punished, if not, let him go!? [Irish Times] And should there be enough evidence for Prosecution, the person should be prosecuted, with legal representation at the International Criminal Court, to provide the United States the legitimacy it once held, in the face of the World, and those who are hiding behind the United Nations whenever they do not agree with United States Policy.

[Pirog]

Meh>

I see. That screwed me up quite a lot to...for example I'm sitting here at 3:20 at night

Nitefyre>

It is late and I really got to sleept...but I promise to read it and get back to you tomorrow.

[nitefyre]

“Geneva Convention III relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.”
2002. UNHCHR. December 30, 2003.
<http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm>

Would be the main source, i can site all the articles though.

I have on hand a written copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and I edited down the lengthy report there, but it is still quite lengthy.

[Pirog]

Nitefyre>

Allright...I have read your report and I'm having a hard time even understanding what you want to have said with it.

It seems like you, in the end, comes to the conclusion that you indeed find it wrong to keep them in detention camps and deprive them of legal representation...although making several (in my view poor) attempts to defend the situation.

I may have misunderstood some things as you bogged the quotes together with your own words, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...

[Pirog]

I must also say that I find many of the things you write appaling.
For example:

Although it may seem as if this was a repetition of what had occurred with the Japanese population many decades before, it was not an overreaction, as these persons that were detained, did not have the proper papers to be in country, and for some, it was merely bad luck and timing to be in Country, when it was attacked, and the population wanted action.

It is beyond me how a person can justify that with "and for some it was merely bad luck"...

[nitefyre]

I must also say that I find many of the things you write appaling.
For example:

Although it may seem as if this was a repetition of what had occurred with the Japanese population many decades before, it was not an overreaction, as these persons that were detained, did not have the proper papers to be in country, and for some, it was merely bad luck and timing to be in Country, when it was attacked, and the population wanted action.

It is beyond me how a person can justify that with "and for some it was merely bad luck"...

Well its obvious you are understanding the words at the shallow depth, that is a report and I guess some people are gonna read just the words. I was going to use some data, but I decided it was better left out for a quick read-that persons entered and exited the country w.o major problems prior to 9/11 and it was terrible luck for them as well that 9/11 occured and they were caught up on a judicial process-along with the Patriot Acts that were mentioned several times. I trusted it that you would understand sociological reasons behind the Government's and the majority of the People's wants to actually have many of these jailed and detained until they could determine what they were doing here, and only if they were in abuse of their immigration status, as many of the 19 terrorists. Perhaps your far left views and passify even a terrorist attack, would not understand why the American people wanted security, and one of the security risks were the countless unaccounted for guests of the United States, ever since the United States started closing down its borders.

Edit: And well, I brought up both sides of this argument, and only the conclusion is my opinion based on the evidence I provided for....

[nitefyre]

Nitefyre>

Allright...I have read your report and I'm having a hard time even understanding what you want to have said with it.

It seems like you, in the end, comes to the conclusion that you indeed find it wrong to keep them in detention camps and deprive them of legal representation...although making several (in my view poor) attempts to defend the situation.

I may have misunderstood some things as you bogged the quotes together with your own words, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...

Well, at least I support my arguments with actual documents and quotes from real persons in the world, *coughs* when your argument has non backed up and lack of sources. i.e., your "intl law" that you kept mentioning but could not back up. your "solution" which Meh pointed out you didn't maintain.

[Pirog]

Nitefyre>

No, you must excuse me for not believing it is justified to bring in muslims and arabs at random just because the terrorists came from the Middle-East. In my eyes it is a horrible way to treat people.

And since you clearly stated that it wasn't an overreaction you can't hide the fact that it is your own personal view.

Well, at least I support my arguments with actual documents and quotes from real persons in the world, *coughs* when your argument has non backed up and lack of sources. i.e., your "intl law" that you kept mentioning but could not back up. your "solution" which Meh pointed out you didn't maintain.

Backing your arguments with a school report you wrote yourself doesn't really prove much, kid.
I suggest that you look up the international laws yourself. If you can't grasp that there are laws preventing countries from attacking each other you really need to study up on that fact.
Haven't you gotten that far in school yet?

Regarding the solution you are talking about it was a misunderstanding from Meh's part. I have never claimed to have a solution to the Iraq conflict. I did offer a general (very basic) solution to how I would like Europe and USA to treat the rest of the world, but you seems to have missed it even if I repeated it again the last time you brought this up.

[nitefyre]

Nitefyre>

No, you must excuse me for not believing it is justified to bring in muslims and arabs at random just because the terrorists came from the Middle-East. In my eyes it is a horrible way to treat people.

And since you clearly stated that it wasn't an overreaction you can't hide the fact that it is your own personal view.

Well, at least I support my arguments with actual documents and quotes from real persons in the world, *coughs* when your argument has non backed up and lack of sources. i.e., your "intl law" that you kept mentioning but could not back up. your "solution" which Meh pointed out you didn't maintain.

Backing your arguments with a school report you wrote yourself doesn't really prove much, kid.
I suggest that you look up the international laws yourself. If you can't grasp that there are laws preventing countries from attacking each other you really need to study up on that fact.
Haven't you gotten that far in school yet?

Regarding the solution you are talking about it was a misunderstanding from Meh's part. I have never claimed to have a solution to the Iraq conflict. I did offer a general (very basic) solution to how I would like Europe and USA to treat the rest of the world, but you seems to have missed it even if I repeated it again the last time you brought this up.

If you're inept in conducting an argument without bashing the counter pointee personally, it is highly suggestible you STFU. What I was getting at is that I actually back my points up with documents and articles and reliable primary sources....your argument is pathetic. I don't like my document that much either, but it is not the quality of the writng, it is rather me proving to you that you are inept at even citing Your mysterious INTL LAWs, still one day later you bring not a formidable argument. Continue bashing and changing and twisting my words as much as you want, as it is stupid and futile as I realized long ago to argue with someone who states opinions, not facts. Time and time again you say I am unqualified to argue verse you because of my age, but seriously now, even a grammar school kid can probably counter you. If you can't take Meh's wit, and start bitching about this argument being unfair, I doubt you yourself can be judging me, look life's unfair, live with it. Again you twist and make blunt lies to my writing, "And since you clearly stated that it wasn't an overreaction you can't hide the fact that it is your own personal view. " That is a false assumption as I JUST WROTE IN MY LAST POSTS that I blame the sociological basis of such an assault on civilization, on tactics considered inhumane and wrong, to be followed by such action as I myself in that report that-has a premise based on the US Constitutional Bill of Rights to be countered with ease. I stated as an opinion, that an overreaction may have been required in dealing with such a massive attack to satisfy the safety of the people of the US as the Gv't must be responsible to a degree for, and accountable for, as today Advisor Rice is testifying before a section of Congress. I too believe arresting people at random is wrong, it is unconstitutional by the US standards and it is hence that only those with proper evidence against them are detained and prosecuted- I was not discussing on the matter of the INS detainees as they are a different case but rather the GITMO detainees.

IN conclusion, oh old sir ever wise and ever knowing, your argument is pathetic in its extremity, punching low and personal in its derogatory feel, and completely and utterly unsubstantiated by "INtERNATIONAL LAW."

I hereby will consider my argument finished, so why don't you continue taking cheap shots in your immature and disgusting manner, in which you have no respect. End argument, because as Meh said, I'm just an ignorant American.

Damn this is annoying

[Pirog]

I have also had enough of this discussion.

I could have held a finishing statement to, but I could just copy what you wrote and send it back to you.
I actually find it funny that after ganging up on me and dropping several spiteful and ridiculing posts you can't even handle a single remark about your age...I must have hit a sore point I guess.

And I'm out...

[nitefyre]

I have also had enough of this discussion.

I could have held a finishing statement to, but I could just copy what you wrote and send it back to you.
And I'm out...

Good to see we agree on that at leest. Later.