You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
I'm still looking stuff up about this. But I'm confused how the gov't/military contends that the detainees are 'enemy combatants' but somehow NOT POW's (that would require treatment per the Geneva agreements...). I would expect any enemy combatant that was captured would be considered a POW...but who am I to say. The President is the one who was just given an unrestricted, unchecked power...
I'm still looking stuff up about this. But I'm confused how the gov't/military contends that the detainees are 'enemy combatants' but somehow NOT POW's (that would require treatment per the Geneva agreements...). I would expect any enemy combatant that was captured would be considered a POW...but who am I to say. The President is the one who was just given an unrestricted, unchecked power...
I thought they were classified as enemy combatants because they were not fighting under a flag, in a uniform or even for the government wich was being overthrown (taliban or bathe regime). Therefore POW would not apply. I could be wrong though.
Drives : '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Posts: 3,314
Points: 8,662, Level: 62
Level up: 71%, 88 to go!
Daily Activity: 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIBEELEVEN
I thought they were classified as enemy combatants because they were not fighting under a flag, in a uniform or even for the government wich was being overthrown (taliban or bathe regime). Therefore POW would not apply. I could be wrong though.
That makes some sense to me. I was confused because 'enemy combatant' sounds like anyone fighting against us. And since we're in a 'war on terror', the enemy 'army' is all terrorists. So I'd expect the Geneva convention to apply. But if the term enemy combatant refers to people who we are NOT at war with but are still our enemies then the ruling makes sense.
It'll never really make sense to me, actually, because it seems like the gov't wants to circumvent the rules just to address the current conflicts we have...but, hey, maybe we really should treat some people as though they are sub human for affiliating with terrorists while we treat POW's (who obviously DID and DO want to harm us seeing as they were fighting against us in a war, affiliated directly with the enemy) with the rules from the Geneva convention. I really don't see a distinction once they're in our custody...
It'll never really make sense to me, actually, because it seems like the gov't wants to circumvent the rules just to address the current conflicts we have...but, hey, maybe we really should treat some people as though they are sub human for affiliating with terrorists while we treat POW's (who obviously DID and DO want to harm us seeing as they were fighting against us in a war, affiliated directly with the enemy) with the rules from the Geneva convention. I really don't see a distinction once they're in our custody...
I don't think it really has much to do with the government, it's in the geneva convention wich wasn't written by the government. I do agree thought they are trying to (rightfully, fairly and strategically) exploit any loophole that applies to thier situation.
Drives : '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Posts: 3,314
Points: 8,662, Level: 62
Level up: 71%, 88 to go!
Daily Activity: 0%
I was saying I think our gov't is trying to snake out of the Geneva convention because they think terrorists are less worthy of decent treatment than enemy soldiers. I happen to disagree and would say that the rights in the Geneva convention should extend to all people who are captured for being enemy combatants or enemy soldiers or whatever. We capture them because they are at war with us, they are POWs. But that is literally a liberal interpretation of the Geneva accords...
I was saying I think our gov't is trying to snake it's way THROUGH the Geneva convention
Fixed, I'll agree with that though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVWRX
...because they think terrorists are less worthy of decent treatment than enemy soldiers.
Well, they are less worthy, most current militaries don't target civilians, and fight with honor and by a certain code of ethics. It's not like thier treated bad, they're are federal and state prisions where inmates are treated worse than detainees at gitmo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVWRX
I happen to disagree and would say that the rights in the Geneva convention should extend to all people who are captured for being enemy combatants or enemy soldiers or whatever. We capture them because they are at war with us, they are POWs. But that is literally a liberal interpretation of the Geneva accords...
The problem with the arguement is that it wasn't written by the current administration or even solely our government. We can't just ammend it like the constitution, and there doesn't seem to be too much motivation or outcry from the world community to change anything in it, therefore you can't really blame them for exploiting it.
Drives : '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Posts: 3,314
Points: 8,662, Level: 62
Level up: 71%, 88 to go!
Daily Activity: 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIBEELEVEN
Well, they are less worthy, most current militaries don't target civilians, and fight with honor and by a certain code of ethics.
Don't know about that one. Noone else targets OUR civilians...but that doesn't mean civilians aren't targets of current militaries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIBEELEVEN
It's not like thier treated bad, they're are federal and state prisions where inmates are treated worse than detainees at gitmo.
I'm not particularly talking about the actuall treatment in this thread. I'm just addressing the court ruling that terrorists in captivity at Gitmo are not POWs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIBEELEVEN
The problem with the arguement is that it wasn't written by the current administration or even solely our government. We can't just ammend it like the constitution, and there doesn't seem to be too much motivation or outcry from the world community to change anything in it, therefore you can't really blame them for exploiting it.
We can't ammend it, but I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of the Geneva convention. It was an international agreement, meant to keep things humane in times of war. I don't see how you can justify exploiting the Geneva accords by saying 'noone wants them to change so we'll interperate them to apply how we want'. It seems to me we should be saying 'noone else has a problem with the Geneva accords, so most likely they're ok and we should follow them, even for suspected terrorists because they are the enemy in a time of war'.
Having been out of the military almost 15 years now, I may be a bit fuzy.
Every person that was taken prisoner that was not a member of either the Iraqi or Afganistan armies are illegal combatants.
As such, I believe they could have been legally shot on sight.
Our gov't, in showing restraint as well as needing intel, decided that these illegal combatants would be more useful alive...for the time being.
As these people are not uniformed soldiers in a national military, they are not afforded the same rights as say our soldiers.
That's how it goes when you violate a contract and take up arms against the US.
Linear Mode
