posted
So you're saying that baby Jesus could kill children with a gun, right?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
But exactly what is the point of this thread, again?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Maybe you'd know if you'd actually read it.
[ January 29, 2002, 06:47: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Me again.. got a few moments. Somebody sent me this:
quote: It's the Return Address, Stupid!
The Geneva Convention is about reserving the rights and privileges of conducting war to nations, and only to nations. Non-nations, religions, cults, and bridge clubs need not apply.
It does make it easier to fight a war if you know whom you're fighting. Did that bomb come from a B-52? It has a return address; you know who sent it. Did that missle get launched from China? It has a return address; you know who sent it. Is a spec-ops force attacking a cave fortress? Those bullets and cruise missles have return addresses. You know where they came from, without opening the envelope.
Here's a hint for aspiring terrorists: "The will of Allah" is not a return address. Bombings are intended to change national and international policy. Nations reserve the right to make policy, and resent outside interference. That is why it is necessary to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants; between soldiers and criminals. Soldiers act on behalf of nations; criminals act on behalf of themselves.
But what about freedom fighters? OK, here's a simple test. Did the proposed freedom fighters form an actual government? Does that government act on behalf of the people it represents, in ways other than killing, such as building roads, hospitals, sewers, etc? Do the people whom the government claims to represent, actually support that government and its freedom fighters? Does that government actually control and direct the actions of those freedom fighters? Did they win? Freedom fighters win; terrorists lose. Do the freedom fighters have a return address? Are they willing to take responsibility for their actions?
By those standards, al Qaeda doesn't even begin to qualify as a nation or as freedom fighters; they are thugs and need to be dealt with as thugs. Palestine marginally qualifies, but they are out of control and want to pursue war without paying the cost, and nobody gets that privilege, not even the U.S.
Palestine has a return address, although Hamas and Islamic Jihad would prefer not to use it. Al Qaeda does not have a return address and does not want a return address, unless you consider "all of Islam" to be a return address. Not all of Islam agrees, so all other tests of "freedom fighter" versus "terrorist" fail.
So think of the Geneva Convention as a post office that processes and validates return addresses. Martyrs, anthrax mailers, and unabombers need not apply.
posted
But, Rob, that fails to address members of the Taliban who are being held. Certainly, the average foot soldier was just that: an average foot soldier.
quote:Does that government act on behalf of the people it represents, in ways other than killing, such as building roads, hospitals, sewers, etc? Do the people whom the government claims to represent, actually support that government and its freedom fighters? Does that government actually control and direct the actions of those freedom fighters?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I don't think it quite qualifies as far as the Taliban goes -- or, I should clarify, while it makes an arguement for going after the leadership of the Taliban as terrorists (or supporters of terrorism), how does it make the Taliban foot soldiers any more than foot soldiers? Since when do those soldiers really have a whole lot of choice in what they're doing? Mind you, a *lot* of Taliban forces switched sides at the behest of their commanders during the fighting. Hold the commanders responsible for what side the soldiers fought on, not the soldiers themselves.
posted
We haven't yet charged the soldiers with anything, have we? We're just holding them prisoner.
Y'see, in times of hostility, capturing and holding the enemy's forces en masse and unarmed, and otherwise rendering them unable to fight, is generally reckoned to be a good thing.
From what I understand, the detainees brought back to Cuba aren't generally believed to be the run-of-the-mill foot soldiers... unless they're suspected of belonging more to Al-Quaeda than to the Taliban.
That's where the line blurs a bit. 'Abdullah' could be a Taliban guy who BELONGS to AQ, in which case he's a terrorist and should be punished, or he could just be a Taliban guy who was ordered to resist the enemies of he government.. still the enemy, but a lesser enemy.
However, until 'Abdullah's' status can be determined, it's safer for everybody to hold him.
In this case, it's better to inconvenience an enemy soldier for a time than it is to let a terrorist go free.
[ January 29, 2002, 15:32: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Y'see, in times of hostility, capturing and holding the enemy's forces en masse and unarmed, and otherwise rendering them unable to fight, is generally reckoned to be a good thing.
And the point you keep banging your head against (like a certain Stormtrooper in Star Wars) is that we're *not* holding them as POWs, Robert. Duh.
quote:However, until 'Abdullah's' status can be determined, it's safer for everybody to hold him.
In this case, it's better to inconvenience an enemy soldier for a time than it is to let a terrorist go free.
Thank you for finally seeing my point, that the status of these people has to be determined and you can't just call them all terrorists. Boy took a while but you have finally seen the light.
quote:(In other words, we're not the only people who consider them terrorists... in fact, just about everybody besides the Muslim Fundies and the Liberal Fundies like you thinks they are)
Guess this means that you are officially a Liberal Fundie. The thing is though, GWB doesn't want to follow this step he is just going to hold tribunals to pronounce these people guilty and not determine their status.
[ January 29, 2002, 16:32: Message edited by: Grokca ]
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I still consider them terrorists, but I'mm willing to see that there might be another potentially valid way of looking at it.
See, if you consider the government that supported/hid Al-Quaida as part of their organization, (which the US has said it does) then you must perforce consider all those acting under the orders of that government as acting under the orders of the terrorists.
So I do. However, it may be reasonable to consider trying to distinguish who followed orders because they had to from who followed orders because they wanted to.
[ January 29, 2002, 17:39: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I didn't SAY hold them as POW's. I said hold them. I don't much care how, as long as the comfort level's something they can survive.
Guantanamo is probably a lot more comfortable this time of year than caves in the mountains of Afghanistan, and they were willing to live in those. And the latrine facilities are better.
Keep 'em sitting all day in Dilbert-sized cubicles, stack their sleeping quarters like those Japanese hotels, and make 'em watch Barney reruns as their only entertainment, for all I care.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
It seems that the US administration does not even know who they have detained in Cuba.
quote:U.S. officials say privately that they expect only a small number of them will face charges before the tribunals; a larger number, they say, are likely to be detained indefinitely without being charged. That is because U.S. officials are having trouble obtaining information about the detainees, and most are turning out to be low-ranking fighters.
And they are planning on keeping these people captive until the war on terrorism is completed. I would think that that will never happen and these people will ber stuck there forever. In order to keep them though they have to be at war with them, which means they are pow's but the bush admin won't admit they are pow's. Must be nice to have your cake and eat it too.
quote: "It might not be possible to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual committed a particular crime," Rumsfeld said. "He may be guilty of other crimes."
Like kidnapping?
I sure am glad we don't have your system of law in our country, what is this we just hold them until we can find some law that they broke. Guilty until we find a law, or make one, that you broke.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
