The United States expects Iraq to treat captured U.S. and allied troops humanely..... - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Troels · 03-23-2003, 05:14 PM

As I understand it the prisoners in Guatanamo are officially not POW's.

Main reason being that then they do not have the rights dictated by the Geneva convention...
I just don't understand why those prisoners aren't POW's?

Another thing I don't understand. Is it true that Americans can not be charged as war criminals? US Government refuses to sign the agreement?

mule · 03-23-2003, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eroswebmaster

Okay whatever Sgt. York...just argue to be satisfying some self serving need.

LOL, just what is that supposed to mean?
I suppose you want me to elaborate?
OK, I've done my share of fighting, and you'd be suprised at how many people can get shot in the head in the heat of battle. You've obviously never been there.

DJRCyberAVS · 03-23-2003, 05:23 PM

Mule,

Well mate.... as far as I'm concerned it was hard enough shooting targets on a staged range, and getting consistant head shots, nevermind while under fire... and I am ex-services also.

Yeah people get shot in the head during the heat of battle.... but consistantly?

Care to elaborate who you served for and where you have seen action?

mule · 03-23-2003, 05:24 PM

SADF, Northern Namibia and Angola, 1978 to 1980

directfiesta · 03-23-2003, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Troels
As I understand it the prisoners in Guatanamo are officially not POW's.

Main reason being that then they do not have the rights dictated by the Geneva convention...
I just don't understand why those prisoners aren't POW's?

They are not on US soil . Another lawyer's loophole.

Troels · 03-23-2003, 05:30 PM

How can US leaders expect others to follow international laws/rules when they just circumvent those same laws to their liking?

theking · 03-23-2003, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DynaSpain

No one really sticks to these rules though. They are more for after
the war to make up the balance and then they try to prosecute
war criminals. If everybody would stick to rules then there would
not be a reason to go to war.

b.t.w. The US went to war without consent of the UN. That is a
violation of a rule aswell.....so not much use pointing a finger.

DynaMite

They did not go to war without the consent of the UN. The UN gave consent in at least 3 resolutions the last being 1441, "serious consequences", of course legal eagles and historians will argue the point until hell freezes over.

rooster · 03-23-2003, 05:32 PM

the prisoners in guantonimo are being treated in accordance with geneva.

I belive the loophole the misguided directfista is referring to is because they are not on usa soil, they have no right to counsel.

ServerGenius · 03-23-2003, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

They did not go to war without the consent of the UN. The UN gave consent in at least 3 resolutions the last being 1441, "serious consequences", of course legal eagles and historians will argue the point until hell freezes over.

The UN and the rest of the world seems to think differently
though.....and the US knows so aswell that´s the only reason
why they try to get international support from as many countries
as possible. They know the last word has not been spoken about
this issue. And laywers know it´s dodgy

DynaMite

playa · 03-23-2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Troels

Another thing I don't understand. Is it true that Americans can not be charged as war criminals? US Government refuses to sign the agreement?

Who said a US soldier can't goto trial for a war crime?
this has happened before

like i said thier is a difference between killing in combat and murder or exectuted without a trial

those pics are sooo obivous that they was shot in the back of the head

directfiesta · 03-23-2003, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rooster
the prisoners in guantonimo are being treated in accordance with geneva.

I belive the loophole the misguided directfista is referring to is because they are not on usa soil, they have no right to counsel.

Right. Stand corrected.

But I remain firm on this: fucking lawyers!

playa · 03-23-2003, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DynaSpain

No one really sticks to these rules though

so you served in the US Military??

please tell me what else you learned in the US military, cause i beg to differ,

directfiesta · 03-23-2003, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by playa

those pics are sooo obivous that they was shot in the back of the head

Did an autopsy... A few minutes ago, it was " between the eyes" ... now from the back...

ServerGenius · 03-23-2003, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by playa

so you served in the US Military??

please tell me what else you learned in the US military, cause i beg to differ,

No I served in the Dutch Military (Yes you can laugh now) but
it´s not so hard to prove my point.....try opening a history book.

DynaMite

playa · 03-23-2003, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta

Did an autopsy... A few minutes ago, it was " between the eyes" ... now from the back...

ok you want me to enlighten you some?

1. soldier had a bandage on his chest, (first wound)
2. soldier laying without a face back of his head in pool of blood

he never seen it comming, they prolly came from behind his head

is this not clear enough?

Gemini · 03-23-2003, 05:47 PM

Sorry directF... One of the ceasefire stipulations was:

Either produce ALL the WMD's that they claimed (themselves as having) or Produce the Evidence that they destroyed them...

THAT evidence was supposed to be included yet AGAIN in the paperwork they turned over in December... (Yet ANOTHER chance handed Iraq AFTER 12 yrs of ignoring every one of the agreed to stipulations on the CF)

How MANY times should they be given to hand the evidence over? How MANY years?? The UN is out of the loop when they pop that ceasefire in there as the reason for re-engagement.

Everyone wants to ignore that fact. As much we dislike Bush, he has that ace to play. HE may be a dip and his cronies are warmongers, but not ALL of them are dumb.

Why do you think Annon (sp?) isn't raising more of a ruckus? Why do you think he just moved on to looking at the aftermath? He knows they haven't a real leg to stand on. I'm pretty sure the UN Charter acknowledges the rules to a ceasefire as International law.

Insofar as the countries crying the loudest, they are all owed HUGE amounts of $$$ and if Saddam goes, so do those debts I bet. Let alone that some of them were ILLEGALLY selling Iraq contraband laid out by, Oops, no less, The UN. Do you think the UN will compound the illegalities of selling weapons to Iraq by seeing the billions are repaid? Nope.

So you want to back them? The very ones RE-ARMING someone who has time and again proven he will kill even his OWN family????

BTW, for those that didn't see it, Iran said the missile they brought up was IRAQI. But the US and Iran are still investigating the possibility that some cruise missiles went astray. So far there is no evidence of other missile craters.

playa · 03-23-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DynaSpain

No I served in the Dutch Military (Yes you can laugh now) but
it´s not so hard to prove my point.....try opening a history book.

DynaMite

History is history, we learn from our history's mistakes

i am talking bout the modern US military its a complete different story, especially the way the media is now, updated news can come in so fast,

theking · 03-23-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by playa

Who said a US soldier can't goto trial for a war crime?
this has happened before

like i said thier is a difference between killing in combat and murder or exectuted without a trial

those pics are sooo obivous that they was shot in the back of the head

We will not allow our soldiers to be tried by international tribunal and would not be a signator. We do try our own soldiers for "war crimes" but we reserve the right to make the determination.

ServerGenius · 03-23-2003, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by playa

History is history, we learn from our history's mistakes

If that was true history wouldn´t be repeating itself

DynaMite

Troels · 03-23-2003, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

We will not allow our soldiers to be tried by international tribunal and would not be a signator. We do try our own soldiers for "war crimes" but we reserve the right to make the determination.

Thanks theking.
It makes Bush's threat today about charging Iraqis for war crimes pretty hollow doesn't it?

playa · 03-23-2003, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DynaSpain

If that was true history wouldn´t be repeating itself

DynaMite

ya good point,, if europe would of just made sure that Germany was following the treaty resolutions from WWI

WWII wouldn't of started

Libertine · 03-23-2003, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

We will not allow our soldiers to be tried by international tribunal and would not be a signator. We do try our own soldiers for "war crimes" but we reserve the right to make the determination.

You forgot the part where the US threatened that if their soldiers were subjected to the international tribunal in The Hague they would invade The Netherlands (fellow NATO-member, long time ally).

theking · 03-23-2003, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Troels

Thanks theking.
It makes Bush's threat today about charging Iraqis for war crimes pretty hollow doesn't it?

No. "To the conqueror go the spoils." If Hitler would have won the war it would have been the Allies on trial for war crimes. Just the way of the world.

03-23-2003, 05:24 PM	#54
mule Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: hamsterdam Posts: 6,085	SADF, Northern Namibia and Angola, 1978 to 1980 __________________ Converting like a mofo

03-23-2003, 05:47 PM	#66
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	Sorry directF... One of the ceasefire stipulations was: Either produce ALL the WMD's that they claimed (themselves as having) or Produce the Evidence that they destroyed them... THAT evidence was supposed to be included yet AGAIN in the paperwork they turned over in December... (Yet ANOTHER chance handed Iraq AFTER 12 yrs of ignoring every one of the agreed to stipulations on the CF) How MANY times should they be given to hand the evidence over? How MANY years?? The UN is out of the loop when they pop that ceasefire in there as the reason for re-engagement. Everyone wants to ignore that fact. As much we dislike Bush, he has that ace to play. HE may be a dip and his cronies are warmongers, but not ALL of them are dumb. Why do you think Annon (sp?) isn't raising more of a ruckus? Why do you think he just moved on to looking at the aftermath? He knows they haven't a real leg to stand on. I'm pretty sure the UN Charter acknowledges the rules to a ceasefire as International law. Insofar as the countries crying the loudest, they are all owed HUGE amounts of $$$ and if Saddam goes, so do those debts I bet. Let alone that some of them were ILLEGALLY selling Iraq contraband laid out by, Oops, no less, The UN. Do you think the UN will compound the illegalities of selling weapons to Iraq by seeing the billions are repaid? Nope. So you want to back them? The very ones RE-ARMING someone who has time and again proven he will kill even his OWN family???? BTW, for those that didn't see it, Iran said the missile they brought up was IRAQI. But the US and Iran are still investigating the possibility that some cruise missiles went astray. So far there is no evidence of other missile craters. __________________ <center><a target="_blank" href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&aid=535&cfg=aac"><img border="0" src="http://216.130.172.224/gfy/gsig.gif" width="490" height="100"></a><br><a href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&aid=535&cfg=aac" target="_blank"><b><font face="Arial"><font color="#FF99FF"> Buy me away from Slavedriver Smokey!<br>It's May Sig Sweeps!<font></b></center>

03-23-2003, 05:14 PM	#51
Troels Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Between the clouds Posts: 1,035	As I understand it the prisoners in Guatanamo are officially not POW's. Main reason being that then they do not have the rights dictated by the Geneva convention... I just don't understand why those prisoners aren't POW's? Another thing I don't understand. Is it true that Americans can not be charged as war criminals? US Government refuses to sign the agreement?

03-23-2003, 05:23 PM	#53
DJRCyberAVS Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: WeebleLand Posts: 493	Mule, Well mate.... as far as I'm concerned it was hard enough shooting targets on a staged range, and getting consistant head shots, nevermind while under fire... and I am ex-services also. Yeah people get shot in the head during the heat of battle.... but consistantly? Care to elaborate who you served for and where you have seen action?

03-23-2003, 05:30 PM	#56
Troels Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Between the clouds Posts: 1,035	How can US leaders expect others to follow international laws/rules when they just circumvent those same laws to their liking?

03-23-2003, 05:32 PM	#58
rooster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,384	the prisoners in guantonimo are being treated in accordance with geneva. I belive the loophole the misguided directfista is referring to is because they are not on usa soil, they have no right to counsel.