Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Nitro · 09-17-2003, 02:49 PM

Sorry if I was unclear before.
MuadDib allready went in the right direction. Thank you.
I only wanted to show that there was a clash of opinions between ICRC and the US Gov but ICRC is right this time.
If you read the commentaries on international humanitarian law (YES it does exist) status of POW applies to all people taking part in armed conflict and getting caught by the enemy.
It's not a question of whether somebody declared war or not.
If it looks like armed conflict it is armed conflict and then the conventions apply. Therefore people caught in Afghanistan or Iraq by the millitary would have to be POW no matter what US Gov. says about that.
The US is in breach of the convention if they deny prisoners the rights laid down in the conventions. To me it's just an excuse if the US minces words and denies the prisoners these rights "because they are not really POW". If they are really not POW why are they not prosecuted for the crimes they are accused of by a normal US court or a court in their home country or an international court?

rgr22j is right in saying that international law is ignored by many countries quite frequently but that doesn't mean it's right to ingnore it.
If you agreed to the rules you have to play by the rules.

If I look back at the topic of the thread and the posts I get the impression that some people think that US government is not really interested in the rights of their own citizens at the moment. So if even US citizens rights are dealt with in a careless manner then what should we expect for people from rest of the world.
But seriously, when you start calling a drugs manufacturer a manufacturer of chemical weapons just to be able to jail him longer since then he would be a terrorist it's getting ridiculous.
With a little creativity I could link almost everything to "terrorism". You should be careful next time you make a joke about blowing up your local WalMart since you don't like their bread. Someone might take you seriously.

If US citizens don't do anything against these acts aimed at their rights they should not complain later when they find out they do affect them.

09-17-2003, 02:49 PM	#32 (permalink)
Nitro Upright Location: on the North Sea shore	Sorry if I was unclear before. MuadDib allready went in the right direction. Thank you. I only wanted to show that there was a clash of opinions between ICRC and the US Gov but ICRC is right this time. If you read the commentaries on international humanitarian law (YES it does exist) status of POW applies to all people taking part in armed conflict and getting caught by the enemy. It's not a question of whether somebody declared war or not. If it looks like armed conflict it is armed conflict and then the conventions apply. Therefore people caught in Afghanistan or Iraq by the millitary would have to be POW no matter what US Gov. says about that. The US is in breach of the convention if they deny prisoners the rights laid down in the conventions. To me it's just an excuse if the US minces words and denies the prisoners these rights "because they are not really POW". If they are really not POW why are they not prosecuted for the crimes they are accused of by a normal US court or a court in their home country or an international court? rgr22j is right in saying that international law is ignored by many countries quite frequently but that doesn't mean it's right to ingnore it. If you agreed to the rules you have to play by the rules. If I look back at the topic of the thread and the posts I get the impression that some people think that US government is not really interested in the rights of their own citizens at the moment. So if even US citizens rights are dealt with in a careless manner then what should we expect for people from rest of the world. But seriously, when you start calling a drugs manufacturer a manufacturer of chemical weapons just to be able to jail him longer since then he would be a terrorist it's getting ridiculous. With a little creativity I could link almost everything to "terrorism". You should be careful next time you make a joke about blowing up your local WalMart since you don't like their bread. Someone might take you seriously. If US citizens don't do anything against these acts aimed at their rights they should not complain later when they find out they do affect them. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsilvania, 1759