For them to meet test one they would have to have to be a militia or volunteer corps forming part of the armed forces, i.e., forming part of a REGULAR force.
Now, you might feel comefortable viewing the Russian "MAFIA" as a "militia", but they are not as they are not forming part of the Russina Military.
You may view the New Jersey "MAFIA" in the same way and, even though many New Jersey National Guardsmen are suspected of being in "the mob" they are still not a protected class as "mobsters".
Now, tell us all, what regular military organization is this "militia" you have discovered in Afghanistan a part of? Certainly not Afghanistan, they had none but the Northern Alliance. They certainly were not part of the Pakistani regular forces nor supporting them.
Your follow on questions are nothing but irrelevant distractors. Your debating club in highschool should have pointed that out, but maybe that is why you ask them.
I guess it depends on two factors: 1) Do you blindly trust everything your military/government tells you? Unfortunately, their track-record isn't so good in this regard.
No.
2) Do you think that only soldiers of the United States have Human Rights?
Nope. But all soldiers are protected under the Geneva Conventions (as long as the capturing power follows them), including ours.
Hey, just OOC, let's say you're right and these guys are "unlawful combatants" and thus don't fall under the GC.
As I linked to in this post when I finally got tired of you guys spewing BS without your showing where they are protected persons.
That automatically means the US can and *should* treat them in any way they see fit?
Yes, and we see fit to treat them very well. Much better than even POWs are required to be treated.
So, you feel that the "'cuz I can" excuse is good enough for the US?
There you go making up positions for me. Try sticking to what I write.
It doesn't disturb you that your government is perfectly willing to imprison people for extended periods without trial, etc?
If they were common criminals it would, but that is not the case here.
Doesn't this abuse of power concern you?
I see no abuse of power. You see, through my writings, I do know what powers are within the law and what are not. Obviously, since you continue to misrepresent this issue, you either do not or you are trying to confuse other readers.
Oh, well yeah, they aren't getting shot on the battlefield. That's true... but how does that make extended imprisonment without representation any more okay?
Because they are prisoners, heald legally, under international laws of War and Peace. Try reading them.
Believe it or not, human rights are NOT relative...
No kidding, Eisenstein. How about ending your propoganda and post something with a basis in fact?
Now, either refute me with something besides your big keyboard or run along.
Thats because under international law there is no such thing as an "illegal combatant". Its a term invented by the US administration. But if you feel you can point to an actual international treaty that uses the term "illegal combatant" that was signed pre-9/11, feel free to post a link. Good luck, though.
The challenge is for YOU to post a link showing that unlawful combatants have some international protection. They do not.
As I have had to do the homework to expose the Left numerous times already and, it seems, SlashDot is a bastion of saying "proove a negative", here is the refrence to proove AGAIN that the detainees in Guantnamo are not in a protected class:
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Part I. General Provisions Art 4. A. 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: (1) 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.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
They fail test (1), they fail test (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c) (usually), (2)(d). They even fail (6)
The term "unlawful combatant" is just a term for people who are not legal combatants. Illegal is a synonym for unlawful. Amazing that this must be pointed out to you, but not that amazing from the rest of the spew on this thread.
Now, if SOMEONE would please point out where these terrorists are protected by anything other than US law (giving them protection from US troops mistreating them), PLEASE POST IT! Otherwise, accept the facts and try a different arguement.
Doing what "crap like that"? You mean you would rather the unlawful combatants were just shot on the spot? Now that is perfectly legal if you are only following international law and not US law.
How about beating the crap out of them and starving them? The UCMJ prevents that for anybody in our custody, but International Law does not prevent that for unlawful combatants.
Just making sure we are clear here, since there is a distinction between unlawful combatants, lawful combatants, and non-combatants.
You see, this is not a boolian "or" situation, it is a list of categories as anybody who has actually read the Geneva Conventions on this topic knows well. Please point out the portion of the Geneva Conventions that support your view. People who don't bother reading them, then write clueless articles about them spread falshoods like the ones you choose to believe. Now, feel free to go back and back up your favorite source with a definitive source.
Another problem, people who know full well that what I am writing is true, turn around and try to spread falshoods and sucker the trusting but ignorant, into believing what you just stated. Thes writers are not ignorant, they are just supporting the other side.
This is nothing new. Take a gander at some of the 1930's writings of "The Great Durante" in the New York Times, then browse through George Orwell's reporting on the Ukrane famine of the same time. Also, check out "Harvest of Sorrow". Orwell was proven correct and Durante was spreading lies.
Now, back to the discussion. The unlawful combatants were breaking the Laws of War and Peace and we are treating them well within the bounds of a capturing power under those laws. I doubt that you "get it", but that's the way it is.
Such detachment from reality is not unexpected, but still disturbing.
But it is a fact that prisoners on guantanamo bay are held illegally (according to the geneva convention they should be pow's, but the US claims they aren't)
Let's see a refrence to this. Sorry, I can not provide one at this time because illegal combatants are people not defined and not protected by ANY Geneva convention. What uniform or mark were they wearing? Who was directly responsible for these people, you know, a Chain-of-Command as defined in the protocols?
Please, stop your lies.
Asking people questions and feeding them in a camp is NOT torture by any stretch of the imagination.
Now, where are you pulling this crap from? (despite that the war in afghanistan is over, pow's haven't been returned or formally accused of a crime)
The wasr is NOT over there and they need not be accused of any crime! Show us a quote where illegal combatants have to be accused of a crime to be detained until the end of hostilities.
Ahem, which "spirit of the convensions" is not being followed?
Granted, the Geneva bits about summary executions NOT prohibited for spies is being completely skipped, but I am quite lost as to what your complaint is in regards to the US treatment of illegal combatants.
But Congress, having the sole authority to declare war on behalf of the United States, has not done so.
Apparently you are under the impression that any use of force by the Executive Branch must be authorized by the Legeslature and prefaces with some sort of magic words like "We hearby formally and absolutely declair war on the parties causing us so much unpleasantless" or somethinig similar? You are at odds with Thomas Jefferson and anybody else who knows the first thing about war powers.
Oh, one not-so-minor item, the Congress DID authorize the President to use force in Afghanistan AND Iraq. They have continued funding too.
How do you figure there are "rules of war" to be followed at all?
Well, because they actually are being followed. Please, point to some article or treaty that we are not following? We are, in fact, following all of the Laws of War and Peace where we are a signator as well as the UCMJ (the applicable US law).
No eye witness has made a single complaint. Some eighty-eight have been released already but not a single bad word from any of them can be found when this accusation is tossed about.
BTW, hooding prisoners is NOT torture and neither is shackeling for transport, both accusations tossed about by the hysterical Left.
The last time those were restricted was under Nixon, and for the same reason.
Humm, how is the press "restricted" from this? If they get the pictures they are free to broadcast them. How did Nixon, who withdrew the US from VietNam and ended the draft, institute this?
Sounds like you are a victim of misinformation, if not an agent of it's spread.
Well, having not read any more of the article than you, I can say that the ONLY member of the Administration who has a vote in the Congress only gets to vote in Senate ties.
Now, having glanced through the article, there is not even a show of the vote. Are you going to tell me that every member of the Congress who voted for this is in a conspiracy with the Executive Branch?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, NO they OBVIOUSLY FAIL 1.
For them to meet test one they would have to have to be a militia or volunteer corps forming part of the armed forces, i.e., forming part of a REGULAR force.
Now, you might feel comefortable viewing the Russian "MAFIA" as a "militia", but they are not as they are not forming part of the Russina Military.
You may view the New Jersey "MAFIA" in the same way and, even though many New Jersey National Guardsmen are suspected of being in "the mob" they are still not a protected class as "mobsters".
Now, tell us all, what regular military organization is this "militia" you have discovered in Afghanistan a part of? Certainly not Afghanistan, they had none but the Northern Alliance. They certainly were not part of the Pakistani regular forces nor supporting them.
Your follow on questions are nothing but irrelevant distractors. Your debating club in highschool should have pointed that out, but maybe that is why you ask them.
I guess it depends on two factors:
1) Do you blindly trust everything your military/government tells you? Unfortunately, their track-record isn't so good in this regard.
No.
2) Do you think that only soldiers of the United States have Human Rights?
Nope. But all soldiers are protected under the Geneva Conventions (as long as the capturing power follows them), including ours.
Hey, just OOC, let's say you're right and these guys are "unlawful combatants" and thus don't fall under the GC.
As I linked to in this post when I finally got tired of you guys spewing BS without your showing where they are protected persons.
That automatically means the US can and *should* treat them in any way they see fit?
Yes, and we see fit to treat them very well. Much better than even POWs are required to be treated.
So, you feel that the "'cuz I can" excuse is good enough for the US?
There you go making up positions for me. Try sticking to what I write.
It doesn't disturb you that your government is perfectly willing to imprison people for extended periods without trial, etc?
If they were common criminals it would, but that is not the case here.
Doesn't this abuse of power concern you?
I see no abuse of power. You see, through my writings, I do know what powers are within the law and what are not. Obviously, since you continue to misrepresent this issue, you either do not or you are trying to confuse other readers.
Oh, well yeah, they aren't getting shot on the battlefield. That's true... but how does that make extended imprisonment without representation any more okay?
Because they are prisoners, heald legally, under international laws of War and Peace. Try reading them.
Believe it or not, human rights are NOT relative...
No kidding, Eisenstein. How about ending your propoganda and post something with a basis in fact?
Now, either refute me with something besides your big keyboard or run along.
Thats because under international law there is no such thing as an "illegal combatant". Its a term invented by the US administration. But if you feel you can point to an actual international treaty that uses the term "illegal combatant" that was signed pre-9/11, feel free to post a link. Good luck, though.
The challenge is for YOU to post a link showing that unlawful combatants have some international protection. They do not.
As I have had to do the homework to expose the Left numerous times already and, it seems, SlashDot is a bastion of saying "proove a negative", here is the refrence to proove AGAIN that the detainees in Guantnamo are not in a protected class:
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Part I. General Provisions
Art 4. A. 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:
(1) 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.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Ratified by the USA with reservations
They fail test (1), they fail test (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c) (usually), (2)(d). They even fail (6)
The term "unlawful combatant" is just a term for people who are not legal combatants. Illegal is a synonym for unlawful. Amazing that this must be pointed out to you, but not that amazing from the rest of the spew on this thread.
Now, if SOMEONE would please point out where these terrorists are protected by anything other than US law (giving them protection from US troops mistreating them), PLEASE POST IT! Otherwise, accept the facts and try a different arguement.
Doing what "crap like that"? You mean you would rather the unlawful combatants were just shot on the spot? Now that is perfectly legal if you are only following international law and not US law.
How about beating the crap out of them and starving them? The UCMJ prevents that for anybody in our custody, but International Law does not prevent that for unlawful combatants.
Just making sure we are clear here, since there is a distinction between unlawful combatants, lawful combatants, and non-combatants.
You see, this is not a boolian "or" situation, it is a list of categories as anybody who has actually read the Geneva Conventions on this topic knows well. Please point out the portion of the Geneva Conventions that support your view. People who don't bother reading them, then write clueless articles about them spread falshoods like the ones you choose to believe. Now, feel free to go back and back up your favorite source with a definitive source.
Another problem, people who know full well that what I am writing is true, turn around and try to spread falshoods and sucker the trusting but ignorant, into believing what you just stated. Thes writers are not ignorant, they are just supporting the other side.
This is nothing new. Take a gander at some of the 1930's writings of "The Great Durante" in the New York Times, then browse through George Orwell's reporting on the Ukrane famine of the same time. Also, check out "Harvest of Sorrow". Orwell was proven correct and Durante was spreading lies.
Now, back to the discussion. The unlawful combatants were breaking the Laws of War and Peace and we are treating them well within the bounds of a capturing power under those laws. I doubt that you "get it", but that's the way it is.
And the Geneva Convention is still binding law in the US, something forgotten about by nutcase right-wing neocons like yourself.
So you hare having a problem with our following it beyond the letter? Illegal combatants get NO protection by any international protocol.
Such detachment from reality is not unexpected, but still disturbing.
But it is a fact that prisoners on guantanamo bay are held illegally (according to the geneva convention they should be pow's, but the US claims they aren't)
Let's see a refrence to this. Sorry, I can not provide one at this time because illegal combatants are people not defined and not protected by ANY Geneva convention. What uniform or mark were they wearing? Who was directly responsible for these people, you know, a Chain-of-Command as defined in the protocols?
Please, stop your lies.
Asking people questions and feeding them in a camp is NOT torture by any stretch of the imagination.
Now, where are you pulling this crap from?
(despite that the war in afghanistan is over, pow's haven't been returned or formally accused of a crime)
The wasr is NOT over there and they need not be accused of any crime! Show us a quote where illegal combatants have to be accused of a crime to be detained until the end of hostilities.
Yes, more detachment from reality.
Ahem, which "spirit of the convensions" is not being followed?
Granted, the Geneva bits about summary executions NOT prohibited for spies is being completely skipped, but I am quite lost as to what your complaint is in regards to the US treatment of illegal combatants.
Illegal combatants have no right to, nor expectation of POW status.
Yes, it is quite different from what other countries do.
How is this "insiteful"?
But Congress, having the sole authority to declare war on behalf of the United States, has not done so.
Apparently you are under the impression that any use of force by the Executive Branch must be authorized by the Legeslature and prefaces with some sort of magic words like "We hearby formally and absolutely declair war on the parties causing us so much unpleasantless" or somethinig similar? You are at odds with Thomas Jefferson and anybody else who knows the first thing about war powers.
Oh, one not-so-minor item, the Congress DID authorize the President to use force in Afghanistan AND Iraq. They have continued funding too.
How do you figure there are "rules of war" to be followed at all?
Well, because they actually are being followed. Please, point to some article or treaty that we are not following? We are, in fact, following all of the Laws of War and Peace where we are a signator as well as the UCMJ (the applicable US law).
The Guantanamo prisoners are mistreated,
How are they mistreated? Have any proof of this?
No eye witness has made a single complaint. Some eighty-eight have been released already but not a single bad word from any of them can be found when this accusation is tossed about.
BTW, hooding prisoners is NOT torture and neither is shackeling for transport, both accusations tossed about by the hysterical Left.
The last time those were restricted was under Nixon, and for the same reason.
Humm, how is the press "restricted" from this? If they get the pictures they are free to broadcast them. How did Nixon, who withdrew the US from VietNam and ended the draft, institute this?
Sounds like you are a victim of misinformation, if not an agent of it's spread.
Sounds like tinfoil would be more appropriate.
Yep and room 101 was where the editors chopped the stories to bits.
Didn't you see the "Ministry of Truth" logo at the bottom?
Off to room 101 with you, immediately!
Well, having not read any more of the article than you, I can say that the ONLY member of the Administration who has a vote in the Congress only gets to vote in Senate ties.
Now, having glanced through the article, there is not even a show of the vote. Are you going to tell me that every member of the Congress who voted for this is in a conspiracy with the Executive Branch?
If he lives in NY he is paying plenty of taxes when he spends his money. He is just fooling himself, all he is avoiding is income taxes.
So by that logic if without Stanley tools my house couldn't have been built does that mean it should be named Stanley/My House? No.
Nope: GNU/Stanley/RMS/Casa
The real issue is that nobody calls it GNUFedora.
Umm, that would not be inflation. The price would drop and it would drop relative to everything else, so it isn't even deflation.
BTW, how did my earlier post get a "Redundant" six min. after the article went up?
Already covered back in the olden-times of the net, archived here ref. bringing the Moon to the Earth.
Does not sound pretty no matter how gently it is done.
Don't forget about the contractors getting screwed!
(in space, no air)
Not in LucaSpace. Noisy light, noisy vacumes, noisy ion drives, etc.
The only places where it is sort of quiet is where there is air, but even that is filled with background music.
Even if it were a fact, they would not be very "valuable" any more after the market on Earth was flooded with them.
Is Space Mining Feasible?
No, now let's move on to understanding R2D2'a beeps and whistles.
Oh, that has been settled too?
Okay, meeting over, have a nice day.
Yea, so get in the now and say S Q L, not the oldentimes way.