Geneva ConventionFollow

A terrorist who comes to your country and tries to harm you clearly isn't. A geurilla fighter in a country you invade probably is.

The argument really centers around how the "terrorist" comes into the nation's custody. If you detain everyone that Afgani informants (who you pay 30 times an average years wages per capture) claim are terrorists, including children, most of the probably should be covered.

The Geneva Convention however does provide some simple guidelines for keeping human beings in captivity. You know, stuff like, no torturing, no public humiliation, no *accidental* deaths in custody.

If the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists apprehended in countries other than their own, then simple humane rules should.

Brings us to the question of whether terrorists should be tried under military or civilian law. Personally I would rather see them tried under civilian law in the country in which they were apprehended.

The biggest problem with all this is identifing the "terrorist"...everytime we catch someone they are either our targets brother or cousin. It's almost impossible to know 100% if you have a terrorist unless you catch him with a bomb belt or IED material or physical evidence like that.

They don't have ID's or a prison record or drivers licence or anything like that. I think this month alone we caught 3 Rozi Khans. After awhile it really feels like we are just wasting our time.

And, anyone can be a terrorist if we want him to be.

I should have put '...if we 'need' him to be.'

I can't wait to get a civillan job.

"If the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists apprehended in countries other than their own, then simple humane rules should."

Are you saying if their captured After they have done there terrorists act or captured before?

SO you think a terrorists That blows up and embassy and kills 100 people. Should be covered by some "Simple Humane rules" ?

Lets say by some miracle that one of the Terrorists the rammed an airplane into one of the Buildings in NY survived,9/11. Do you think he should covered by your "Simple Humane rules"?

Do you think a terrorists gives a **** about your simple humane rules?

No, but the fact that WE do is what seperates us from them.

Well, most of us. You're clearly an exception.

No Stok, don't be silly we should torture people to find out if they are terrorists, and then when they confess, shoot them in the head.

Or, alternately we could just burn them at the stake trusting that God will save the non terrorists.

"No, but the fact that WE do is what seperates us from them."

So were just supposed to let them push us around so they can get their point across or what ever it is they want? Make us live in fear for the rest of are lives?

I think If we showed them that we don't take any bs from Terrorists and that they are dealt with with severe Punishment, such as death. They might consider an alternative.

Hell if I was a terrorists and found out that the US just throw's you into prison for so many years. That I might Have a chance to terrorize more then once. I'd make sure to head to the US to do my terrorizing.

No I do not think they should be covered by the Geneva Convention or Simple Humane rules. They forfeited the rights as soon as they pushed the button on the device that killed 100's 1000's of people, or even if they were planing to kill 100's,1000's of people.

I don't see how people can just let terrorists acts silde like it was nothing. Oh some people got kill in a bombing by some terrorists. Oh well. Torrorists have rights thats BS. What about the people that had rights that the terrorists murdered? Oh well! Kick some dirty on the corpses. You were at the wrong place at the wrong Time?

No one has to live in fear, it is a personal choice. An what good would actually killing a suicide bomber do. That was the most idiotic statment I have ever heard. If someone is set in their convictions death is not something they fear, in fact it raises them to the level of martyr.

Just say that to Timothy McVeigh.

So does this go for the US and it use of a nuclear bomb on a city kill all the innocents inside.

Who said anything about letting terrorist slide, your arguement is on humane treatment. You can still arrest and charge terrorist and kepp them from doing harm without acting like an animal.

I'm not one to Bash the Bush much, but I will say the legal teams someone has studying the rules and laws of the lands has me concerned a bit

Memo says Bush not restricted by torture bans

What? No, no this is all wrong. You get all upset now and attack my spelling or something. Or quote the Bible. Yeah, yeah, and eye for an eye or smite down the unjust or something!! Christer Bunny's greatest hits!

Seriously I have a great deal of respect for people who can modify their position based on actually thinking something through. It's a rare quality on this board and in thw world in general. You're ok in my book, kid. Don't let the cruel world beat the open mindedness out of you anytime soon.

Reading 101.

Ready? See if you can decipher the complex process here.




Right, because nothing serves to deter people willing to kill themselves to harm you like the threat of death. Lite class schedule at moron school tonight? Decided to skip the "Observing the Painfully Obvious 101" class did we?


With me so far? See if you can figure out why I was arguing about punishment of terrorists not being a deterent. I'll give you a hint, it has to do with the quoted part from the other poster.

Got it yeat? I'd offer again to provide a puppet show, but the internet won't accomidate. I reall think that would help you, though.

Torture is wrong, period. It's also not effective. It only has value as a punative measure or a psychological wedge on a diffrent prisoner. You know, like if we took crazy pictures of prisoners being tortured or something.

Of course, we all know that could never happen, right? We wouldn't abuse the power we grant ourselves to interrorgate prisoners using borderline methods, right? I mean we'd walk that line like it was clear as crystal. Because allowing people to remove other people's human rights never leads to anything bad happening throughout the course of human history.

Right?

Quite simply, terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention. Why? Because they are not operating under the auspices of the rules of warfare agreed to by the governments of a signatory nations. This does not negate behavior by countries who have not agreed to the Convention, but is a standard of conduct by which they may be measured and prosecuted. It is also the basis for the protection of uniformed soldiers engaged in combat.

The word "uniformed" is key here. Spies, combatants with no markings or features which denote them as being combatants (certain special ops troops for instance), soldiers wearing the uniform of enemy soldiers, and partisans (guerilla warriors not formally under the control of a government) are NOT covered by the Geneva Convention.

While these individuals I listed may be afforded the courtesy of Geneva Convention protection, the country which has caught them is under no obligation to do so. Thus terrorists, who by definition are ungoverned, are ineligible for treatment under the GC.

The difficulty comes when defining a terrorist. While the Osamas are easy, other cases like Jose Padilla are firmly in a gray area.

Totem