Guantanamo judge drops charges against 15 year old

[NickD]

Kate and ç i p h é r up a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G!!

[ç i p h é r]

And yet you do commit so much of your own time to debating every [mis]step of Kate's - it seems while she is fascinated with the U.S. administration, you are fascinated with her. Interesting.

Can I plead the fifth?

[MorbidKate]

I could not, and would not, commit so much of my own time to researching and debating every [mis]step of this administration, let alone those of another nation,

Nah, folks like you and Danubus are more comfortable making broad opinions without taking any time at all to even Google for something, anything to back yourself up and then take the usual pot shots at those who disagree.

I believe the condition has now been classified as "Mental Welfare Queen"

http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpbbforum/ ... hp?t=35520

Kate

[Nekulor]

Yea! Not yet listed as a mental welfare queen!

Honestly though, my post on the previous page needs no facts to be backed up. I stated an opinion there (though no one brought my post up). I feel the boy should be tried, convicted (if guilty, which it seems he is from the news story on the front page) and executed for his crimes. If they want trials, give them trials, defeat the enemy with democracy and judicial rights. Then, we can execute them with less backlash from the countries in AI's pocket.

Damned leftist humanitarians...I swear, they'll be the death of me. If they aren't crusading for the rights of border hopping Mexicans, they're telling us the death penalty is wrong.

[ç i p h é r]

Nah, folks like you and Danubus are more comfortable making broad opinions without taking any time at all to even Google for something, anything to back yourself up and then take the usual pot shots at those who disagree.

I judged the facts as you presented them in the original post, Kate, and the opinion that I expressed was on the rather general point of what to do with a civilian who takes it upon themselves to attack a uniformed soldier. Weren't you eliciting opinions by posting the article on this forum?

When you say research the issue on google, do you mean consider something like this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr/

Quality people, I'm sure.

[mxlm]

Damned leftist humanitarians...I swear, they'll be the death of me. If they aren't crusading for the rights of border hopping Mexicans, they're telling us the death penalty is wrong.

Unlike that Jesus guy, who was all about no quarter, fight to the end, them and us, war, and the like.

[Rotku]

Of course, mxlm. Humanitarians and Liberals are the bane of society. I mean, why the hell would we want to promote respect of fellow humans and individual freedoms?

[Veilan]

So let me get this straight... the only point of argument left is whether the guy is a soldier or a terrorist.

I fully agree with Kate's warning that if he should and could be classified as soldier, it would be a terrible precedent to execute him.

If he isn't classifiable as a prisoner of war by the Geneva Convention, then indeed he should be tried for murder.

Let's see...

Article 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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Now, I am not familiar with the details of the case in question, so I can't say whether I believe he should be classified as PoW or not. Could someone link a good trustworthy source about the actual incident for the mental welfare queens among us?

By and large though you can't let your instincts for revenge get the better of you and demand to kill everyone who lifted arms against your soldiers - an invading force, no matter how good the reason. Which I hope noone is doing, really.

[Rotku]

Hopefully they'll convict the bastard and give him the death penalty. Seriously, legal status or no, I want to see him put on trial and convicted for his crime. Since he killed a man, death is a fitting punishment.

To be honest, this is something which I could accept - assuming that the same is applied to the US soldiers who killed anyone in the Middle East - we can't have double standards now, can we?

[Stormseeker]

They already are, you don't see any usa prisoners do you? Oh sure if you count the civilian that gets lucky enough not to beheaded from time to time.
Hmm i am pretty sure that he is not qualified to be considered a pow is he?

[Mulu]

They already are, you don't see any usa prisoners do you?

That doesn't mean we should lower ourselves to the level of terrorists. Acting no better than your enemy, when your enemy is classified as an enemy of humanity, means you are acting as an enemy of humanity.

I'm not familiar enough with the facts of this case to apply the Geneva Convention to it either, though the article Cipher linked was very insightful, as all of the family members were only suspected of criminal activity. This administration suspects a lot of people.

To some extent the underlying facts don't matter, as the actions of the US would be illegal under any set of facts, specifically torture.

[Veilan]

Well, most of the people abducting / committing acts of terrorism / beheading hostages don't seem to be classifiable as enemy combattants, without (official) backing of their local governments, and thus very much could and should be tried for their crimes as simple criminals.

After all, their actions cannot reflect upon their governments - the deal in turn is that they are not in any way protected as legitimate soldiers of that government.

The point now is what that kid was up to. Kate says he was already living in Afghanistan, so even without being part of a unit of having a sign identifiying him he could be an enemy combattant, if he spontaneously grabbed a grenade when that officer came into his town.

If he however planned to lob that grenade at him disguised as a civilian and without being officially part of the fighting force of the Taliban... well, then he's just a murderer.

There is a difference in moral quality to both scenarios, at least in my mind. Now, it is in no way a double standard to not treat terrorist murderers as the criminals they are - after all, it's usually them making the choice to fight asymmetrically - gaining an advantage through forsaking all obligations of being an identifiable part of organized armed forces - and the trade-off is that they are not soldiers. Just because it's more effective doesn't make it right.

Of course, that last sentence should be taken to heart by everyone :/.

[Mord]

I feel the boy should be tried, convicted (if guilty, which it seems he is from the news story on the front page) and executed for his crimes.

Hahahahahahahhahahaahhahahahaahhaahaha

[Valnir268]

I feel the boy should be tried, convicted (if guilty, which it seems he is from the news story on the front page) and executed for his crimes.

My God you have some pretty scary beliefs. Do you actually re-read what you write?

[Stormseeker]

lol that aint scary, actually mild compare to some of us hillbilly views.