Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Who would've thought?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
JMO wrote:
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:
To call an Al Qaeda fighter a prisoner of war diminishes the status of POWs.


They fight for an illegitimate cause, using illegitimate techniques, hiding among civilians to attack civilians, without any uniform or any accountability whatsoever in a war paid for by illicit funds.

Illegal combatant is the correct status.


Splitting hairs surely. It is a war on terror after all. I think the point is that classifying them as POWs would be a good solution to the problem at hand.


With all due respect


This is what Al Qaeda is about .

Quote:

Consider what happened on Aug. 14. Four jihadist suicide-bombers blew themselves up in two Iraqi villages, killing more than 500 Kurdish civilians � men, women and babies � who belonged to a tiny pre-Islamic sect known as the Yazidis.


http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2007/08/tom-friedman-new-york-times-august.html


Al Qaeda invested in a suicide bomber because these people of their religion. Because of their religion killing them was considered to be a higher priority than a military target.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khyber



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Bush diatribes belong in the past. W. Bush is gone, Kuros. This is Barack Obama's administration. Time to talk about Barack Obama.

W.Bush is gone but his effects linger on. When Bush came into office, he inherited Clinton's recession. He used that as an excuse 8 years later.

It will be impossible for Obama to appease everyone; even on this single issue (one of about 4 big ones he'll have o deal with). Count on him to disappoint you too Gopher.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JMO



Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:
JMO wrote:
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:
To call an Al Qaeda fighter a prisoner of war diminishes the status of POWs.


They fight for an illegitimate cause, using illegitimate techniques, hiding among civilians to attack civilians, without any uniform or any accountability whatsoever in a war paid for by illicit funds.

Illegal combatant is the correct status.


Splitting hairs surely. It is a war on terror after all. I think the point is that classifying them as POWs would be a good solution to the problem at hand.


With all due respect


This is what Al Qaeda is about .

Quote:

Consider what happened on Aug. 14. Four jihadist suicide-bombers blew themselves up in two Iraqi villages, killing more than 500 Kurdish civilians � men, women and babies � who belonged to a tiny pre-Islamic sect known as the Yazidis.


http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2007/08/tom-friedman-new-york-times-august.html


Al Qaeda invested in a suicide bomber because these people of their religion. Because of their religion killing them was considered to be a higher priority than a military target.


Again splitting hairs.

My point is that classifying them as POW solves the problem to a large extent. Assuming you can still try POW for war crimes.
I'd say sending a suicide bomber into a village would fall in that area.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Geneva law now affords protection even to convicted war criminals, provided they are also POWs: a prisoner of war who is tried and found guilt of crimes committed before capture retains the full protections of POW status throughout the length of whatever criminal sentence might be handed down.




Quote:
POWs may not legally be interrogated, even politely, except to the extent of being obliged to give their name and rank. And of course, most critically, POWs must be allowed to go home when the conflict in which they are captured ends.


http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/sept02/law.asp

so what does the US do now?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JMO



Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:
Quote:
Geneva law now affords protection even to convicted war criminals, provided they are also POWs: a prisoner of war who is tried and found guilt of crimes committed before capture retains the full protections of POW status throughout the length of whatever criminal sentence might be handed down.




Quote:
POWs may not legally be interrogated, even politely, except to the extent of being obliged to give their name and rank. And of course, most critically, POWs must be allowed to go home when the conflict in which they are captured ends.


http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/sept02/law.asp

so what does the US do now?


Wait, all POWs must be allowed to go home peacefully? I thought you could try some for war crimes. In that case yea, they can't be POWs. They will just have to be normal criminals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The US system could never handle all of the Al Qaeda fighters and to prosecute and them it would have to reveal how it obtains information.

With all due respect the US needs another classification for them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JMO



Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Possibly. In the nuremburg trials what were the prisoners classified as?

Obviously they were not POWs as they were put to trial and not sent home. But they weren't really ordinary criminals either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:
The US system could never handle all of the Al Qaeda fighters and to prosecute and them it would have to reveal how it obtains information.

With all due respect the US needs another classification for them.


Bush could have easily had that if he wanted.

SCOTUS begged Congress to draw something like that up after rejecting the MCA.

But instead he skirted procedural due process minimums entirely.

Joo, you need to enforce Geneva at MINIMUM until due process guarantees are satisfied.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International