>>agree with us are Freedom Fighters (trumpet fanfare please) while those
>>freedom fighters who do not agree with us are terrorists
Yeah, I've always held that this (what you said above) was an issue of
semantics. Though, I am also inclined to say that we should treat these
f$%^ers the way they treat us. This view will of course draw criticism, but
as far as I can tell, even with the behavior of our troops as Abu
Graib(spelling wrong, I know) the vast majority of captured fighters are
recieving far better treatment from us, then we would be afforded if caught
by them.
>>That said it may be that the Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan are being
"illegally" held as
>>they were the army of the current Afghani government when the coalition
invaded.
You may be right, but if they are categorized as AQ fighters, then the US
will make the case that we are still at war with AQ, although again how do
you delcare war against a group?
>>As for O'Reilly, he's no expert on the Geneva Conventions, shows a very
>>shallow understanding of it, and ignores the provisions for civilians and
>>combatants not in uniform.
Perhaps, but I still thought what he said was interesting to think about it
and get some comments.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lyons, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 9:23 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Question
I do not know how they could do such in the first place. I've never heard of
a country called Terrorism. Its more of a methodology than a territory.
Moreover its also somewhat of an ideological thing - those terrorists who
agree with us are Freedom Fighters (trumpet fanfare please) while those
freedom fighters who do not agree with us are terrorists. That said it may
be that the Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan are being "illegally" held as
they were the army of the current Afghani government when the coalition
invaded.
As for O'Reilly, he's no expert on the Geneva Conventions, shows a very
shallow understanding of it, and ignores the provisions for civilians and
combatants not in uniform. There are very strict definitions as to what can
be considered a lawful combatant in the various protocols.
larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 9:05 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Question
>
>
> Was watching O-Reilly last night on Fox, and he said
> something to the effect that if the US had officially
> declared war on Terrorism (I dont know how you do that), but
> if they did, then people picked up that are actively fighting
> us, but are not wearing official uniforms are not subject to
> the rules of the Geneva Convention.
>
> What's youre take on the situation?
>
> Seems to me that an arguable case could be made that in a
> country-less army like Al Queda that whatever clothes they
> are wearing, that those are their uniforms. And that the
> classic definition of sabateur may not apply.
>
>
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
