The outrage against Newsweek

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as we know there were no executions, but that would only be because of a judicial ruling by those "activist liberal judges" you complain about demanding that the 80-something year old Geneva convention be enforced.

They are activists if they thought the Geneva Convnetion had anything to do with people in Guantanamo.

You're a crazy un-American wingnut if you think that it doesn't.

[Blue Rectangle]

As far as we know there were no executions, but that would only be because of a judicial ruling by those "activist liberal judges" you complain about demanding that the 80-something year old Geneva convention be enforced.

They are activists if they thought the Geneva Convnetion had anything to do with people in Guantanamo.

You're a crazy un-American wingnut if you think that it doesn't.

Should Osama bin Laden be considered a combatant and be protected by the Geneva Convention if he is captured?

[Jake]

As far as we know there were no executions, but that would only be because of a judicial ruling by those "activist liberal judges" you complain about demanding that the 80-something year old Geneva convention be enforced.

They are activists if they thought the Geneva Convnetion had anything to do with people in Guantanamo.

You're a crazy un-American wingnut if you think that it doesn't.

I'll bite, explain how it applies and actually quote from the conventions.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Should Osama bin Laden be considered a combatant and be protected by the Geneva Convention if he is captured?

Irrelevant, we're not capturing Osama because Bush wasted resources on the Iraq war.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as we know there were no executions, but that would only be because of a judicial ruling by those "activist liberal judges" you complain about demanding that the 80-something year old Geneva convention be enforced.

They are activists if they thought the Geneva Convnetion had anything to do with people in Guantanamo.

You're a crazy un-American wingnut if you think that it doesn't.

I'll bite, explain how it applies and actually quote from the conventions.

Go read it yourself. It aplies to prisoners of war.

[A18]

No, not to illegal combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention. Which these are.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, not to illegal combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention. Which these are.

WTF is that? Some of them are people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now we don't want to release them because they'd complain about all of the abuses at Gitmo. Your support of this fascism disgusts me.

[Blue Rectangle]

Should Osama bin Laden be considered a combatant and be protected by the Geneva Convention if he is captured?

Irrelevant, we're not capturing Osama because Bush wasted resources on the Iraq war.

I see, so the fact that we haven't caught bin Laden makes it irrelevant, but somehow your hypothetical situation (executions at Gitmo) is relevant.

[A18]

No, not to illegal combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention. Which these are.

WTF is that? Some of them are people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now we don't want to release them because they'd complain about all of the abuses at Gitmo. Your support of this fascism disgusts me.

Illegal combatants don't fight for a country.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, not to illegal combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention. Which these are.

WTF is that? Some of them are people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now we don't want to release them because they'd complain about all of the abuses at Gitmo. Your support of this fascism disgusts me.

Illegal combatants don't fight for a country.

Who do they fight for? Halliburton?

[Blue Rectangle]

No, not to illegal combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention. Which these are.

WTF is that? Some of them are people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now we don't want to release them because they'd complain about all of the abuses at Gitmo. Your support of this fascism disgusts me.

Illegal combatants don't fight for a country.

Who do they fight for? Halliburton?

What country does Osama fight for?

Would you consider him an illegal combatant, as defined by the Geneva Convention?

[Jake]

I quote from the Third Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War. (My Comments in bold)

Article 4

1) 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.

(Al-Qaida fighters are not members of an armed force and never were placed under Taliban command)

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
-that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(No Al-Qaida leader was directly recognized as the commander)
-that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(Other than their dirty nightshirts, they have none)
-that of carrying arms openly;
(Case by case basis)
-that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(Unless the customs of war include destroying civilian towers, no)

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

(Al-Qaida is not a regular armed force)

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.

(This section does not apply)

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.

(Nor does this one)

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.

(This could almost qualify them, except most Al-Qaida fighters were not local inhabitants nor did they follow the rules laid out by this treaty.)

2) 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.

(Nope)

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.

(Nope)

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

(Nope)


So where exactly are Al-Qaida fighters covered under the Geneva Conventions?

[Joe Republic]

Hmm, an interesting loophole that makes torture legal.

[The Dowager Mod]

Simple semantics

[A18]

Not semantics, and fundamental point. If it was supposed to cover illegal combatants, it would have done so.

[opebo]

All of the above are good options, as the flag and the koran belong in the toilet/trash can. 

However Newsweek is certainly doing their job by informing the muslims of how the crusaders are treating them.