From the "No shit, Sherlock" file

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

There's also nothing in the GC that guarantees any sort of timeline for any sort of trial, nor that one is even required.

There's also the last line of the ICRC statement:

"Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

The point is, prisoners must be treated either as POWs in accordance with the GC, or as criminal defendants accorded the protections of due process of law, or both. But they cannot be treated as neither, and then on the strength of that convenient classification, treated inhumanely, or subject to conceivably indefinite detention without judicial process, just by declaring a "war on terrorism" to which there will never be an end.

Does the ICRC modify the GC, or is it commentary? Serious question, here - I don't know. Absent that knowledge, it appears that the GC sets no requirement nor any timeline for trials to occur.

Quote

THe hubbub seems to be where the line is drawn in regards to humane treatment. Going by some of the comments on here, you'd think that anything worse than the old "Spanish Inquisition" skits on Monty Python is 'inhumane'.

That's just nonsense on the face of it. We may not know all of the torture that's gone on, but over the past few years we've gradually developed a general idea:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/25/AR2005112501552_pf.html

Google "american - torture - waterboarding" sometime.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

"Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

That holds true for those who participate in ileagal acts as well as those who ordered them to do so too.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

There's also nothing in the GC that guarantees any sort of timeline for any sort of trial, nor that one is even required.

There's also the last line of the ICRC statement:

"Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

THe hubbub seems to be where the line is drawn in regards to humane treatment. Going by some of the comments on here, you'd think that anything worse than the old "Spanish Inquisition" skits on Monty Python is 'inhumane'.

Indeed - Abu Ghraib certainly fits into the "comfy sofa" category, and waterboarding is hardly any different than soft pillows.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

There's also nothing in the GC that guarantees any sort of timeline for any sort of trial, nor that one is even required.

There's also the last line of the ICRC statement:

"Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

THe hubbub seems to be where the line is drawn in regards to humane treatment. Going by some of the comments on here, you'd think that anything worse than the old "Spanish Inquisition" skits on Monty Python is 'inhumane'.

Indeed - Abu Ghraib certainly fits into the "comfy sofa" category, and waterboarding is hardly any different than soft pillows.

Hyperbole much, professor?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There's also nothing in the GC that guarantees any sort of timeline for any sort of trial, nor that one is even required.

There's also the last line of the ICRC statement:

"Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

THe hubbub seems to be where the line is drawn in regards to humane treatment. Going by some of the comments on here, you'd think that anything worse than the old "Spanish Inquisition" skits on Monty Python is 'inhumane'.

Indeed - Abu Ghraib certainly fits into the "comfy sofa" category, and waterboarding is hardly any different than soft pillows.

Hyperbole much, professor?

You brought up Monty Python as a point of comparison - so suck it up.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

"Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

That holds true for those who participate in ileagal acts as well as those who ordered them to do so too.

GC cite for the bolded? The quote mentions combatants.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There's also nothing in the GC that guarantees any sort of timeline for any sort of trial, nor that one is even required.

There's also the last line of the ICRC statement:

"Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

THe hubbub seems to be where the line is drawn in regards to humane treatment. Going by some of the comments on here, you'd think that anything worse than the old "Spanish Inquisition" skits on Monty Python is 'inhumane'.

Indeed - Abu Ghraib certainly fits into the "comfy sofa" category, and waterboarding is hardly any different than soft pillows.

Hyperbole much, professor?

You brought up Monty Python as a point of comparison - so suck it up.

Given as you're one of the people I was thinking of when writing that, I really shouldn't have been surprised by the response.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There's also nothing in the GC that guarantees any sort of timeline for any sort of trial, nor that one is even required.

There's also the last line of the ICRC statement:

"Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

THe hubbub seems to be where the line is drawn in regards to humane treatment. Going by some of the comments on here, you'd think that anything worse than the old "Spanish Inquisition" skits on Monty Python is 'inhumane'.

Indeed - Abu Ghraib certainly fits into the "comfy sofa" category, and waterboarding is hardly any different than soft pillows.

Hyperbole much, professor?

You brought up Monty Python as a point of comparison - so suck it up.

Given as you're one of the people I was thinking of when writing that, I really shouldn't have been surprised by the response.

Yes, I CAN tell the difference between soft pillows and this. Maybe you could try.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Thanks for proving the point again.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Thanks for proving the point again.

You've been taking non sequitur lessons from rushmc, haven't you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[loumeinhart 0]

Uhh these aren't civilians though

[Amazon 7]

Uh you may want to delude yourself into thinking they are not civilians...but one hell of a lot of people that have been detained ARE civilians.. and not even your ilegal combatants. When someone has an axe to grind,,,, just turn the guy in as being a terrorist... happened in Afghanistan... happens all the time in Iraq.

If a guy is shooting at you... kill the fucker....problem solved.. but far too many times the people being arested.. detained... and subgected to proscribed treatments... are only guilty of being iraqi.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Thanks for proving the point again.

You've been taking non sequitur lessons from rushmc, haven't you?

Nope - just pointing out the fact that, to you, ANY interrogative technique is equivalent to the worst of the Abu Ghraib abuses - as your repeated links show.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Uhh these aren't civilians though

How do you know this, if no trial of fact has taken place?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Thanks for proving the point again.

You've been taking non sequitur lessons from rushmc, haven't you?

Nope - just pointing out the fact that, to you, ANY interrogative technique is equivalent to the worst of the Abu Ghraib abuses - as your repeated links show.

I think you forgot to read the OP - try again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.