Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hypocrisy or am I just cynical ;)

Options
  • 12-02-2008 2:43pm
    #1
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭


    I've long since given up on trying to apply any logic or awareness of human rights to the situation in Guantanamo but the latest news just takes the biscuit.

    As we all know GWB has invented this term 'unlawful combatant' to refer to civilians attacking the US so that they can ignore the Geneva Convention and not award POW status to these prisoners. So if they're not soldiers, merely civilians, and the rules of war don't apply to them then explain this:
    Irish Times wrote:
    The US defence department, which is leading the prosecution through a much-criticised process of military commissions, issued 169 charges against the men, including conspiracy, murder in violation of the law of war

    You can't have it both ways guys - either they are POWs or not. You apply all POW rights and duties or none.

    IMO anyway.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Well they know they can get away with it.

    It may effect the relationship between the EU and US, but thats a pretty unlikely.

    I reckon they (the US) see no consequences, and know they can do what they like.


  • Options
    #3
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    I read the other day that one of the "war crimes" was committed by a Afghani that was 15 yo at the time. His crime? He killed an American soldier with a grenade...in the middle of a battle. Of course putting him on trial, as a child soldier, with the possiblity of a death sentence is a crime of the international law variety itself.


  • Options
    #4
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    Macros42 wrote: »
    I've long since given up on trying to apply any logic or awareness of human rights to the situation in Guantanamo but the latest news just takes the biscuit.

    As we all know GWB has invented this term 'unlawful combatant' to refer to civilians attacking the US so that they can ignore the Geneva Convention and not award POW status to these prisoners. So if they're not soldiers, merely civilians, and the rules of war don't apply to them then explain this:



    You can't have it both ways guys - either they are POWs or not. You apply all POW rights and duties or none.

    IMO anyway.

    I think the "unlawful combatant" schtick was debunked years ago. There is no such thing.


  • Options
    #5
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    sovtek wrote: »
    I think the "unlawful combatant" schtick was debunked years ago. There is no such thing.

    Indeed, many including myself made posts about it when it first arose. The G.C. has very carefully considered wording on pretty much most things. Anyone who does not fall under specific categories of classification regarding prisoner status arrives at a default status - so crafted to take into account the likes of militias and resistance group or what-not that may be fighting for one power or another during a conflict.

    Thus claims that the GC does not apply is essentially gross abuse and willfull ignorance of international treatise that will have serious repercussions for years to come. We've already seen the Russians, Israelis (and Iranians to a lesser extent) using similar excuses in regards their own actions.


  • Options
    #6
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    sovtek wrote: »
    I think the "unlawful combatant" schtick was debunked years ago. There is no such thing.

    There is no such thing under international law. But the US government and military stick to it. It is how they justify internment in Guantanamo and the use of military tribunals, lack of habeus corpos, lack of discovery etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,424 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    sovtek wrote: »
    I read the other day that one of the "war crimes" was committed by a Afghani that was 15 yo at the time. His crime? He killed an American soldier with a grenade...in the middle of a battle. Of course putting him on trial, as a child soldier, with the possiblity of a death sentence is a crime of the international law variety itself.
    not to mention the depravity of holding him without trial in an internment camp for 7 years, subject to god knows what level of abuse...


  • Options
    #8
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    china has up to a million people interned without trial


  • Options
    #9
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    irish_bob wrote: »
    china has up to a million people interned without trial

    Which is no excuse for the USA's actions. Just because there is someone else out there who is worse, doesn't make the US any better.


  • Options
    #10
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    wes wrote: »
    Well they know they can get away with it.

    It may effect the relationship between the EU and US, but thats a pretty unlikely.

    With a downturn in the economy (not going to say a recession yet) now would be as good a time as any for the EU to start shopping around for new allies. Course the US would have to **** up an awful lot in the next year or two for that to seriously happen.


  • Options
    #11
    Kev_ps3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,604 ✭✭✭Kev_ps3


    wes wrote: »
    Well they know they can get away with it.

    It may effect the relationship between the EU and US, but thats a pretty unlikely.

    I reckon they (the US) see no consequences, and know they can do what they like.

    Exactly. Who is going to apply sanctions on the US? No one is the answer. You dont pick on the biggest boy in the yard, even if he is a bully.
    All we can do is wait, wait for the downfall of the bully.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    You'll be waiting an awful long time. Ask the people who thought the revolution was just around the corner in the sixties.


  • Options
    #13
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    irish_bob wrote: »
    china has up to a million people interned without trial

    Totally irrelevant. China don't portray themselves as the defenders of truth, justice and democracy.


  • Options
    #14
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    murder in violation of the law of war

    I haven't seen the charge sheet, but I could argue that if you engage soldiers as a civilian and when not wearing identifiable markings, you've just violated the laws of war which require that combatants be visually identifiable as such. In fact, being an 'unlawful combatant' by definition means you've broken a law, presumably involving combat which could mean war.

    NTM


  • Options
    #15
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Manic: the point is that the US have refused to consider them as war criminals up to now. If they did then the Geneva Convention would apply with all the rights that POWs get. I'm not saying that these people are blameless (although they could be - we'll never know cos they'll never get to a properly convened and unbiased court) but it is the double standards that the US military are applying here that gets me. For the last few years they've been 'unlawful combatants' where the rules of war don't apply but that that they are finally charging them with something it a case of "hey - let's charge them for breaking the rules of war".


Advertisement