The Jacksonian Tradition

[Azeron]

I will remember that when they are lined up against a wall and filed full of lead.

[Master of Ossus]

I will remember that when they are lined up against a wall and filed full of lead.

The Geneva convention does not make any stipulations about respecting it when fighting against non-Geneva convention signators. The Nazis were still violating it when they fought against the Soviets. Their justification of their actions (that the Soviets were also not respecting the convention), did not absolve them from responsibility.

[Azeron]

Thik of it like this, its an aggreement between nations for the little guy. If they don;t want to fight like that, than they don't have to. What happened after WW2 is stupid show trials. They should have shot the lot of them, or shoved em into an oven.

Fuck the courts, we need justice.

[Admiral Piett]

Thanks for admitting the taliban were non-signators to teh geneva conevention and are not subject to the conditions.

Where have I said that?
Afghanistan signed Geneva conventions back in 1949.These conventions are international treaties between states.International treaties do not decay automatically when the regime changes.So if they could be considered the legitimate government of Afghanistan they would still theoretically be bound by the Geneva conventions.Even if they are not,the case is debatable, they could probably still be considered at least as a partisan group.I am sure that their actions were not always by textbook,however american bombings are not probably by textbook themselves.
But even if I am wrong,which is a possibility(but i would like you give me a demonstration), if talibans are not covered by the Geneva conventions and you can legally execute them justifying yourself with this legal nitpicking we are currently unleashing against each other this will not solve the main problem:if you start to execute talibans prisoners this will give a very bad impression.So should this happen no one will have the right to be surprise when american prisoners will be executed during the next war.Something similar (on a much larger scale) happened in the eastern front during WW2 and trust me,it is an ugly thing.
Nazi style retaliations do not work well against fanatics in anyway.

[Admiral Piett]

The Taliban, however, did not sign the Geneva convention (they did not even exist back then), and they have never since signed it. They are not officially bound by its treatise, but they are probably morally responsible for its terms.

The change of regime in a country does NOT automatically invalidate the international treaties previously signed by that country.This is a common rule.Otherwise after all some states probably would have to sign the same treaties on a monthly basis.Remember that Russia is still bound by Soviet Union era treaties.And Afghanistan signed at least some of the protocols back in 1949.If the Geneva conventions are international treaties then this principle should probably apply even to them,unless it is specified otherwise.
If the talibans could qualify as the legitimate government,and they had some chances to qualify as such(some amount of international recognition,
"control" of the majority of the state and the capital etc) then they were theoretically forced to follow them.
And partisans and such groups are allowed by the conventions in anyway.

[Admiral Piett]

I will remember that when they are lined up against a wall and filed full of lead.

Standard answer when you run out of arguments,I suppose.

[Admiral Piett]

So much for your "line them against the wall and fill them of lead"

Article 75.-Fundamental guarantees
1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.
2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:

(a) Violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:

(i) Murder;

(ii) Torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;

( iii ) Corporal punishment ; and

(iv) Mutilation;

(b) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;

(c) The taking of hostages;

(d) Collective punishments; and

(e) Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

3. Any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why these measures have been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penal offences, such persons shall be released with the minimum delay possible and in any event as soon as the circumstances justifying the arrest, detention or internment have ceased to exist.

4. No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure, which include the following:

(a) The procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence;

(b) No one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility;

(c) No one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the national or international law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;

(d) Anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilt according to law;

(e) Anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence;

(f) No one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt;

(g) Anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(h) No one shall be prosecuted or punished by the same Party for an offence in respect of which a final judgement acquitting or convicting that person has been previously pronounced under the same law and judicial procedure;

(i) Anyone prosecuted for an offence shall have the right to have the judgement pronounced publicly; and

(i) A convicted person shall be advised on conviction of his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised.

5. Women whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to the armed conflict shall be held in quarters separated from men's quarters. They shall be under the immediate supervision of women. Nevertheless, in cases

where families are detained or interned, they shall, whenever possible, be held in the same place and accommodated as family units.

6. Persons who are arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to the armed conflict shall enjoy the protection provided by this Article until their final release, repatriation or re-establishment, even after the end of the armed conflict.

7. In order to avoid any doubt concerning the prosecution and trial of persons accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity, the following principles shall apply:

(a) Persons who are accused of such crimes should be submitted for the purpose of prosecution and trial in accordance with the applicable rules of international law; and

(b) Any such persons who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or this Protocol shall be accorded the treatment provided by this Article, whether or not the crimes of which they are accused constitute grave breaches of the Conventions or of this Protocol.

8. No provision of this Article may be construed as limiting or infringing any other more favourable provision granting greater protection, under any applicable rules of international law, to persons covered by paragraph 1.

[Admiral Piett]

This is the article 45.


Article 45.-Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities
1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.

3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, an such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.

[Azeron]

Article 75 and 45 refer to the status of paramilitary organizations arising from the general populace to engage in hositilies. Suppose America was invaded by Europe, and I grabbed my shot gun and in the proccess of getting my 100th frenchie kill I am captured. Thats what they are refferring to. And as stated in Article 1 and referenced in 75, they still must be signators or under the command of a responsible leader who intends to abide by the rules of war. No one is suggesting that the taliban at any time, Mullah Omar actually told any of thier fighters to obey the geneva convention.

In addition, there is no gaurentee of protections for those wh oengage in perfidous actions, something they did all the time, like storing munitions in relgious buildings, or using reporters under the guise of an interview as a suicde bomber to kill the Nothern Alliance Leader.

So this little theory of your is kaput.

There is nothing legalistic about what I am saying. It comes down to this. If you don't even attempt to abide by the treaty, let alone sign, don't expect any of its protections.

You putting the treaty under a microscope to find some provision, and provision which might cover them. There aren't any. Give up. No amount of legalistic jargon is going to change what the clear intent of the treaty is. Its states firmly in article 1 that this is a treaty between contracting states PERIOD. Barbarians do not qualify.

Alright, besides all of this. why do you want to protect either the taliban or Al Queada?
Anythinkg we do to thier combatents is going to pale in comparison to what they did to our civilians. SO WHAT IF WE MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF THEM!! it isn't like if we treat them really nice, there are going to stop attacking us. But if we can show them what we will do to them if we catch them commiting one of their deranged operations, they just might cower out.

[Admiral Piett]

You putting the treaty under a microscope to find some provision, and provision which might cover them. There aren't any. Give up. No amount of legalistic jargon is going to change what the clear intent of the treaty is. Its states firmly in article 1 that this is a treaty between contracting states PERIOD. Barbarians do not qualify.

It is called trying to "back your statements with a source".A new concept for you,do not worry,you will get accustomed to it.
Afghanistan signed the treaty.The talibans might be considered the legitimate government of Afghanistan.Period.
Did they abide to the conventions?Probably not.However are you sure that they were the ones to kill Massud? Maybe Al Quaeda did this as a present for them.After all some US allies did comparable things in the past (South Vietnam comes to mind) so you have little right to be scandalized.
I am sure that many of their actions do not qualify too much well under Geneva conventions.However cluster bombs and others toys probably do not neither in some cases.So if you start to execute talibans you should not be too surprised when someone will decide that an US pilot could be considered a barbarian and treated in the same way.And that would be very sad.

[Admiral Piett]

And as fair as Al Quaeda members go,a fair trial and a nice execution.
Personally I would prefer an international court and a life sentence.But this is a matter of personal tastes.

[Azeron]

Your Concenr for the welfare of US troops is noted for future reference (BUHAHAHAHHAA!!!!!!)

but I think a bit misplaced. Only Western Naitons have ever abided by the accord. I know of no instance where an arab nation or a muslim nation abided by it, So its pointless to try and set an example for what they will ignore in any regard.

I still can;t see where you are getting this fair trial thing from. Al Queada didn't give anyone in the trade center a trial before they killed them, why should they get one?

[Admiral Piett]

Your Concenr for the welfare of US troops is noted for future reference (BUHAHAHAHHAA!!!!!!)

but I think a bit misplaced. Only Western Naitons have ever abided by the accord. I know of no instance where an arab nation or a muslim nation abided by it, So its pointless to try and set an example for what they will ignore in any regard.

I still can;t see where you are getting this fair trial thing from. Al Queada didn't give anyone in the trade center a trial before they killed them, why should they get one?

1)I was sarcastic.Unfortunately our prime minister has decided that we are in the party and I would not like to see one of our soldiers executed because some american moron has decided that the Geneva conventions are one of those useless international treaties (such as the land mines ban treaty) which some stupid US politician thinks that undermine "US national sovereignty" or other crap.
2)The Geneva conventions of 1949 were signed by practically all the nations of the world.
3)Using your logic there should not be any trials at all:when have ever criminals tried their victims? I bet that your concept of justice is a lyinching mob.