You know you don't own a houseOriginally posted by Buddha 3
I'd settle for boring if it'd keep my house from exploding, thank you very much.
Prisoners of War, War Criminals or Terrorist???
- Thread starter TheRo0sTer
- Start date
Crom
That Internment thing that you spoke of....It wasn't for 24 Hours....it was at HM Governments pleasure. I know people who had fathers interned for up to 5 Years without charge,,just on the suspicion that they were involved. Also, you had what you called the 'Diplock Courts' where people were sent down on the word of just 1 judge,,,,,no jury.
The British Governments methods and attempts to deal with Terrorist threats have been second to none and actually border on 'abuse of human rights'. Thats why they are always being asked for advice.
In N.Ireland they could not have done anymore than what they did except perhaps go out and shoot the f$$ers and they even attempted that! (shoot-to-kill policy) But look at the out-cry and condemnation they received for that and it needs to be said, unfortunately, that most of the condemnation came form the U.S.A....
That Internment thing that you spoke of....It wasn't for 24 Hours....it was at HM Governments pleasure. I know people who had fathers interned for up to 5 Years without charge,,just on the suspicion that they were involved. Also, you had what you called the 'Diplock Courts' where people were sent down on the word of just 1 judge,,,,,no jury.
The British Governments methods and attempts to deal with Terrorist threats have been second to none and actually border on 'abuse of human rights'. Thats why they are always being asked for advice.
In N.Ireland they could not have done anymore than what they did except perhaps go out and shoot the f$$ers and they even attempted that! (shoot-to-kill policy) But look at the out-cry and condemnation they received for that and it needs to be said, unfortunately, that most of the condemnation came form the U.S.A....
you all have very good points but i feel imust say that if the usa has declared 'war' on terrerism them the prisoners should be protected by the convention? funny how they put them out of reach of congress is it not?
Yes but "Terrorism" is not a country or republic or nation of any sort. It is a Term or word. So technically they are criminals! So what rights do criminals have??? Appearantly more than you and I!
Well, the problem with terrorists receiving benefits of POWs is that war is distinguishable from crime, whereas terrorism is more crime than war. Only in the case of the losing side of World War I has war itself ever been legally interpreted to be a crime. POWs are protected by convention as a means of respecting the sovereignty of an enemy state in so much as upholding the human rights of its citizens who under their governing body to whom they are accountable are acting legally and in a manner not of their own original will but that of the government that sends them to fight. In fact, the US treats prisoners of war often better than the enemy's own country treats them. However, in acts of terrorism the perpetrators forfeit their rights as they break not only laws of statute but laws of civilized human behavior and therefore deserve little legal protection and invite little sympathy on the humane level.
That being legal fact, in my opinion terrorists don't afford themselves POW or even suspected war criminal treatment because of the fact that they are cowards. They don't fight a war. They don't have an "army" that fights in the name of anything. They selectively claim responsibility for things after they're done and do them in a way that can't be readily interpreted to be of any objective other than to simply kill people and cause chaos. They haven't the spine to attack a military base as an army. They couldn't field a battle. They can't even shoot at armed and awake soldiers one on one, not even in an ambush. They can't do anything but do as they do because if they did otherwise they would be annihilated on the spot.
That being legal fact, in my opinion terrorists don't afford themselves POW or even suspected war criminal treatment because of the fact that they are cowards. They don't fight a war. They don't have an "army" that fights in the name of anything. They selectively claim responsibility for things after they're done and do them in a way that can't be readily interpreted to be of any objective other than to simply kill people and cause chaos. They haven't the spine to attack a military base as an army. They couldn't field a battle. They can't even shoot at armed and awake soldiers one on one, not even in an ambush. They can't do anything but do as they do because if they did otherwise they would be annihilated on the spot.
Guess what I saw today??? I was coming home from Practice today when at the petrol station on the front of all NEWs papers was a picture of how they have them prisoners kept. I was like holy ****... They have those guys shackled at the hands and feet with blind folds, ear muffs and mouth covers. Basically they can't see, hear or smell anything. Now me having a some what human side thinks that is a little far. But I am sure there are family members if the 3500 dead from the WTC who think they aren't being treated bad enough. But man I blown away at the sight of them pics.
I saw them in the paper this morning too. It is a bit over the top. Looked like that soldier boy was shouting nasty things at them too.
Very true what you say about the WTC victim's relatives. In my opinion, the relatives of people who are victims of things such as these do not have to have rational feelings about it. But that is also why they should not be involved in any judiciary process that may come into being as a result of those events.
Very true what you say about the WTC victim's relatives. In my opinion, the relatives of people who are victims of things such as these do not have to have rational feelings about it. But that is also why they should not be involved in any judiciary process that may come into being as a result of those events.