There is no definition in the Geneva Conventions (yes, I've read them all) about terrorists or terrorism because the documents are old and antiquated. Although not irrelevant to many aspects of warfare, they have lagged behind as times have changed and combatants have stopped lining up in uniforms to face each other on the green. Iraqi insurgents and terrorists don't wear uniforms so they can't be POW's as required by law a POW must be in a uniform clearly identified. These people try as much as possible to NOT be identified as a combatant. Under the laws of war and the GC they most closely resemble spies, armed, out of uniform or in a false uniform and as such are subject to summary execution. Something that would stand the test in a court of law but since they aren't really spies as they DO intend to inflict casualties and not just collect information they are undefined by such legal precedents and statutes. That is why we have this new classification and why there is Camp Delta. This is a new breed of enemy and it requires new laws and new procedures. We are adapting and it takes time in a democracy... like Bush said it would be much easier if he were a dictator.

Missileer

Oh I see, if its contradicting the decisions of El Presidente its automatically leftist and therefore wrong. Thats a real narrow philosophy. I'm curious what papers do you read?

If you bothered to check I provided the whole link and only selected the part that contradicted your weak arguement, which was done in 2 sentences. I read both US and UK papers, and frankly the British news is far more aware of whats going on in the US than the American media are, unless you really are interested in Britney Spears boob job or watching grown white men drool over Bush.

And what does that link proove exactly? That hamza didnt have access to civilian courts? That 's sort of a no-brainer as a 'enemy combantant' he doesnt have any rights to begin with. All that does is state the obvious. He has no legal standing in the US and therefore no access to the court system, congratulations we are right back where we started. Whats your point?

You still didnt get the point the USSC can still overturn any decision or any law including the creation drumhead trials.

Bulldogg

I'll agree. The GC (I have read them too) are too obsolete to deal with there terrorism issue. They need to up updated so that what is and what is not a terrorist is clearly defined. Speaking hypothetically, they might be considered as Partisans depending on the group and the conflict. For example, the ex-baathists in Iraq.

Your thoughts?

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Missileer

Oh I see, if its contradicting the decisions of El Presidente its automatically leftist and therefore wrong. Thats a real narrow philosophy. I'm curious what papers do you read?

If you bothered to check I provided the whole link and only selected the part that contradicted your weak arguement, which was done in 2 sentences. I read both US and UK papers, and frankly the British news is far more aware of whats going on in the US than the American media are, unless you really are interested in Britney Spears boob job or watching grown white men drool over Bush.

And what does that link proove exactly? That hamza didnt have access to civilian courts? That 's sort of a no-brainer as a 'enemy combantant' he doesnt have any rights to begin with. All that does is state the obvious. He has no legal standing in the US and therefore no access to the court system, congratulations we are right back where we started. Whats your point?

You still didnt get the point the USSC can still overturn any decision or any law including the creation drumhead trials.

Do you understand that one can't walk up to the Supreme Court and knock on the door and demand to be heard?
Do you know anything about the lower courts appeals process? All you have done here is belabor an argument that has pretty well run it's course many times on the forum.

Bulldogg

I'll agree. The GC (I have read them too) are too obsolete to deal with there terrorism issue. They need to up updated so that what is and what is not a terrorist is clearly defined. Speaking hypothetically, they might be considered as Partisans depending on the group and the conflict. For example, the ex-baathists in Iraq.

Your thoughts?

Do you understand that one can't walk up to the Supreme Court and knock on the door and demand to be heard?
Do you know anything about the lower courts appeals process? All you have done here is belabor an argument that has pretty well run it's course many times on the forum. Nuff said on what may and may not happen scenarios.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Personally, I don't know and more importantly I don't care. There was a time not long ago I was bothered by Gitmo's Camp Delta but now, after I have spent more time researching my enemy I couldn't give a good god damn about their treatment or mistreatment. Suicides? Whatever... one less mouth my tax dollars have to feed and one less suicide bomber to worry about.

I didn't think I'd ever agree with the above statements ... but ... after seeing what is being done by terrorists worldwide, I don't give a G. G. D. what happens to them. As far as I am concerned, we should have stood them against a wall and executed them long ago as terrorists. They want to be martyrs and I think we should help them.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

I didn't think I'd ever agree with the above statements ... but ... after seeing what is being done by terrorists worldwide, I don't give a G. G. D. what happens to them. As far as I am concerned, we should have stood them against a wall and executed them long ago as terrorists. They want to be martyrs and I think we should help them.

I have to agree.

Their after virgins, don't know what gender!

I hope all their virgins look like Helen Thomas.

The Virgin Kongkong10.jpg

the ragheads were kind enough and thoughtful enough to spare the world the cost of buying some rope for them....thats the only God bless'em they will get from me

Originally Posted by Missileer

I want Gitmo to stand as a fate worse than death and that's exactly what it is to most "terrorists." They are in a place that they earned, who are we to take that away from them. And as for suicides, what is that to them except that they can't take others with them with a suicide belt?

Problem is a good chunk of these people are probably innocent, as many of them are people siezed by Pakistanis and Saudis, or are just people plucked right out of the middle of a battlefield that may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Plus treating them as prisoners of war legitimizes their organization.