if memory serves me correctly many of the gitmo prisioners were caught in one haul, they were in some court yard armed and shooting at our forces when they were overtaken, rounded up and put in prision. Granted some were probably just in the wrong place at the wrong time but if they were not smart enough to stay clear of a fire fight then they can only hold themselves accountable.

Those who weren't lucky enough to get sent to Gitmo likely spent the rest of their short life stuffed in shipping containers until they cooked alive from the heat. People who complain about the conditions at Gitmo are about as ignorant as they come.

any enemy combatant caught on the battlefield out of uniform could legally be shot on the spot as a spy.

Define enemy combatant or I should say in your example what do you assume an enemy combatant to be?

Is it just anyone without a uniform who is suspected?....

Not all armies can afford uniforms....Most enemies in VietNam did not have one.

Or do they have to be carrying a weapon?

Could it be things like wrong nationality for the zone they are found in? What is the battlefield?

Because when the US goes in a whole country or two becomes a battlefield.....

Again I am curious....is your/this idea uniform across the board?

Meaning you would expect/allow the enemy the same rights to kill as a spy any plain clothed foreigners in what they consider the battlefield.

You have these questions because you took my only part of my quote. I said the US should follow the Geneva Conventions so read the GC and you'll find your answer. If it isn't conclusive to you, then the problem is with the GC definition, not mine.

Boy you do not have very much conviction in what you write do you??

Yes of course I understood your GC ref but I parsed the text as always to save space. I hate folks who quote 100 words to add a 3 word reply

Anyway as you wish....your whole quote is as follows

I for one believe the US should follow the Geneva Conventions. That way, any enemy combatant caught on the battlefield out of uniform could legally be shot on the spot as a spy. That'sone helluva lot of legally shot people pushing up poppies. When we took prisoners, they would stay in a POW camp until the War of Terror ended. In other words, they'd die of old age. More expensive than a bullet, but better than letting them free.

Hope you dont mind I bold text-ed the part I will ref for you........

So you say you believe the US should follow the GC

As such I asked you a simple question based on your stated belief that the US should follow this GC rule. Basically how you felt or interpreted that rule.

You know if you want I will not ask you any questions about your posts in the future because as I said you do not seem to have any conviction/answers when questioned about your statements

Thanks

quote name='koheesti' timestamp='1289414066' post='4015066'

any enemy combatant caught on the battlefield out of uniform could legally be shot on the spot as a spy.

Define enemy combatant or I should say in your example what do you assume an enemy combatant to be?

Is it just anyone without a uniform who is suspected?....

Not all armies can afford uniforms....Most enemies in VietNam did not have one.

Or do they have to be carrying a weapon?

Could it be things like wrong nationality for the zone they are found in? What is the battlefield?

Because when the US goes in a whole country or two becomes a battlefield.....

Again I am curious....is your/this idea uniform across the board?

Meaning you would expect/allow the enemy the same rights to kill as a spy any plain clothed foreigners in what they consider the battlefield.

You have these questions because you took my only part of my quote. I said the US should follow the Geneva Conventions so read the GC and you'll find your answer. If it isn't conclusive to you, then the problem is with the GC definition, not mine.

Boy you do not have very much conviction in what you write do you??

Yes of course I understood your GC ref but I parsed the text as always to save space. I hate folks who quote 100 words to add a 3 word reply

Anyway as you wish....your whole quote is as follows

I for one believe the US should follow the Geneva Conventions. That way, any enemy combatant caught on the battlefield out of uniform could legally be shot on the spot as a spy. That'sone helluva lot of legally shot people pushing up poppies. When we took prisoners, they would stay in a POW camp until the War of Terror ended. In other words, they'd die of old age. More expensive than a bullet, but better than letting them free.

Hope you dont mind I bold text-ed the part I will ref for you........

So you say you believe the US should follow the GC

As such I asked you a simple question based on your stated belief that the US should follow this GC rule. Basically how you felt or interpreted that rule.

You know if you want I will not ask you any questions about your posts in the future because as I said you do not seem to have any conviction/answers when questioned about your statements

Thanks

And I hope you don't mind that I bold text-ed your part. I interpret the rule to mean they can shoot these guys when they catch them on the battlefield. Please, in the future, don't waste everyone's time by asking me something I have already answered multiple times on the same page.

I interpret the rule to mean they can shoot these guys when they catch them on the battlefield. Please, in the future, don't waste everyone's time by asking me something I have already answered multiple times on the same page.

Ok we will just forget the original questions....as usual...No biggie

Sorry to have wasted any of your time...Now back to that important stuff what you were doing eh?

Thanks

Define enemy combatant or I should say in your example what do you assume an enemy combatant to be?

Is it just anyone without a uniform who is suspected?....

Not all armies can afford uniforms....Most enemies in VietNam did not have one.

Or do they have to be carrying a weapon?

Could it be things like wrong nationality for the zone they are found in? What is the battlefield?

I interpret the rule to mean they can shoot these guys when they catch them on the battlefield. Please, in the future, don't waste everyone's time by asking me something I have already answered multiple times on the same page.

Ok we will just forget the original questions....as usual...No biggie

Sorry to have wasted any of your time...Now back to that important stuff what you were doing eh?

Thanks

Define enemy combatant or I should say in your example what do you assume an enemy combatant to be?

Is it just anyone without a uniform who is suspected?....

Not all armies can afford uniforms....Most enemies in VietNam did not have one.

Or do they have to be carrying a weapon?

Could it be things like wrong nationality for the zone they are found in? What is the battlefield?

If they are shooting at our guys - they can be shot. If they are captured with weapons on the battlefield they can be shot. If they are school teachers, nuns or ten year olds who get caught on the battlefield with weapons then they run the risk of getting shot. If YOU are in the wrong place at that wrong time - you run the risk of getting shot.

I interpret the rule to mean they can shoot these guys when they catch them on the battlefield. Please, in the future, don't waste everyone's time by asking me something I have already answered multiple times on the same page.

Ok we will just forget the original questions....as usual...No biggie

Sorry to have wasted any of your time...Now back to that important stuff what you were doing eh?

Thanks

Define enemy combatant or I should say in your example what do you assume an enemy combatant to be?

Is it just anyone without a uniform who is suspected?....

Not all armies can afford uniforms....Most enemies in VietNam did not have one.

Or do they have to be carrying a weapon?

Could it be things like wrong nationality for the zone they are found in? What is the battlefield?

If they are shooting at our guys - they can be shot. If they are captured with weapons on the battlefield they can be shot. If they are school teachers, nuns or ten year olds who get caught on the battlefield with weapons then they run the risk of getting shot. If YOU are in the wrong place at that wrong time - you run the risk of getting shot.

So what you're saying is, "take no prisoners, shoot all the enemy" is within the GC?

If they are shooting at our guys - they can be shot. If they are captured with weapons on the battlefield they can be shot. If they are school teachers, nuns or ten year olds who get caught on the battlefield with weapons then they run the risk of getting shot. If YOU are in the wrong place at that wrong time - you run the risk of getting shot.

So what you're saying is, "take no prisoners, shoot all the enemy" is within the GC?

Also makes it tough since there is no declared war so hard to define the "enemy" ....

Then if we take his last If YOU are in the wrong place at that wrong time - you run the risk of getting shot.

That would justify pretty much killing anything including any Americans killed anywhere considered a wrong place

If they are shooting at our guys - they can be shot. If they are captured with weapons on the battlefield they can be shot. If they are school teachers, nuns or ten year olds who get caught on the battlefield with weapons then they run the risk of getting shot. If YOU are in the wrong place at that wrong time - you run the risk of getting shot.

So what you're saying is, "take no prisoners, shoot all the enemy" is within the GC?

Also makes it tough since there is no declared war so hard to define the "enemy" ....

Then if we take his last If YOU are in the wrong place at that wrong time - you run the risk of getting shot.

That would justify pretty much killing anything including any Americans killed anywhere considered a wrong place

Yep...it seems that the right-wing view is that the 3 American hikers on the Iranian border should have been shot on sight.

It also seems that they do not believe in the presumption of innocence as a legal precept.

Come to that, it would appear that they support radical Palestinians attempting to kill their enemy......no, that's wrong....they don't support that.

International law, and US law, is not a two-way street to these people....it's only a convenient thing to cite when it suits, but a thing to be ignored otherwise.

did the Germans during World war II act according to the Geneva convention and do you approve that they shot the russian, french and yugoslav resistance fighters?

battlefield = my àss!

What a curious question. I don't know about you but, I don't use Nazi Germany as a benchmark of how a military should behave.

yada yada yada... is no answer.

So what you're saying is, "take no prisoners, shoot all the enemy" is within the GC?

Also makes it tough since there is no declared war so hard to define the "enemy" ....

Then if we take his last If YOU are in the wrong place at that wrong time - you run the risk of getting shot.

That would justify pretty much killing anything including any Americans killed anywhere considered a wrong place

Yep...it seems that the right-wing view is that the 3 American hikers on the Iranian border should have been shot on sight.

It also seems that they do not believe in the presumption of innocence as a legal precept.

Come to that, it would appear that they support radical Palestinians attempting to kill their enemy......no, that's wrong....they don't support that.

International law, and US law, is not a two-way street to these people....it's only a convenient thing to cite when it suits, but a thing to be ignored otherwise.

Sorry Harky

The terrorists are fighting a constant war against their perceived enemies. These enemies are not the "administrations" of the West, but the people of the world who do not conform to their view of how they should live and worship.

They attempt many hundreds of times a year to kill and maim innocent men, women and children in their push for doctrinal domination. When these people are captured using techniques which may on the face of it appear harsh and " uncivilised ", enable countries across the globe to stop the atrocities which are being planned even as we speak. If water-boarding is the worst they get, they are lucky. Do you think these evil men would draw a line under that technique if they captured you or I and decided to have a bit of sport in some cave in the Yemen ?

Two wrongs do not make a right. But the wrong in this case is justified. So a terrorist gets a bit of water up his nose, so what ? The information provided may and does save the lives of many folk, who just want to go about their business in peace. I have seen, many years ago in both the Lebanon and Northern Ireland, what the results of a terrorist bomb actually look like ( and smell like ). Trust me on this, if you had seen just one of the results of such carnage, you would be in the line with your water hose at the ready.

did the Germans during World war II act according to the Geneva convention and do you approve that they shot the russian, french and yugoslav resistance fighters?

battlefield = my àss!

What a curious question. I don't know about you but, I don't use Nazi Germany as a benchmark of how a military should behave.

yada yada yada... is no answer.

It seems to be your answer in this case (and most of the time).

THREE (3) IS THE MAGIC NUMBER.

With all this hullabaloo about water boarding, should we now pause and reflect that the US only water boarded a total of THREE (3) terrorists.

The number is not in the thousands, hundreds or even as many as ten.

It is a very insignificant THREE (3) individuals.

The Great Satan strikes again.

If you can`t have civilized discussions I`m going to end them.