Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (175461)	11/21/2005 12:06:45 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

This Hawk character says he is in Iraq, but can't provide any details because of what he does over there (where ever "there" is??) and his wonderful deeds on our behalf and then posts this BS stuff on a public board and you think my comments are "gratuitous" and "uncalled for". Let me know when you think things are so bad In Iraq that my comments are called for. Btw, I have no doubt there are bastards all over Iraq; I just think Hawk is full of BS where ever he is. >>"Some of us HAVE TO WATCH them.. It's part of our job.. Because we want to identify the people doing them.. Like the bastard up in Mosul we killed a couple of weeks ago who was the leader of a beheading cell, who's trademark was this "Rambo knife" he used on his victims."<<

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (175461)	11/23/2005 3:41:46 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As to the WP discussion if it turns out that WP was used against civilians then the central problem is who authorized its use and why. Noel, if you really believe that an American military commander was looking through his binoculars and, seeing a group of unarmed civilians, gave the order to "light 'em up", then I guess you're willing to believe that the victims of Al Qai'da suicide attacks "deserved it" because they should have known better than to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I think you more logical than that.. However, present concrete evidence that an American commander DELIBERATELY fired WP at civilians and I'd say "hang him from the highest yardarm". And no.. illegal combatants is NOT debatable. Sovereign nations entered into those treaties between one another for the purpose of determining the "rules" of war. "detailed uniform, identification, and mutual recognition of combatants and the treatment of POWs. So under THOSE terms, Al Qai'da terrorists are 1.) not sovereign. 2.) not signatories to these treaties. 3.) have shown UTTER disregard to the context of those treaties, including the treatment of opposing POWs. 4.) have committed horrible war crimes by DELIBERATELY targeting innocent, unarmed, civilians. They are entitled ONLY to the basic treatments reserved to human rights, including no physical torture (beatings or physical punishment). And the fact that they belong to no country's armed forces (and that NO country is claiming that they are, or seeking to claim them as combatants, also denies them coverage under those treaties. And given that their crimes are committed outside of the US territories, they are NOT automatically entitled to treatment equal to US citizens, or even legal alien residents. Now, I'm speaking LEGALISTICALLY... according to current international law. I'm NOT saying that some of these treaties might not need to be rewritten in order to deal with these current circumstances. The reality is that they are criminals who fall outside of the legal protections of US law. They actually fall within the jurisdiction of the legal statutes of the country in which they committed the crime. Iraq, for example, had few legal statutes until the passing of their constitution. Now there is the beginning of a statuatory legal framework under while to deal with these criminals. And Iraq has the right to permit US forces to detain, or extradite these individuals into US custody to be detained and dealt with under the US Military Code of Justice (I believe that's code we rely upon in this case, but not sure). So if you wish to assert political pressure to "protect" the rights of these militant criminals, then the place to exert it is with the Iraqis government. You should encourage them to take control over all detainees who commit these criminals acts. I'm sure they will find far more humane care from the Iraqi government.. Btw, GW was a legal combatant because US forces fell under a legal command structure and most wore uniforms, or were part of an organized (and authorized militia). But they didn't stop the British from hanging quite a few of them as traitors and insurrectionists. (Come on.. didn't you watch "The Patriot"?? Though thoroughly "Hollywood", it accurately reflected the tactics used by the British in the Southern Colonies.) And you're right.. beheading IS a cruel death.. Many of those images are going to stick with me for years.. But you know something? I could realistically give more respect and forgiveness to a terrorist or insurgent who was fighting totalitarianism for the cause of promoting individual freedoms for people than I can for someone who is commiting acts of terror in order to create an complete governmental system of terrorism. Maybe that's why I don't have much sympathy for them. Because what they seek to impose by their actions is the repression and subjugation of all human freedoms. Hawk