US Occupation jails AP photographer for 5 months and refuses to charge him - Page 6

Kytro · 09-20-2006, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

its their court system, it appears that it takes awhile for justice to be dealt.

Not a good thing.

Ardentfrost · 09-20-2006, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

you are thinking like this is an american court of law which it is not. that has been my point this entire thread.

I've never said they have to follow american law... I haven't quoted a SINGLE american law. I have ONLY quoted Geneva Conventions which ARE BEING VIOLATED, which DO APPLY TO OUR OCCUPATION (GC even talks specifically about occupations).

I don't see a simpler way to put it to you than to quote GCs... I'm at a loss. You just think I'm trying to give them American rights when I am talking about GC. 6 pages and you still don't get it.

kinggovernor · 09-20-2006, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I've never said they have to follow american law... I haven't quoted a SINGLE american law. I have ONLY quoted Geneva Conventions which ARE BEING VIOLATED, which DO APPLY TO OUR OCCUPATION (GC even talks specifically about occupations).

I don't see a simpler way to put it to you than to quote GCs... I'm at a loss. You just think I'm trying to give them American rights when I am talking about GC. 6 pages and you still don't get it.

you are claiming that everyone is a cilivan, they are not.

Ardentfrost · 09-20-2006, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

you are claiming that everyone is a cilivan, they are not.

I'm claiming nothing, I'm only telling you what the GC classifies as civilian. As soon as we unsign the GC, then I won't be able to use those definitions, but until then, I'm just quoting it.

Thorgrim · 09-20-2006, 08:01 PM

kg do you care at all how many innocent people the US throws in prisons and/or tortures...at all?

a hundred...a thousand...a million? any care whatsoever?

kinggovernor · 09-21-2006, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

kg do you care at all how many innocent people the US throws in prisons and/or tortures...at all?

a hundred...a thousand...a million? any care whatsoever?

what makes them innocent?

Scrum · 09-21-2006, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

what makes them innocent?

Having not committed a crime.

Are you going for the "Nobody is innocent" thing?

kinggovernor · 09-21-2006, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Having not committed a crime.

Are you going for the "Nobody is innocent" thing?

they have committed a crime, can someone please find the "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" in the GC. You do not need a court to decide if someone is a civilian or not, that is a decision that is made on the ground

Ardentfrost · 09-21-2006, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they have committed a crime, can someone please find the "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" in the GC. You do not need a court to decide if someone is a civilian or not, that is a decision that is made on the ground

Dude, how much GC do I have to quote before it gets through to you. Innocent or not, he's not supposed to be detained without proof of being a combatant or being tried for doing shit to the occupying power. In either case, GC is very clear, he MUST BE CHARGED AND TRIED. If he were just waiting on trial, he'd still be charged, which he isn't.

kinggovernor · 09-21-2006, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Dude, how much GC do I have to quote before it gets through to you. Innocent or not, he's not supposed to be detained without proof of being a combatant or being tried for doing shit to the occupying power. In either case, GC is very clear, he MUST BE CHARGED AND TRIED. If he were just waiting on trial, he'd still be charged, which he isn't.

its only been 5 months

Diesel66 · 09-21-2006, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

so we can lockup whoever we want in a foreign country we are "at war with"

Yes, READ the Geneva Conventions.

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

This is from Conventions 4 article 68 and 71. Let me even quote some of this...

We havent put him on trial at all, so that quote doesnt matter. We havent accused him of a crime, merely holding him as a POW.

IF he is accused of a crime or accused of not following the rules of war, he will be put on trial and deserves all the rights written out in the GC. Until then he can be held.

Ardentfrost · 09-21-2006, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Yes, READ the Geneva Conventions.

We havent put him on trial at all, so that quote doesnt matter. We havent accused him of a crime, merely holding him as a POW.

IF he is accused of a crime or accused of not following the rules of war, he will be put on trial and deserves all the rights written out in the GC. Until then he can be held.

He needs to be accused of being a combatant to be held as a combatant. Otherwise, he's a civilian and needs to be treated as such.

And that is straight from the GC. It gives explicit definition of what's a civilian and what isn't (actually, it defines combatant and says anyone who is not those is a civilian).

He's been held for 5 months without being accused of being a combatant. The article is just hearsay, no offical anything. Hence, he is being held against the laws outlined in the GC.

I mean, to me it's pretty simple. It's all there in the conventions.

Diesel66 · 09-21-2006, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

He needs to be accused of being a combatant to be held as a combatant. Otherwise, he's a civilian and needs to be treated as such.

He isnt being held as a civilian because he is accused of aiding the enemy. He is held the same way a Halliburtion contractor would be held, POW.

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

kinggovernor · 09-21-2006, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

He needs to be accused of being a combatant to be held as a combatant. Otherwise, he's a civilian and needs to be treated as such.

And that is straight from the GC. It gives explicit definition of what's a civilian and what isn't (actually, it defines combatant and says anyone who is not those is a civilian).

He's been held for 5 months without being accused of being a combatant. The article is just hearsay, no offical anything. Hence, he is being held against the laws outlined in the GC.

I mean, to me it's pretty simple. It's all there in the conventions.

He wasn't detained because he had a camera in his hand. He was detained because he was rolling with the leader of al qaeda in iraq and the weapons that were in their custody, that is what makes him not a civilian.

nbiggershaft · 09-21-2006, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

He isnt being held as a civilian because he is accused of aiding the enemy. He is held the same way a Halliburtion contractor would be held, POW.

The administration has expressly denied treating them as POW's because POW's have too many rights.

Ardentfrost · 09-21-2006, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

The administration has expressly denied treating them as POW's because POW's have too many rights.

Which is why they're not accusing him of anything... if they accuse him, he falls into a category. Instead they just don't accuse him and CLAIM he isn't a civilian.

Donkey® · 09-21-2006, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

He wasn't detained because he had a camera in his hand. He was detained because he was rolling with the leader of al qaeda in iraq and the weapons that were in their custody, that is what makes him not a civilian.

Embedded journalist? Is a photographer rolling around the desert on one of our tanks a civilian still?

Thorgrim · 09-21-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

He wasn't detained because he had a camera in his hand. He was detained because he was rolling with the leader of al qaeda in iraq and the weapons that were in their custody, that is what makes him not a civilian.

He was detained because the military took him, THE REST IS PURE SPECULATION

kinggovernor · 09-21-2006, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He was detained because the military took him, THE REST IS PURE SPECULATION

Hussein was captured with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.

that didn't happen?