Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:20:21 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[🔎] 20070405022021.GA12522@santiago.connexer.com:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 05:22:30PM +0000, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:31:11 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
>> [🔎] 20070403223111.GA18304@santiago.connexer.com:
>>
>> > I'm sorry, but who decided that the memos were of "dubious legal
>> > merit"? The media? Please forgive me if I consider their motives
>> > suspect.
>>
>> ..the Red Cross have suspect motives?
>>
>> > Now, if there has been a court decision which invalidates the Justice
>
> No, the media has suspect motives. The Red Cross generally has OK
> motives, though they are a bit left-leaning in their official views.
..the red cross is left-leaning. Uh-uh. And I thought red was the
religious righteous republican color. Now, the Nazis might agree with
you here, I'm only aware of Danish Jews getting Red Cross visits in the
concentration camps.
>> > If it weren't for the fact that the prisoners often attack or
>> > otherwise harrass the guards I might be more sympathetic. IIRC,
>> > Gereman soldiers were held in POW camps in Canada during WWII. Now,
>> > I'm sure that some tried to escape (what POW wouldn't). But despite
>> > how despicable the German military's actions were, my understanding
>> > based on history is that as POWs they were still professional
>> > soldiers.
>>
>> ..actually no, the vast majority was draftees.
>>
> I did not mean professional as in career volunteer soldiers. I was
> referring to their comportment while POWs.
..for those germans holding norwegians or airmen or officers POW in WWII,
I agree, for those holding Tuskegee airmen or GI's, I know too little,
for those holding Jews, Polish, Russian etc "untermänchen" I disagree,
these people were treated to neocon standards.
>> > They did not sling feces and urine at their guards. They did not
>> > attack their guards and
>> > try to infect them with disease.
>>
>> ..this is actually an old Christian Feudal European military strategy
>> and proved very effective against the native "Indian" American, use the
>> complete medieval Christian lack of hygiene as a biological weapon
>> against the Maya etc civilizations, one such conquistador brought 300
>> pigs across to somewhere between NOLA and Boston around 1500-1525 to
>> introduce pig borne deceases to kill off 95 to 99+% of the "redskins",
>> AFAIR what I read. Early intruders reported "big cities" and "public
>> baths", all this was gone by 1600-1650AD and the native Americans were
>> living in the "Wild West", when the English started to arrive in
>> numbers.
>>
>> ..and keep in mind the victors are the ones who get to spin History
>> itself, Their Way[TM], whenever you read whatever purports to be
>> History.
>>
> What are you babbling on about? All as I was saying was that the
> incidents of prisoners' abusive behavior towards the guards can make it
> very difficult for the guards to treat them nicely.
..then you need to hoist your file and rank discipline standards up to,
and preferably up beyond those set by Adolf Hitler's Führerbefehl on
Norway, he had 2 German GI's court marshalled and shot for every dead
Norwegian civilian and POW.
>> > Just go read some of the accounts of
>> > the people who have served as guards in some of these places. The
>> > accounts read worse than those of guards in maximum security prisons
>> > or death row.
>> >
>> > My perspective is this. We start off treating them nice and
>> > professionally.
>>
>> ..where? Sissy Boy George started these war crimes by policy, before
>> invading Afghanistan.
>>
> Cite?
..chk 9/12-2001 thru 11/23-2001 EO's and White House lawyer tap dancing,
if your lawyer pays me, I might do shill dance details here. ;o)
>> ..or, is "treat them nice" just your personal wannabe ambition?
>>
> I did say "My perspective is this" to start off with. As in, if I were
> in charge, that is the policy I would institute.
..chk my response to zfh,
>> > When they start acting like animals, then we treat them as such. By
>> > all accounts, the prisoners are treated quite professionally at
>> > first. It is only when they become vicious towards the staff that
>> > incidents of retribution or what might be considered humiliating and
>> > degrading treatment happen.
>> >
>> >> Televising pictures of them. (funny, how we now condemn Iran
>> >> for doing similar. I'm not defending Iran's actions, but it's
>> >> rather hypocritical for us to criticize them for doing things
>> >> that we also do)
>> >
>> > Umm, the "we" you are talking about is the news media.
>>
>> ..you forget the Iranian media here.
>>
> I don't get it. Why should the US be hed responsible for the actions of
> the Iranian media?
..nice try on diversion. All you need is a common interest in killing
off the (moderate) Iranian middle class people.
>> > Nothing. I am in agreement that GC protections should be accorded.
>>
>> ..define "accorded", or tell me why you argue against the full 4 Geneva
>> Conventions.
>>
> "Accorded" means to be conferred. As in, they should be accorded the
> protections to which they *would* be entitled were they lawful
> combatants. Of course, they are not lawful combatants and so not
> legally entitled.
..chk my response to zfh,
> However, it is a show of goodwill and civility.
..then you should _try_ beat Adolf Hitler on military ethics.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: