the outcome of the election

[Occhidiangela]

What criminal model? I'd be asking for basic human rights and the principles of rule of law to be applied. Unalienable principles IIRC...
Prisoners in Gitmo are NOT treated as POWs and thus denied even THOSE rights. To weasel out of the Geneva Convention and other international standards someone came up with the term "unlawful combatants" for them.
[right][snapback]59411[/snapback][/right]

The problem is, that is exactly what they are: unlawful combatants. Most or many of them are NOT covered by The Law of Armed Conflict.

"What the heck, Occhi?" You may be asking at this point. And you seem to forget, when it comes to law and lawyers, weasel in the imperative. Or did you forget the OJ Simpson trial? That idiocy at The Hague with Milosovic?

Al Qaeda are not signatories of the Geneva convention, and are not lawful combatants in accordance with the "rules of war," which leaves them in a rather weird legal limbo. It is not required to force fit them into a template designed for legal combatants. As terrorists, they are an interesting fusion of criminal and user of force for political aims. The rules simply do not cover them, except perhaps as partisans. Maybe.

Taliban fighters have a better call at being considered combatants under the Geneva accords, as they were, when we went into Afghanistan to take them out, the government representing Afghanistan, who IIRC IS a signatory to the Geneva Accords. However, as a policy issue, allies to terrorists are apparently being considered terrorists. Then there is the problem of partisan activity.

Have you thoroughly read the provisions regarding partisan activity in the Geneva Conventions? It sharply defines regular soldiers and irregulars, and how they may be treated differently.

However, I will again point out that "war on terrorists" is not the conventional war that the Geneva Accords are aimed at regulating. A new precedent can be set, since all laws are WHATEVER WE MAKE UP AND CAN BACK UP. Your concern that a step for setting precedent has been taken in the wrong direction is well raised, though. But you appear to ignore that the Information Age, information warfare, is a 24/7 continuum, and that criminals have been exploiting the media for their own ends, have used it as a weapon, for some years. By depriving current soldier-terrorists in the War on Terror, terrorists, with one of their weapons, we are disarming them in the same way as taking away a rifle.

I will repeat this. A key tool, a key weapon, of the terrorist, is use and exploitation of international media. Depriving him of that weapon is a step toward his defeat. You do not let a prisoner hold a rifle, you do not allow a terrorist access the media, or you have just re armed him.

Do you understand that? Far too many people do not.

Now, there is a danger here. I am fully aware of it. The North Vietnamese treatment of prisoners in their control was foul, and their excuse was that as a non signatory of Geneva Accords, they were not bound by it. Japanese made similar comments in re the prisoners from Wake and Bataan. We really don't want to go there. ANd, we are not there. About a year ago, there was an interesting comment from a released Gitmo detainee, from Russia, whose observation "that place was not so bad, well fed, thank goodness I was not in a Russian priso" or words to that effect.

Now, Russian prisons are not famous for their humanity, so that may be damning with faint praise, but will the Drama queens please shut up?

Another line of thought was that "since war had not been declared" the rules did not apply to "war criminals" and "Yankee Air Pirates." I use the Duck test on the Viet Nam war, and it was a War. The gang in Hanoi chose not to.

By your emotional posts, you appear to assume that Americans will torture and abuse prisoners as a matter of policy. Read that last phrase carefully. You will be incorrect.

What is generally ignored, for example, about the Abu Gharib idiocy was that in November, the DoD was advised that violations of regulations were in progress, the invistigation began, and funnily enough, the lawyers for those charged with the misconduct started to write to their Congressmen asking for help, when they were in clear violation of the UCMJ. (Military Law.) Their Congressmen contacted the DoD, asking for assistance against "persecution." The pictures of their own misconduct was released to the internet, as I understand it, as an act of defiance, since . . . they were going down for their misconduct, they wanted to take someone bigger with them.

And some idiots in the media still claim that Sec Def condoned that crap. I am still waiting for the Colonel and General in charge to be put in jail for failing to get it right. That's why they get the big bucks.

But you may feel free to assume away whatever you wish, based on what you know and perceive. Then, diagram the word "assume." <_<

I have been subject to sleep deprivation and starvation, though thank goodness it was only for three days. It was part of my training. That is not torture, you recover from it, it is a mind game. And boy, is it ever. And it sucks, it sucks, it sucks.

One last note. "Basic human rights" is a vague term. What do you mean by that? What is a right, and how do you earn it? (Hey, are there worms in that can?)

Occhi