BBC: Judge Orders Guantanamo Release (12 year old)..

[JMS]

I thought GITMO was for terrorists.

No, not just terrorists. The worst of the worst terrorists, we were told.

[ACW]

...who accidently tortured and killed the population of the country...

So now our own soldiers are terrorists? At least they FIGHT, unlike you, who was probably a REMF.

[Predicto]

Then again liberals were calling the terrorists freedom fighters who accidently tortured and killed the population of the country they sneaked into post Iraq war part deux.

I don't know a single liberal who has ever said anything remotely like that.

But then again, we normal people have gotten used to NavyDave lying through his angry teeth about what liberals say and do, and we don't worry about it much anymore.

[Larry]

You took my statement and morphed it into killing prisoners. Congratulations.

You took this prisoner and morphed it into returning fire on the battlefield.

[Larry]

And now, for something completely different.

Yeah because liberals know preteens don't have an evil bone in their body including the 9 year old who offed his dad with a gun who was living with a male companion instead of the boy's mom. He was just confused but an excellent shooter.

Or the 13 year old carjacker arrested a couple of weeks ago.

[JMS]

Yeah these arm chair generals who haven't sniffed a situation involving an exchange of gunfire IEDs, or snipers still ignore we are at war with terrorists. And the foolish declaration of a helpless combatant is comical when they only become "helpless" after triggering a bomb or running out of ammo though several did pretend to be helpless and then went the suicide bomber route after some of my troops attempted to capture oops "arrest" them.

Every living chairman of the joint chiefs of staff not appointed by Bush, 5 of them, along with 70 other generals and high ranking Pentagon officials, is who you are calling "arm chair" generals....

Then you are promoting the judgment of Cheney, Feith, and Wolfowitz who collectively never served a day in the uniform as your models of military judgemnt...

thanks for playing

Geneva convention applies to those in uniform representing a nation / country. Then again liberals were calling the terrorists freedom fighters who accidently tortured and killed the population of the country they sneaked into post Iraq war part deux.

That's what bush argued. Argued incorrectly according to US laws and hte Supreme court and about 70 years of precident.

[Larry]

My point was that best case this kid should have been killed in the act of attacking our soldiers. Unfortunately that didn't happen and now we are stuck in the position of holding him as a prisoner.

Your point is that any time the US Military captures an enemy combatant, it's a less than optimal result? Or is that only when the combatant is a child?

[DirtyBird]

Your point is that any time the US Military captures an enemy combatant, it's a less than optimal result? Or is that only when the combatant is a child?

It's unfortunate that every enemy combatant doesn't meet a very timely death.

[Larry]

Geneva convention applies to those in uniform representing a nation / country.

Not according to the people who wrote them.

Link. (Internationatoinal Committee of the Red Cross, commentary on the 4th Geneva Convention of '49.)

PARAGRAPH 4. -- PERSONS PROTECTED BY OTHER CONVENTIONS

The definition of protected persons in paragraph 1 is a very broad one which includes members of the armed forces -- fit for service, wounded, sick or shipwrecked -- who fall into enemy hands. The treatment which such persons are to receive is laid down in special Conventions to which the provision refers. They. must be treated as prescribed in the texts which concern them. But if, for some reason, prisoner of war status -- to take one example -- were denied to them, they would become protected persons under the present Convention. [4th Convention.]

There are certain cases about which some hesitation may be felt. We may mention, first, the case of partisans, to which Article 4, A (2) Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article', of the Third Convention refers. Members of resistance movements must fulfil certain stated conditions before they can be regarded as prisoners of war. If members of a resistance movement who have fallen in to enemy hands do not fulfil those conditions, they must be considered to be protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention. That does not mean that they cannot be punished for their acts, but the trial and sentence must take place in accordance with the provisions of Article 64 . . . and the Articles which follow it.

Doubts may also arise concerning the case of members of the crews of the merchant navy and civil aircraft. The Third Convention lays down that they are to be prisoners of war unless they enjoy more favourable treatment under other provisions of international law. The reference here is in particular to the Eleventh Hague Convention of 1907 relative to certain restrictions on the exercise of the right of capture in maritime war. It is possible that under certain circumstances [p.51] application of the present Convention may constitute the more favourable treatment referred to above.

. . .

In short, all the particular cases we have just been considering confirm a general principle which is embodied in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that that is a satisfactory solution -- not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.

[Henry]

nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

Kinda tough to wiggle around that.

[GoSkins561]

If he kills somebody after he's released it will likely have more to do with how he's been treated and what he's learned over his last 6.5 years in a terrorist detention facility with no rights or priviledges and less to do with who he was when he was arrested at the age of 12....

Advocating the killing of 12 year olds. You sir are more of a problem than any 12 year old could be.

I am actually more worried about you taking the side of someone who had the power to pull the pin on a hand grenade and nearly kill two of our soldiers.

I am with Ax on this one, if we find cells of people willing to fight or even indicating they want to fight, we wipe out the whole cell. This will eliminate the problem of treating captured terrorist fairly.

[Predicto]

I am actually more worried about you taking the side of someone who had the power to pull the pin on a hand grenade and nearly kill two of our soldiers.

I am with Ax on this one, if we find cells of people willing to fight or even indicating they want to fight, we wipe out the whole cell. This will eliminate the problem of treating captured terrorist fairly.

It is sad that you really think that someone is "taking the side of the bad guys" if they ask whether murdering captured 12 year old prisoners is a good idea.

I might add that military intelligence would not get much good information to assist our troops if all they hade was a bunch of corpses.

Carry on, however. If it makes you feel more secure in your opinions to assume that everyone who questions the treatment of prisoners is a terrorist sympathiser, go right ahead. Me and George Washington are going to sit over here with the civilized people.

[cjcdaman]

If he kills somebody after he's released it will likely have more to do with how he's been treated and what he's learned over his last 6.5 years in a terrorist detention facility with no rights or priviledges and less to do with who he was when he was arrested at the age of 12....

Oh, wow. Yep you're right. He was only captured trying to kill our soldiers.

[Predicto]

Oh, wow. Yep you're right. He was only captured trying to kill our soldiers.

About one million Iraqi soldiers were trying to kill our soldiers too. Not all of them became terrorists after the fighting was over.

[GoSkins561]

It is sad that you really think that someone is "taking the side of the bad guys" if they ask whether murdering captured 12 year old prisoners is a good idea.

I might add that military intelligence would not get much good information to assist our troops if all they hade was a bunch of corpses.

Carry on, however. If it makes you feel more secure in your opinions to assume that everyone who questions the treatment of prisoners is a terrorist sympathiser, go right ahead. Me and George Washington are going to sit over here with the civilized people.

So people in our military are uncivilized? I have always thought they could open fire on targets that fired on them first? Are we suppose to start doing back ground checks first, before firing back?

The kid is lucky to be alive, he fires on our soldiers, to be honest I am not sure why they didn't shoot him. They didn't know if he was 12, 18 or 65 when he threw the grenade, as Ax said, he should thank us for giving him a chance to live.

Well if we hold them for questioning we catch heat for putting spiders in their cells and making them cry.