Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saddam's Briefcase Yielding 'Intelligence Windfall'
Newsmax.com ^ | 12/15/03 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 12/15/2003 7:00:43 AM PST by truthandlife

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 last
To: anoldafvet
No, your are a spy if you are in civilan clothes and should be shot at dawn!
121 posted on 12/16/2003 1:40:03 AM PST by Cannon6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
See 119. Uniform is one route to PW status, but is not required or the only such route.
122 posted on 12/16/2003 1:40:16 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cannon6
False. There is specific language in the geneva conventions that uniform or not is *not* the sole criteria of PW status.
123 posted on 12/16/2003 1:41:36 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: anoldafvet
You're right. He's not a POW. Some will think he is because Rumsfeld said we are, for the moment, according him the same treatment that a POW would receive under Geneva Conventions -- even though he is not a POW.
124 posted on 12/16/2003 3:41:48 AM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
OK, thanks.
125 posted on 12/16/2003 6:43:56 AM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: zook
This can't be true. Katy Couric said that there's no way Sadam could have been running any operation.

Well, simple-minded Katie only posited that opinion based on the fact that they caught him hiding in that tiny spider hole, where he couldn't really communicate with anybody.

Obviously, when he was actually in the hole, he wasn't doing much of anything besides trying to be... oh, how would Elmer Fudd put it? ...."vewy, vewy quiet..."

However, he wasn't living in the hole. He was just hiding because he was afraid of all those scary guys in desert camo hunting for him. And none of them were named Elmer Fudd.

126 posted on 12/16/2003 6:48:47 AM PST by Kenton (This space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: zook
I always believe Katie.
127 posted on 12/16/2003 8:12:59 AM PST by GigaDittos (Bumper sticker: "Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
It would make him an unlawful combatant. POW status is a privilege afforded to those who fight under the rules of war. The whole Geneva Convention's purpose was to discourage nations from using terrorist methoda by giving them an incentive such as good treatment of their troops, militias and civilian contractors like truckers, etc, if these nations insured that their personnel abided by certain conditions, among them a clearly defined and responsible chain of command, identifying documents and insignia, the carrying of weapons openly as opposed to being concealed, and rules of engagement forbidding them to use civilians as shields, etc.

Terrorists of course do not have a responsible chain of command; they do not have a justice system nor rules of engagement governing their behavior, and by definition terrorists use civilians and civilian assets as shields from which to shoot, or to prevent assets from being targetted. Terrorists do not walk around with their suicide belts visible because if they did they would be noticed and could not complete their missions. For the same reasons they do not carry identifying insignia or documents, nor do they wear uniforms setting them apart from the civilian population. They need to blend in with the civilian population in order to use the civilians for cover.

Hussein, by taking command of such terrorists, is a terrorist in his own right. He willingly chose to be an unlawful combatant, and therefore chose to discard any POW status he may have been afforded had he simply commanded his uniformed services and enforced appropriate rules of engagement.

128 posted on 12/16/2003 2:10:13 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GigaDittos
And I'll bet that underground rathole he was hiding in is yielding a "Gas Windfall".
129 posted on 12/16/2003 2:13:36 PM PST by AmericanInTokyo (NORTH KOREA is a DANGEROUS CANCER in late stages; we still only meditate and take herbal medicines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: txradioguy
Some Taliban wore identifying clothing, and many carried arms openly, avoiding civilian areas or evacuating them. Those can be afforded POW status and most were, even if by the book they may or may not quite meet the standards. Those who did not abide by the basic expectations of Geneva, however, are not lawful combatants and we are not obligated to consider them POWs.

Unlike al Qaeda, the Taliban did go through the trouble of providing identifying documents for many of their personnel, most of their personnel carried arms openly, and they did have a defined chain of command which could be held accountable. Unlike al qaeda terrorists, the Taliban government is able to claim its people and provide a contact through which the captors and the Red Cross could exchange information with the Taliban authorities.

A full uniform is not necessary; headgear can be sufficient or insignia, carrying arms openly, and upon capture the presentation of identifying documents and their REAL NAMES to the captors is a must. The men must be identifiable from civilians to even be considered POWs, and must have leaders who claim them.

Indeed, al Qaeda members typically refuse to give their real names but operate under alias; this makes them unlawful combatants. It also violates the obligations of a POW.

Al Qaeda tends not to come forward to label their 'troops' because al Qaeda counts on the peacetime justice system to foolishly treat them as common criminals, and so informing the world that the guy who was just captured was Colonel so-and-so in al Qaeda would end up getting him convicted. In wartime, however, this behavior puts them at a disadvantage because their personnel do not have the protections a soldier or militiaman would have. With al Qaeda, there is no recognized authority who can be held accountable for the prisoner's actions, no one to legally step forward to take responsibility for the prisoner, or take delivery of him upon his release.

This excludes them from consideration as POWs.

130 posted on 12/16/2003 2:33:25 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
Thanks
131 posted on 12/17/2003 6:46:09 AM PST by ch53gunner (be ever vigilant - Al-Qaetie Couric bin Hasbeen al Ib Eral may be interviewing YOU next!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
If your country no longer has a military, how could you be in uniform?

The definition, for Geneva Conventions purposes, is very lax. All it has to be is a certain defining article that is recognizable from a distance, like a bandana or a hat or a shirt with a standard color set.

Any visible measure to distinguish yourself from the civilians, so as to protect their safety, should count. Even the Taliban or the Baathist insurgents could have done this, had they so desired, but they opted to ignore the Conventions, shed their military appearance, and tried to blend in behind the civilians.

132 posted on 12/17/2003 6:59:06 AM PST by Steel Wolf (There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
OK, thanks.
133 posted on 12/17/2003 9:33:23 AM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: anoldafvet
Can you cite the law that states that?
134 posted on 12/19/2003 8:02:26 AM PST by GigaDittos (Bumper sticker: "Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson