Comments on: Send in this Marine http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/ Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:16:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: C.L. http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304490 C.L. Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:41:31 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304490 Thanks for clearing everything up, Greg. Thanks for clearing everything up, Greg.

]]> By: Greg http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304489 Greg Thu, 17 Aug 2006 04:37:25 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304489 Name-calling is not evidence, although certain commenters here seem to think it is. Hicks' status as a solider may be disputed in court if there is sufficient evidence to argue he was not engaged by the Taliban but rather by al Qaeda, in which case he could be legimately declared a terrorist. Until such determination is made, he was captured in a war zone and should be treated accordingly. Just because the war deposed the existing government doesn't mean it wasn't itself legitimate, so its soldiers are, too. Once the war is over, all prisoners of war are expected to be repatriated or tried for any war crimes that can be proven to have taken place with their particpation or at their instigation. Is Hicks a prisoner of war from the 'War on Terror' or the war conducted against the Taliban in Afghanistan? Since the 'War on Terror' is only a political trope, he can only be a legitimate POW unless sufficent proof exists to separate him from the Taliban. Name-calling is not evidence, although certain commenters here seem to think it is. Hicks’ status as a solider may be disputed in court if there is sufficient evidence to argue he was not engaged by the Taliban but rather by al Qaeda, in which case he could be legimately declared a terrorist. Until such determination is made, he was captured in a war zone and should be treated accordingly. Just because the war deposed the existing government doesn’t mean it wasn’t itself legitimate, so its soldiers are, too. Once the war is over, all prisoners of war are expected to be repatriated or tried for any war crimes that can be proven to have taken place with their particpation or at their instigation. Is Hicks a prisoner of war from the ‘War on Terror’ or the war conducted against the Taliban in Afghanistan? Since the ‘War on Terror’ is only a political trope, he can only be a legitimate POW unless sufficent proof exists to separate him from the Taliban.

]]> By: Rob http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304488 Rob Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:18:40 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304488 Katz, backing up a bit -- don't you mean an oxymoron? (It would gel better with your rhetoric for a start :)) Katz, backing up a bit — don’t you mean an oxymoron? (It would gel better with your rhetoric for a start :) )

]]> By: Katz http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304487 Katz Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:52:39 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304487 But on the other hand, Tigtog, if the war goes on for a long time, then the POW can be detained for a long time. The overarching question is whether the so-called "War on Terror" is a war in the legal sense. Is it rather a rhetorical war, like the so-called "War on Drugs"? And if it is a proper war, where are the enemy soldiers that can be considered to be bona fide POWs? If there are no bona fide potential POWs anywhere in this so-called "War on Terror", can the "war" be said to exist in any juridical sense? The problem with Hicks is that allegedly he was fighting in the service of a sovereign government, even though only three nations recognised the legitimacy of the Taliban regime. If recognition of the regime were to become an issue, then there is no compulsion for Lebanon to recognise Israel's soldiers as legitimate POWs. But on the other hand, Tigtog, if the war goes on for a long time, then the POW can be detained for a long time.

The overarching question is whether the so-called “War on Terror” is a war in the legal sense. Is it rather a rhetorical war, like the so-called “War on Drugs”?

And if it is a proper war, where are the enemy soldiers that can be considered to be bona fide POWs?

If there are no bona fide potential POWs anywhere in this so-called “War on Terror”, can the “war” be said to exist in any juridical sense?

The problem with Hicks is that allegedly he was fighting in the service of a sovereign government, even though only three nations recognised the legitimacy of the Taliban regime.

If recognition of the regime were to become an issue, then there is no compulsion for Lebanon to recognise Israel’s soldiers as legitimate POWs.

]]> By: tigtog http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304486 tigtog Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:53:42 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304486 Don't the Geneva Conventions stipulate that any PoW charged with war crimes must be tried via a court martial? If he is determined to have PoW status he doesn't rot in prison, he gets a properly convened trial. Don’t the Geneva Conventions stipulate that any PoW charged with war crimes must be tried via a court martial?

If he is determined to have PoW status he doesn’t rot in prison, he gets a properly convened trial.

]]> By: C.L. http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304485 C.L. Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:20:19 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304485 Mick obviously can't read. I dont want David Hicks to rot in prison. Many people who propose PoW status or a lengthy civil trial DO want him to rot in prison. Like Katz, they also want to destroy the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court disagrees with their opinions. And Hicks cannot be court-martialled because he isn't a soldier. PS: "<a href="http://thecurrencylad.blogspot.com/2005/09/on-liberal-tweakers-and-roe-wade-death.html" rel="nofollow">RWDB</a>" explained. Mick obviously can’t read. I dont want David Hicks to rot in prison. Many people who propose PoW status or a lengthy civil trial DO want him to rot in prison.

Like Katz, they also want to destroy the Geneva Convention.

The Supreme Court disagrees with their opinions. And Hicks cannot be court-martialled because he isn’t a soldier.

PS: “RWDB” explained.

]]> By: Katz http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304484 Katz Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:59:04 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304484 Now Mick <strong>that</strong> question <strong>is</strong> a redundancy. Now Mick that question is a redundancy.

]]> By: Katz http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304483 Katz Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:57:00 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304483 No Paulus. You stated that you see the Bush Administration's actions vis a vis hicks et. al. as "counterproductive". CL characterised your view of these actions as "pointless". Pointless≠counterproductive. Both of them are less than complimentary characterisations, but in different ways. An example: A RWDB who is in the customary predicament of not being able to get a girl to go out with him, may pray to the spirit of Ayn Rand for assistance. That would be pointless. The very same RWDB may carve his invitation to his intended date into his forehead with his trusty bowie knife. That would be counterproductive. (Really, it would.) No Paulus. You stated that you see the Bush Administration’s actions vis a vis hicks et. al. as “counterproductive”.

CL characterised your view of these actions as “pointless”.

Pointless≠counterproductive.

Both of them are less than complimentary characterisations, but in different ways.

An example:

A RWDB who is in the customary predicament of not being able to get a girl to go out with him, may pray to the spirit of Ayn Rand for assistance. That would be pointless.

The very same RWDB may carve his invitation to his intended date into his forehead with his trusty bowie knife. That would be counterproductive. (Really, it would.)

]]> By: FaceLift http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304482 FaceLift Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:53:28 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304482 I guess he taut you a thing or two! I guess he taut you a thing or two!

]]> By: Mick Strummer http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304481 Mick Strummer Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:48:34 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/15/send-in-this-marine/#comment-304481 OK, it's a tautology. So what are the elements that are tautologous? Cheers... OK, it’s a tautology. So what are the elements that are tautologous?
Cheers…

]]>