Reply With Quote
Hamas and Hezbollah are not considered legitamate governments, maybe. or why ask if you know it will be refused. or couple of red cross guys would rather not be surrounded by whacknuts. or could be afraid of bombs raining down from the Israelis.
...asked in the context of recent events and prior discussions of the Geneva Accords: Why hasn't the International Committee of the Red Cross demanded access to the Israeli soldiers taken in Gaza and in northern Israel? The same could be asked for any other relevant organizations as well as governments who've recently been concerned with the treatment of non-uniformed combatants.
Certainly the soldier taken into Gaza is the responsibility of the quasi-Palestinian state and surely deserving of Geneva protections. Hezbollah while not a state or quasi-state has at least as much stature as Al Qaeda and it seems that the international community believes that Geneva extends to Al Qaeda's representatives; so, why would it not also extend to uniformed soldiers held by Hezbollah which, I believe, has declared itself to be at war with the state of Israel.
It seems to me that reciprocity is a two-way street. If Geneva coverage is to be extended to insurgent groups under Article 3, then surely reciprocal treatment should be expected from them? Otherwise Geneva is a mockery.
I hope Justice Stevens is paying close attention.
This JPost article is enlightening, if unsurprising:
The Red Cross is unbelievably charitable in its treatment of Hizbullah, given its past treatment of Israeli captives:
1982. That is ... what? Twenty-four years later? Does M. Stillheart really believe these men are alive? That they are being "humanely treated?" I'm sure they've been on his mind though.Stillheart said the ICRC was working constantly to reunite captives with their families. "We will never give up. We are still working to help the three missing Israeli soldiers from the [1982] Sultan Yakoub battle and Ron Arad. They are constantly on our mind," he said, while admitting that the ICRC's efforts had been to no avail.
Every day. For twenty-four years.
Imagine that. Israel fully observes international humanitarian law. But they've never been able to visit an Israeli prisoner captured by Arab terrorists... oops... freedom fighters. Even ones who've now been imprisoned since 1982. But hey... they think about them a whole lot.Outside the Middle East, Stillheart said, "we are often able to visit hostages. I remember a case in Peru when an embassy was occupied for a long time and we were allowed to see them. But in this context here, we have never been allowed to visit Israeli soldiers captured by a group."
The ICRC official said that Israel fully observed international humanitarian law, allowing access to prisoners within 14 days of capture. But, he said - declining to use the word "terrorist" to characterize Hizbullah or Hamas because "that is not what the ICRC calls them" - "it is generally more difficult for us to deal with these armed groups."
Somebody get Justice Stevens on the bat phone! He'll shake the sternly wagging finger of international opprobrium at these guys. A few days of that, coupled with his turgid legal prose, should have them just begging for mercy.
And while he's at it, maybe he could watch this. Perhaps then he might understand that our guys have a pretty good understanding of the challenges they're facing over there.
We have good rules in place already without our Supreme Court justices unilaterally and capriciously renegotiating international treaties while they're fighting half a world away. But in any human system, people step over the line. It happens. We see it every day in the news: in schools, in corporate America, in the penal system. Rules are in place, not because we reasonably believe they can prevent wrongdoing, but to enable us to detect and punish wrongdoing once it has occurred.
Human nature has always been fallible, and if there is one thing we have known since the dawn of time, it is that things go wrong. That is precisely why we make rules - to address the problems that occur due to human foibles.
We do not abolish human ins utions because abuses occur. We don't close schools when a teacher abuses a student. We don't close police departments or penitentiaries when a cop or a prison guard commits a crime. Reasonable people knew that would happen from the get go. Only malicious trouble makers and the willfully naive pretend otherwise.
We pick up the pieces, resolve to do better, and move on.
Hamas and Hezbollah are not considered legitamate governments, maybe. or why ask if you know it will be refused. or couple of red cross guys would rather not be surrounded by whacknuts. or could be afraid of bombs raining down from the Israelis.
Every Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas or Hizbullah has ended up dead in the end. I don't expect it to be any different this time.
If you are going to steal a "simple question" off a blog, why not just steal the question?
Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? Is there a point to your question?
Absolutely. It was a simple question.
Because the commentary was relevant? You are stupid, aren't you?
No.
See, that was a simple question.
You should have led the thread "long-winded plagiarized blog that says I don't like Hezbollah because it certainly has nothing to do with the Geneva conventions."
You are stupid and a thief.
That is not a question.
I guess then you could ask the question why doesn’t Israel allow UN observers into the country???
Ferris Bueller...you're my hero...
CD takes YoniBore in a TKO in the third round.
Dude, why don't you stop swinging from CD's nuts for once?
Unless Yonivore is "Cassandra," I'll help out in providing a link to the presumably plaigarized thoughts:Villainous Company (7/16/06)
Resisting the temptation to also allow others to make arguments for me, I'd like to think that the reason that en ies like the United States Supreme Court conclude that Geneva should apply to persons in the custody of this nation is that the individuals who comprise that en y believe that this country should be held to a higher standard.
I mean, is the argument, essentially, that if groups like al Queda and Hizbullah are able to ignore Geneva, there's no reason why this country should be held to that standard? If so, the answer would seem to be an easy one -- we're not them and we should demand that official actions taken by this country should adhere to the treaty obligations we've assumed, regardless of whether our enemy has done the same. Otherwise, you're necessarily taking the position that the official actions of the United States of America should be measured against those of a group of terrorists who we've rightly declared to be barbaric. I'd like to think that even in the context of a war that this nation is better than that.
I admire his patience, and his unwilingness to be put off the track by Yonibore's antics and twisting the truth. CD stays on point and hammers it home.
If Yoni is your hero, you might as well swing from the nuts of the conservative blogosphere. That's where he (self admittedly) steals his material. There's nothing to be admired in that. He's a plagiarist, and CD does a good job of reminding him of that.
Sorry, not gonna swing from anyone nuts. Following up every post with a "TKO" or "Owned" doesn't really do it for me.
As far as stealing material..this whole forum is Cut&Paste 101. Do assume that its only Yoni that does this.
Agreed.
Caveat: All bets are off if an enemy of the U.S. ever inflicts massive casualties and or gets the upper hand on us in combat by way of violating the Geneva Convention's Rules of Engagement.
People cut and paste here all of the time, and they usually post a link or acknowledge the source. It's not that he uses other people's material, it's that he doesn't attribute it, via a simple acknowledgment of where he got the material or a link. That's what makes it plagiarism. If you are writing a term paper, you use material from sources, and you footnote it. If you don't, and the prof finds out, you're busted.
Using other people's material without attribution is plagiarism.
Speak for yourself on that point. If I get material from another source, I cite my source. Maybe that's just me.
I have to disagree with your caveat, jochhe. I don't think we should ever stoop to the level of barbarianism that these pitiful terrorist organizations do.
And plaigarizing blogs? That's pretty lame.
Even if it were to mean losing a war and being occupied by the enemy? If so I admire your convictions scott.
Well, I have a difficult time imagining a scenario in which abandoning the Geneva Convention Rules of Engagement would prevent us from losing a war - so I guess my take is "go out with dignity." And if we "win" a war by stooping to barbaric tactics... have we really won?
I'm not sure scott. Is there a difference between those that initiate the "breaking of the rules" and those that are reciprocative rule breakers for the purpose of self preservation?
Keep that up and we're going to end up with another "yonivore is dead" thread.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...=yonivore+dead
I'm with scott on that point -- the war that we are fighting is one that is directed towards ensuring that our way of life prevails. Among other things, "our way of life" calls for the humane treatment of those who are detained. I can't see that it would ever be consistent with American principle to go away from that notion in some eye-for-an-eye sense. If terrorists are barbaric and terrorists don't treat their prisoners humanely, don't we become barbaric to some degree if we do the same? The answer to that has to be "yes," I would think; if it is, but we say that Geneva can be ignored at times, it seems to me that we're doing nothing more than justifying a retreat from American values in the pursuit of protecting American values.
More importantly, it would suggest that governing priniciples upon which our society is built are subject to contextual changes -- that the treaty obligations our nation undertakes (which are akin to law, in many ways) will be respected until an administration finds some excuse for ignoring them.
Actually I thought that the last couple of posts from me and scott were responses to a hypothetical situation and not necessarily the war we're fighting.
Regarding an "eye for an eye". I think that verse addresses revenge, what I'm referring to is self preservation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
