3 ms·

> If you are a combatant, Geneva convention applies. Only if you are wearing a uniform and otherwise abiding by the laws of war. Look it up. Edit: Read it y

> If you are a combatant, Geneva convention applies. Only if you are wearing a uniform and otherwise abiding by the laws of war. Look it up. Edit: Read it yourself. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=2F681B08868538C2C12563CD0051AA8D https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... Note that even resistance forces are required to wear insignia. It doesn't have to be a fancy uniform, even an armband of a specific color will work. What you cannot do is engage in hostilities while hiding among the civilian population.

int_19h 4y ago
And how do we know that the people locked up in Gitmo were not wearing an armband or something similar? Oh, right, the United States government told us. How convenient. Truth is, in many cases, those people weren't combatants at all. But when you're denied due process because of the presumption of being an "illegal combatant", it's kinda hard to prove otherwise.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  > And how do we know that the people locked up in Gitmo were not wearing an armband or something similar? > Oh, right, the United States government told us. How convenient. Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. You bet. > But when you're denied due process because of the presumption of being an "illegal combatant", it's kinda hard to prove otherwise. "Due process" is a feature of United States civilian law. Not international martial law.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. You bet. So there are no political prisoners in China?
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      The United States is not China.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. Well, no, they took them prisoner and held them there initially for a variety of bad reasons, and then they were kept there subsequently largely because of intrabranch squabbles, radicalization because of long unjust confinement, and foreign reluctance to help resolve the problem (in large part due to the preceding point) making it difficult to find a resolution to the problem created by the initial bad decisions. (Anthropomorphizing the US government as if it were an individual with general consistence of interest is... not consistent with political reality, often, or on this point in particular.)
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      Every one of them is there for a "bad reason"? Not a genuine terrorist in the lot? Sorry, you are not arguing this point in good faith.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        If there are, why is the government fighting tooth and nail to prevent anything pertaining to those cases from ending up in civil courts? Your "prisoners aren't entitled to due process" point doesn't matter - even if true, if we are the good guys, we should embrace the process that conclusively establishes guilt or innocence for everyone to see, not lock people up in special you-have-no-rights prisons.

int_19h 4y ago

And how do we know that the people locked up in Gitmo were not wearing an armband or something similar? Oh, right, the United States government told us. How convenient. Truth is, in many cases, those people weren't combatants at all. But when you're denied due process because of the presumption of being an "illegal combatant", it's kinda hard to prove otherwise.

Turing_Machine 4y ago
> And how do we know that the people locked up in Gitmo were not wearing an armband or something similar? > Oh, right, the United States government told us. How convenient. Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. You bet. > But when you're denied due process because of the presumption of being an "illegal combatant", it's kinda hard to prove otherwise. "Due process" is a feature of United States civilian law. Not international martial law.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. You bet. So there are no political prisoners in China?
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    The United States is not China.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. Well, no, they took them prisoner and held them there initially for a variety of bad reasons, and then they were kept there subsequently largely because of intrabranch squabbles, radicalization because of long unjust confinement, and foreign reluctance to help resolve the problem (in large part due to the preceding point) making it difficult to find a resolution to the problem created by the initial bad decisions. (Anthropomorphizing the US government as if it were an individual with general consistence of interest is... not consistent with political reality, often, or on this point in particular.)
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    Every one of them is there for a "bad reason"? Not a genuine terrorist in the lot? Sorry, you are not arguing this point in good faith.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      If there are, why is the government fighting tooth and nail to prevent anything pertaining to those cases from ending up in civil courts? Your "prisoners aren't entitled to due process" point doesn't matter - even if true, if we are the good guys, we should embrace the process that conclusively establishes guilt or innocence for everyone to see, not lock people up in special you-have-no-rights prisons.