First, this doesn’t clear up the inconsistencies in your comments, Jay Tea, it’s just a repetition and compounding of them.

Second, anytime you want to cough up the exact quote from the Conventions that authorizes summary execution of anyone, go for it.

Third, no one should pay attention to any of your ramblings unless you can back it up with some kind of verifiable supporting proof. Remember, Jay Tea, you’re the guy who emphatically stated that the majority opinion in Roe v Wade made no mention whatsoever of “viability” when, in fact, the concept of “viability” was the crucial metric around which the decision’s compromise revolved.

Seriously, Jay Tea. What do you really know about the Geneva Conventions? Because you sound like a fourth grader who thinks he can give a book report on Macbeth after reading a TV guide capsule.

Where in the fucking world, for example, did you ever get the idea that this was true:

Further, the Geneva Conventions were not motivated by compassion or sense of good will, but as a form of extortion — “we won’t do this if you don’t.”

The first convention in 1864 was all about ensuring the humane treatment of the wounded and the protection of their care givers. Every Convention to follow emphasized the humane treatment of wounded, prisoners or war, neutral civilians, care givers etc. etc.

Indeed, the motivating force behind the adoption of the first Geneva convention was a social activist who was horrified by what he had witnessed of war’s inhumanity:

Jean Henri Dunant (May 8, 1828 – October 30, 1910), aka Henry Dunant or Henri Dunant, was a Swiss businessman and social activist. During a business trip in 1859, he was witness to the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino in modern day Italy. He recorded his memories and experiences in the book A Memory of Solferino which inspired the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863. The 1864 Geneva Convention was based on Dunant’s ideas; In 1901 he received the first Nobel Peace Prize together with Frédéric Passy.

The enforcement mechanism for the Conventions are not violent reprisals or a negation of the rules entirely. It is not, in other words, “Don’t do this, or the other side gets to do it too.”

Violations of the Convention are treated like criminal acts subject to investigation, trial and punishment for individuals found guilty. All parties to the Conventions are required to seek out and detain for trial anyone of their nationals accused of the violations. There is a whole system in place for neutral fact-finding commissions, hearings and trials to adjudicate disputes. They are spelled out in each and every Convention.

Basically, your comments reveal that you don’t know shit about the Geneva Conventions and that you’re operating entirely from what you’ve gleaned from Tom Clancy novels and shitty right wing blogs.

RFLMAO. No, no, repack. You’re thinking of Frank D.

Jay Tea: “Funny, I don’t recall McVeigh, Gacy, and Bundy having hordes of fanatical followers willing to commit major atrocities to secure their release”
Quaker points out there have been no “‘“fanatics’ trying to bust Moussaoui out of Florence.” and OW notes “Omar Abdel-Rahman is in North Carolina without the jihadists storming the state”.

Jay Tea: Um, I mean I don’t recall “the above-mentioned criminals having quite the extensive history of assaulting the guards that the inmates in Guantanamo have”
Quaker points out that guards are assaulted in mainland prisons also and I note that in the article Jay cited “serious assaults are rare”.

Jay Tea: But… but… “there are other ways to get people out of prison besides a direct assault? Such as, say, taking a school full of hostages? Wonder why that’s never been tried.”
Repack points out terrorists could take hostages to make demands for anything and not just to get compatriots released and Rudy notes they could “do the same thing in order to bargain for their release from Gitmo”.

Has Jay had his three strikes yet?

Personally I’m still looking for someone to put forth a reason to keep the detainees in Gitmo that can’t be immediately shown to simply not make sense.

Anyone? Anyone?

And let the gangs sort it out.

I see. So the only event that might make a terrorist consider taking hostages and making demands is another terrorist in prison. (Cue sound track for any number of cheesy movies.)

Because the idea of taking hostages and making demands FOR ANY OTHER CONCESSION except a prisoner is unthinkable to a terrorist?

This just in JT. If you have the capability of taking hostages and making demands, then you will probably do it no matter what the desired exchange, ransom, political concessions, whatever. Please go rent “Dog Day Afternoon” and tell me which character you most identify with.

(Rush Limbaugh voice) Folks, do you see the intellect we are up against here?

Or something.

Yep. Worked out real well for Maher Arar.

Oh, yeah, it has.

Fafaroo, don’t be any more shallow than absolutely necessary. The Geneva Conventions outlawed what we consider “terrorism” when it was considering that members of a recognized military might take off those uniforms in order to pass for civilians, or commit atrocities, or the like. The notion that a private organization, not associated with a recognized government, never occurred to them.

Further, the Geneva Conventions were not motivated by compassion or sense of good will, but as a form of extortion — “we won’t do this if you don’t.” It was an agreement between nations, treating each others’ soldiers and civilians as mutual hostages. The terrorists not only do not ascribe to the Geneva Conventions, are nor signatories, but sometimes it seems they use its restrictions as checklists for inspiration.

I guess I am out of touch. After all, Obama’s in, Bush is gone, so nobody hates America any more.

J.

Isn’t it funny how it was tinfoil hat territory to suggest that the NSA was strip-mining communications (true as it turned out), but it’s a serious suggestion that AQ is going to land an assault force at San Quentin.

Oh yeah. And then get away.

At one point, Jay Tea is quite clear what the Geneva Conventions has to say about terrorists:

Because, SpiderJ, they are not criminals. They are enemy combatants. Further, they are illegal enemy combatants — caught in violation of the Geneva Conventions. (Failure to wear uniforms and/or distinguishing marks, attacks on and endangering civilians, perfidy, etc. etc.)

Then, Jay Tea, tells us exactly what the Geneva Conventions permits us to do to illegal enemy combatants:

According to the Conventions, Sean, captured combatants can be held until the cessation of hostilities. Further, illegal combatants can be summarily executed.

But then in the same fucking comment he adds:

The Conventions were written a long time ago, when no one even conceived that a rogue organization could pose a credible threat to the security of a nation state. We need a new Convention to deal with this sort of threat. My suggestion would be to treat terrorists as we did pirates in the past — summary trial and punishment on the spot.

So according to Jay Tea, the Geneva Convention has a specific definition and punishment for terrorists but it also, apparently doesn’t because when it was written no one could have possibly conceived of the need for such language. To correct this odd state of affairs in which a legal document both defines but cannot conceive of a certain class of people, Jay Tea proposes a new Convention that would allow us to do exactly what Jay Tea says the old Conventions already allows us to do, namely summary execution unlawful combatants.

In conservative thought, it simply does not matter if your arguments make any sense or are self-contradictory. All that’s important is that arguing in favor of killing someone.

Sure they do. They’re called libertarians.

It doesn’t matter if we declared war on them: they’ve *clearly* declared war on us. And have for some time.

Who’s “they”?

Ah, so we can mark Farris’ down as sharing in Jay’s belief that we should use the terrorists standards as our own. That things like laws, trials, evidence really shouldn’t matter when they are inconvenient.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

JT’s right. There never was anytime in history where any group was able to unseat a government, destabilize a government, declare war on a nation, etc. Clearly the old rules don’t apply.

Refresh my memory, high school was a long-time ago. What was the uniform of the <a href=”http://www.srcalifornia.com/flags/revuniforms1.htm” Continental Army ?