[Developer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There are several options. One is to treat him as what he is: a POW fighting a war. If you did that, you have the option of not trying him at all (i.e. giving him the immunity traditionally give a combatant), or trying him for war crimes. But that trial could be in a military tribunal per the Geneva Convention, which means you could introduce intelligence evidence in a way that would ensure it is protected.

I'm not aware that Germany is at war with anybody. Your persistent insistance to treat this war on an emotion as a real war serves no purpose other than your own embarrassment.

Another option is to create safeguards in civilian court that would protect the evidence. A number of European coutries over the years have created special terrorism courts for that purpose.

I like public trials. You can trust your authorities to always do the right thing, because "Americans are righteous people", but from history it appears we Germans are not, so I appreciate being able to see the evidence when someone is convicted.

A third option is simply to tail him, which would pretty much neutralize him as a threat.

Sorry, I don't know what "to tail" means so I can not comment on that.

A fourth option is assassination. I.e. really treat him as a combatant. I wouldn't do that, but it's an option.

Where do you learn such things? At the Freisler School of Law?

The best option would probably have been to extradite him to the US.

I'm not aware that the Americans asked for his extradition.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
So it's ok to shoot a soldier who's on leave and in civvies? They don't get the protections that they would get otherwise? That's the part I don't get. Your interpretation would seem to say that anyone who looks like a civilian should still be considered a combatant because we don't know if they're just pretending to be a civilian or not. This would seem to undermine the efficacy of the Geneva Convention at protecting civilians.

I'll try to go through this slowly, because I see where you are coming from.

First, though, I don't understand what "protections" you are talking about. A combatant is a combatant. He's not protected against being engaged by the enemy at any time -- assuming that an active state of hostilities exist. So, if during WW-II a Japanese submarine opened up on Wiakiki beach and shot a bunch of off-duty, on leave, soldiers, that would be a legitimate attack against combatants. The don't presently have to be engaged in combat to be combatants. Their status as members of the US Armed Forces would be enough.

The protections they get in the GC are designed to mitigate the potential harm to civilians and combatants. There are a long list, including the protections given to POWs. But to be a POW you have to conform to the standards that you set out -- be in uniform or have a ditinctive mark, carry arms openly (but note, you don't have to carry arms, you just can't conceal any arms you carry), be under some kind of command discipline, operate according to the laws of war. If you do those things and you are captured, you should be treated as a POW.

There are other protections -- if you are wounded (rendered hors de combat), then you aren't a combatant any more, provided you don't continue to fight. Then you can't be shot at, and the enemy has affirmative duties to care for you if they capture you. Likewise, if you surrender, bail out of a plane (but not as a paratrooper), and so on. Some other categories get special protections -- medics, chaplains.

Civilians -- non-combatants -- have the most protections of all. But they have to behave as non-combatants. As long as they don't take part in hostilities, they are protected. Taking part in hostilities is defined fairly narrowly, just working as part of the war effort does not make someone a combatant. But being a member of the enemy combatant organization would be enough.

One of the protections of a non-combatant is, as I said, that all the combatants are supposed to be in uniform. Then, merely being in civilian clothes is supposed to tell the combatants to leave you alone as much as possible. The thing is this, being in civilian clothes isn't what shields you, its being a non-combatant. A combatant who dresses as a civilian is still a combatant.

So what happens if this maybe a combatant, maybe a non-combatant gets shot? One thing is clear, soldiers aren't supposed to shoot non-combatants deliberately. So where the enemy is deliberately disguising themselves as non-combatants, the soldiers have an affirmative duty to distinguish between combatants pretending to be non-combatants, and genuine non-combatants. In the case we are talking about, a positive individual ID would be enough. Equally sufficient, is a bona-fide subjective belief that the person in civilian clothes is really a combatant and the soldier is under attack. Then, I don't think a court martial anywhere in the world would convict.

[netgear]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Yes, but you can't just shoot someone who's dressed as a civilian because you suspect they might actually be a soldier. I'm pretty sure that would violate an international law or two as well.

So does flying planes into buildings, I'm sure, with the intention of killing masses of civilians. Nobody ever said anything in life would be fair but if push comes to shove and I'm in uniform and someone looks like a solider and I'm in a situation where it's either me or him that will survive I'll give you one guess as to what would happen.

[netgear]

And don't forget that a solider dressed as a civilian can be treated as a spy. Spies are never afforded any protection in wartime rules.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
*big long post*

I definitely get what you're saying. I'm not sure I agree that a soldier on leave should still be a valid target, but I'll accept that they are considered to be. However, using your example of the soldiers on leave at a beach. What if their wives and children are with them? Don't their wives and children get some protection? How can it be justified to open fire on combatants in the midst of civilians? Obviously this is why using civilians as human shields is outlawed, but in a case where it's unintentional and the soldiers are not in a combat situation it seems as though the enemy shouldn't be allowed to just mow them down. A sniper taking them out would be one thing, but opening fire from a submarine isn't exactly going to be a surgical strike. It seems to me that a soldier who is out of uniform, unarmed, and not in a 'hot zone' aught not to be fired upon with impunity. Arrested and taken prisoner, sure, but not just killed.

Of course I recognize that this is just my opinion and that international law might not support it. I can see how the GC probably does support your position over mine, but I'll consider that a shortcoming of the GC.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Wars begin with a state of hostilities, not a declaration of war. Think of Pearl Harbor. The war began with the initiation of the attack, not with Congress' declaration of war a day later.

Al-Queda was engaging in hostilities with the US long before the "war on terror" was officilly mentioned. But the hostilities had commenced -- going back in the case of al-Queda at least to 1993 and the first WTC attack.

It's especially clear in this case if this person was indeed involved in the 9/11 attacks -- as the German prosecutors apparently believed. That makes him part of the very act that by your overly narrow calculation precipitated the war on terror. So there is nothing retroactive here. If there were, then it should also be impossible for Germany to have indicted him since you are arguing that he had not yet committed any crime.

Consider it by analogy to conventional war. Once an attack is set in motion (think of Pearl Habor, for example), the laws of war come into effect. It does not wait until the first bullet strikes the first victim. This guy's actions were a part of the attack. The dates upon which the first throat were slit and the first plane was crashed are irrelevant. By the narrowest definition, limiting things to this attack only, what matters is when the attack began, and that was far earlier than when it ended.

Of course, Germany isn't obligated to recognize that a state of war exists. They can pretend otherwise as long as they like. I merely listed this as a possible way to deal with this character. It's not that there were no choices but to release him, it was that a choice was made not to consider the other choices.

That is the weakest argument I've ever seen you present on this war thing. Have you not noticed how you have to present increasingly bizarre arguments to make this fit a war scenario and yet you stick to your "this is a war" routine. There are set definitions for when wars start under the Geneva Conventions. You may recall that the Japanese ambassador screwed up in the Pearl Harbour case. He was supposed to deliver a declaration of war before the fighters arrived.

This argument that you can be held retroactively culpable for acts of war when by definition there is no war is just too ridiculous to even address. Thank God the Germans see the light.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heaven FORBID any law-enforcement agency add this guy�s name to any no-fly list! That will SURELY be one step away from regularly scheduled box car runs to the concentration camps.

You just can�t win with some people. They want terror handled as a �law-enforcement� issue by CARE-BEAR Keystone renta-cops who can�t ever have non-public sources of information, (so those they are chasing can know exactly how not to be trailed) and heaven forbid they ever do something like compile a suspect list. And Dear God, WHATEVER they do, don�t actually take action and convict someone. That would be akin to the next holocaust.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
A combatant is a combatant.

How can an unarmed man walking around in civvies in Hamburg be a combatant under the Geneva Conventions?

[Troll]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
How can it be justified to open fire on combatants in the midst of civilians?

It isn't of course. Some people would like you to think that the law has bizarre results when it is correctly applied. The whole reason this War on Terror legal argument of Simeys creates so many bizarre results is that it is wrong. Unarmed men can be shot in the streets of Hamburg in the prosecution of terrorism as a crime, they can be arrested prior to the commission of the crime and they can be arrested as accessories to the crime. Amazing how well suited the criminal justice system is to dealing with crimes. Trying to turn this into a war situation just results in contrived bizarre legal arguments that don't make sense.

The War on Terror is marketing speak. As I said before, if George Bush had said, in response to 9/11, "Just Do It," some people would be telling us how just doing it is legal under some Convention. That wouldn't make them right!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Troll:
How can an unarmed man walking around in civvies in Hamburg be a combatant under the Geneva Conventions?

If a gun is the only human-to-human interface you can come up with, anybody is a "combatant".

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I definitely get what you're saying. I'm not sure I agree that a soldier on leave should still be a valid target, but I'll accept that they are considered to be. However, using your example of the soldiers on leave at a beach. What if their wives and children are with them? Don't their wives and children get some protection? How can it be justified to open fire on combatants in the midst of civilians? Obviously this is why using civilians as human shields is outlawed, but in a case where it's unintentional and the soldiers are not in a combat situation it seems as though the enemy shouldn't be allowed to just mow them down. A sniper taking them out would be one thing, but opening fire from a submarine isn't exactly going to be a surgical strike. It seems to me that a soldier who is out of uniform, unarmed, and not in a 'hot zone' aught not to be fired upon with impunity. Arrested and taken prisoner, sure, but not just killed.

Of course I recognize that this is just my opinion and that international law might not support it. I can see how the GC probably does support your position over mine, but I'll consider that a shortcoming of the GC.

It's not really a shortcoming, and the GC (and more broadly, the laws of war in general) does cover the situation you give of the wives and children. Any time you use force in war, you are obligated to use discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination means you can't just shoot wildly with no reasonable attempt to only shoot combatants, and not to shoot non-combatants. Proportionality means that even if you are shooting at a legitimate military target, the military utility has to be proportional to the possible harm. Getting away from Waikiki, the example one prof I gave was you can't blow up a dam and flood an entire valley to take out one tank, even if it is perfectly legitimate to take out the tank. Flooding a valley isn't using discrimination and the tank isn't enough of a military benefit to justify the use of that much force. But if the tank was nuclear armed, it might be.

Back to Waikiki, if the submarine used a sniper to shoot only at the soldiers, but tried not to hit the civilians, he'd clearly be OK, even if he made a couple of mistakes -- provided he made a good faith effort not to miuss. If he used a machine gun and just generally shot at the soldiers, he'd be maybe in trouble. If he started shooting a cannon in the general direction of the beach just because there are a few soldiers there, I think he'd definately be guilty of a war crime. But it's always a case-by-case thing.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Amerikanere er ikke s� etnocentriske som det du tror, noe jeg er bevis p�.

Jag menade v�r bra v�n Herr Simey, inte alla Amerikaner.

Nei, Herregud, dette er da et Amerikansk Debatt side, og hvorfor skal det forventes at man skal skrive kunne Tyske ord. Her er det Engelsk som gjelder, her i g�rden.

Som jag har skrivit, det �r helt apropos att anv�nda ett tyskt ord n�r man diskuterar om tyskt straffr�tt. Man kan s�ger "jihad" och "fatwa" har hela dagen, eller hur? Gud f�rbjuda att man skulle l�ra sig n�gonting...

I don't think learning one word of German is going to task anyone, especially when it's directly pertinent to the subject of the thread. Developer indicated the word in parentheses next to the rough translation into English - in his first post. I got it directly.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
I don't think learning one word of German is going to task anyone, especially when it's directly pertinent to the subject of the thread. Developer indicated the word in parentheses next to the rough translation into English - in his first post. I got it directly.

Developer didn't translate the word until I mentioned it. His rough translation was in a later post. It's not that I don't mind looking up a work in German. Heaven knows, my German could use improving. It's that the use of the word inhibited the conversation. When I got a translation, the translation was somewhat inaccurate. Moreover, most people here do not speak German. So all of them are going to have to run off to get a translation, and theirs might not be accurate either.

I appreciate that for many of you, this whole site is in a foreign language, and having tired to learn a foreign language or two, I appreciate your efforts. However, this is an English site and it does facilitate communication when we all use the one language that is reasonably calculated to be universally understood here. After all, those of you who are non-native speakers make the choice to come here and daily demonstrate your prowess in English.

Of course, there are a number of foreign words that are used widely in international circles and which I think that reasonably educated native English speakers should know even if they don't know a foreign language per se (hey! There's an example!). But this wasn't one of those words.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Troll:
How can an unarmed man walking around in civvies in Hamburg be a combatant under the Geneva Conventions?

An unarmed civilian walking around in civvies would not be a legitimate target. A known professional soldier or terrorist in civvies during war time would be a legitimate target whether armed or not because it wouldn't be apparent whether said person is armed or not until possibly it's too late.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Troll:
It isn't of course. Some people would like you to think that the law has bizarre results when it is correctly applied. The whole reason this War on Terror legal argument of Simeys creates so many bizarre results is that it is wrong. Unarmed men can be shot in the streets of Hamburg in the prosecution of terrorism as a crime, they can be arrested prior to the commission of the crime and they can be arrested as accessories to the crime. Amazing how well suited the criminal justice system is to dealing with crimes. Trying to turn this into a war situation just results in contrived bizarre legal arguments that don't make sense.

The War on Terror is marketing speak. As I said before, if George Bush had said, in response to 9/11, "Just Do It," some people would be telling us how just doing it is legal under some Convention. That wouldn't make them right!

The Geneva Convention is a general agreement amongst civilized nations regarding the rules and conduct of war. Being that terrorist organizations are not national governments their members cannot be construed to be the moral equivalent of a professional soldier in a national military unit.

[Troll]

Originally posted by netgear:
An unarmed civilian walking around in civvies would not be a legitimate target. A known professional soldier or terrorist in civvies during war time would be a legitimate target whether armed or not because it wouldn't be apparent whether said person is armed or not until possibly it's too late.

Which Article of which Geneva Convention are you referring to there?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
Which Article of which Geneva Convention are you referring to there?

Doesn't have to be, it's simply common sense.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Troll:
Which Article of which Geneva Convention are you referring to there?

I'm not, it's called street smarts. Either your opponent goes down first or you won't be around the next time to worry about it.

[itai195]

Originally posted by netgear:
Being that terrorist organizations are not national governments their members cannot be construed to be the moral equivalent of a professional soldier in a national military unit.

Err wait, isn't the entire premise of the WoT that they can be construed as such?

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by itai195:
Err wait, isn't the entire premise of the WoT that they can be construed as such?

No.

[itai195]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
No.

Oh, then you disagree with Simey. Got it. So how is the WoT permissible under international law?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Doesn't have to be, it's simply common sense.

The best and most easily-digested summary that I have seen is the US Army's manual FM 27-10. This is what the Army uses to teach it's soldiers (especially commanders) on the dos and don't's of land warfare. It summarizes the key provisions in the various conventions, as well as custom, and key decisions. Its interpretations are generally considered quite conservative, seeing as how the military has an incentive in keeping it's soldiers from committing war crimes, or having them committed against our troops.

For example, although Troll mentions the Geneva Convention, actually that isn't the relevant treaty. The relavant one is Hague IV. The Army summarizes that provision thus:

31. Assassination and Outlawry
HR provides:

It is especially forbidden * * * to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army. (HR, art. 23, par. (b).)

This article is construed as prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy's head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy "dead or alive". It does not, however, preclude attacks on individual soldiers or officers of the enemy whether in the zone of hostilities, occupied territory, or elsewhere.

The main index for FM 27-10 is here. However, one thing that the manual makes clear that the treaties only codify certain aspects of a body of law that is largely governed by several centuries of custom. This issue can't be resolved by the treaty provisions alone.

Anyway, this combatant thing has been debated to death. Do a search and you will find a couple of 7 pagers on the subject.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by itai195:
Oh, then you disagree with Simey. Got it. So how is the WoT permissible under international law?

No. I meant no to your "entire" premise. That No. Carry on.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The best and most easily-digested summary that I have seen is the US Army's manual FM 27-10. This is what the Army uses to teach it's soldiers (especially commanders) on the dos and don't's of land warfare. It summarizes the key provisions in the various conventions, as well as custom, and key decisions. Its interpretations are generally considered quite conservative, seeing as how the military has an incentive in keeping it's soldiers from committing war crimes, or having them committed against our troops.

For example, although Troll mentions the Geneva Convention, actually that isn't the relevant treaty. The relavant one is Hague IV. The Army summarizes that provision thus:


The main index for FM 27-10 is here. However, one thing that the manual makes clear that the treaties only codify certain aspects of a body of law that is largely governed by several centuries of custom. This issue can't be resolved by the treaty provisions alone.

Anyway, this combatant thing has been debated to death. Do a search and you will find a couple of 7 pagers on the subject.

Thanks for the education. I appreciate your efforts, despite what others would have you believe by their inferences and misguided inductive reasoning. Thumbs up.

[itai195]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
No. I meant no to your "entire" premise. That No. Carry on.

Um, okay, split hairs. It was pretty clear what I was referring to, can't say the same for your post.

[Developer]

Originally posted by itai195:
Oh, then you disagree with Simey. Got it. So how is the WoT permissible under international law?

You all have difficulties understanding it seems.

This guy was charged of a) assistance to murder and b) membership in a terroristic organization. In Germany these are crimes. How they are punished is determined in the criminal law. And because Germany is a "law-state" ("Rechtsstaat") the state is bound in its reaction to these laws. No labeling as "unlawful combatant" or whatever and then doing something entirely different is possible. Period. Nobody is unlawful in a law-state. By definition.

I'm rather content that the state isn't assassinating citizens in the streets of Hamburg when it doesn't have sufficient evidence. But maybe that's just me.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by itai195:
Um, okay, split hairs. It was pretty clear what I was referring to, can't say the same for your post.

Based on my past posts which you vehemently disagree with, I assumed you could deduce my meaning. I'm not a wordy person by nature but will try to stretch a bit more.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Developer:
I'm rather content that the state isn't assassinating citizens in the streets of Hamburg when it doesn't have sufficient evidence. But maybe that's just me.

Not just. Speaking as potential collateral damage in the streets of Hamburg, I have to agree.

-s*

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Developer:
You all have difficulties understanding it seems.

This guy was charged of a) assistance to murder and b) membership in a terroristic organization. In Germany these are crimes. How they are punished is determined in the criminal law. And because Germany is a "law-state" ("Rechtsstaat") the state is bound in its reaction to these laws. No labeling as "unlawful combatant" or whatever and then doing something entirely different is possible. Period. Nobody is unlawful in a law-state. By definition.

I'm rather content that the state isn't assassinating citizens in the streets of Hamburg when it doesn't have sufficient evidence. But maybe that's just me.

I understood all along, my friend - and I approve (of the process and reasoning).

[Troll]

Originally posted by netgear:
I'm not, it's called street smarts. Either your opponent goes down first or you won't be around the next time to worry about it.

Yes well, if you want to live as a neanderthal with street smarts being the order of the day, go ahead. Don't mind if the rest of us choose to benefit from the last 5,000 years of civilisation.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by Troll:
Yes well, if you want to live as a neanderthal with street smarts being the order of the day, go ahead. Don't mind if the rest of us choose to benefit from the last 5,000 years of civilisation.

It's civilized to set this man loose? Are you certain you are drawing on the whol 5,000 years of civilization? Or just the early parts?

Calling his "street smarts" neandterthol immedieately sets off red flags or should when anyone reads your post. Do you really feel this way? "aristocratic contempt for the swinish multitude". By definition you just stated that.

Here on the other hand are synonyms for Street Smarts = Streewise = Prudent = Perspicacious.

Perspicacious = Having or showing penetrating mental discernment; clear-sighted.
Prudent = Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense. Careful in regard to one's own interests; provident. Careful about one's conduct.

Where you attack him as being Neandrethal, you are far from accurate in your assessment in this situation.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
It's civilized to set this man loose?

For lack of evidence?

Innocent until proven guilty USED TO be one of the cornerstones of modern legal systems.

You'd prefer to kill all potential suspects and just use netgear's excuse of "whoops - nobody's perfect" (from another thread) if you get someone innocent, right?

That is indeed uncivilized.

-s*

[clt2]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Innocent until proven guilty USED TO be one of the cornerstones of modern legal systems.

Still is in civilized countries.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You'd prefer to kill all potential suspects and just use netgear's excuse of "whoops - nobody's perfect" (from another thread) if you get someone innocent, right?

-s*

You really have to conquer your anger issues. If you are going to butcher my post and be uncivilized yourself, then how on this planet earth can you expect to be taken seriously? If you want to mock me by parsing my post down to one line to get your rocks off, then good for you.

Here is the rest of my response to this person.

It's civilized to set this man loose? Are you certain you are drawing on the whole 5,000 years of civilization? Or just the early parts?

Calling his "street smarts" neandterthol immedieately sets off red flags or should when anyone reads your post. Do you really feel this way? "aristocratic contempt for the swinish multitude". By definition you just stated that.

Here on the other hand are synonyms for Street Smarts = Streewise = Prudent = Perspicacious.

Perspicacious = Having or showing penetrating mental discernment; clear-sighted.
Prudent = Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense. Careful in regard to one's own interests; provident. Careful about one's conduct.

Where you attack him as being Neandrethal, you are far from accurate in your assessment in this situation.


Furthermore, you are taking far too many liberties with my words and inserting things that are simply not there!

"you'd prefer to kill all potential suspects and just use netgear's excuse of "whoops - nobody's perfect" (from another thread) if you get someone innocent, right?"

I would prefer this? Show me where I state that potential suspects should be killed.

If you continue to invent words, and bait people, I see you becoming less and less and less worth replying to.

[nam_pog]

This should probably be it's own topic. Japanese hostages. And so it is.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Troll:
Yes well, if you want to live as a neanderthal with street smarts being the order of the day, go ahead. Don't mind if the rest of us choose to benefit from the last 5,000 years of civilisation.

Street smarts is what separates those with the will to survive from those who will wait around bleeding to death while the police arrive.

[Troll]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
It's civilized to set this man loose?

Yes.

[Troll]

Originally posted by netgear:
Street smarts is what separates those with the will to survive from those who will wait around bleeding to death while the police arrive.

I thought street smart was what you wear when you neanderthals head down to the village for some clubbing ... or what you wear after you've spent the evening in the cave clubbing.

Germany's been around a whole heck of lot longer than the US has so I'm not sure you guys are qualified to be giving lessons on survival.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Troll:
I thought street smart was what you wear when you neanderthals head down to the village for some clubbing ... or what you wear after you've spent the evening in the cave clubbing.

Germany's been around a whole heck of lot longer than the US has so I'm not sure you guys are qualified to be giving lessons on survival.

Eh? How is being around since 1871 a "whole heck of a lot longer" than 1781? When you can live in peace for a century without invading and plundering your continent then maybe the world can take lessons from Deustchland.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by netgear:
Eh? How is being around since 1871 a "whole heck of a lot longer" than 1781? When you can live in peace for a century without invading and plundering your continent then maybe the world can take lessons from Deustchland.

One'd think that from your vantage point, you'd know to avoid the whole invading and plundering business.

Alas.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
You really have to conquer your anger issues. If you are going to butcher my post and be uncivilized yourself, then how on this planet earth can you expect to be taken seriously? If you want to mock me by parsing my post down to one line to get your rocks off, then good for you.

I can live with that.

However, I'll bite anyway - despite the three or four posts that have pretty much exactly echoed my sentiment at your post.

Originally posted by nam_pog:
It's civilized to set this man loose? Are you certain you are drawing on the whole 5,000 years of civilization? Or just the early parts?

Calling his "street smarts" neandterthol immedieately sets off red flags or should when anyone reads your post. Do you really feel this way? "aristocratic contempt for the swinish multitude". By definition you just stated that.

Here on the other hand are synonyms for Street Smarts = Streewise = Prudent = Perspicacious.

Perspicacious = Having or showing penetrating mental discernment; clear-sighted.
Prudent = Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense. Careful in regard to one's own interests; provident. Careful about one's conduct.

Where you attack him as being Neandrethal, you are far from accurate in your assessment in this situation.

I hope I have your permission to violently and angrily rip this part from your post and reply to it, seeing as you deemed it viable of its own post earlier.

Please notify me ASAP if this violates your posting rules.

my response to this part:

Releasing a man for lack of evidence? That is indeed the only civilized thing to do.

Innocent until proven guilty USED TO be one of the cornerstones of modern legal systems.

You appear to prefer pre-emptive justice. Lock'em up if the seem suspect, and if they don't turn out positively guilty, give'em the benefit of the doubt and keep'em locked up anyway. The ultimate extension of that pre-emptive justice is to kill all potential suspects and just use netgear's excuse of "whoops - nobody's perfect" (from another thread) if you get someone innocent.

That is indeed uncivilized.

Originally posted by nam_pog:
Furthermore, you are taking far too many liberties with my words and inserting things that are simply not there!

"you'd prefer to kill all potential suspects and just use netgear's excuse of "whoops - nobody's perfect" (from another thread) if you get someone innocent, right?"

I would prefer this? Show me where I state that potential suspects should be killed.

If you continue to invent words, and bait people, I see you becoming less and less and less worth replying to.

See above. I spelled it out a little more clearly, and quoted a little more, none of which really made much of a difference, but perhaps it's easier to understand.

I feel a little baited, but I guess sometimes you gotta do stuff that feels a little weird.

-s*

[swrate]

Originally posted by netgear:
And don't forget that a solider dressed as a civilian can be treated as a spy. Spies are never afforded any protection in wartime rules.

Fallujah's black..... yes. spies, private or state security

[netgear]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
One'd think that from your vantage point, you'd know to avoid the whole invading and plundering business.

Alas.

-s*

Talk to me when America is responsible for millions of deaths and more than two world wars.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by netgear:
Street smarts is what separates those with the will to survive from those who will wait around bleeding to death while the police arrive.

You ignore that the guy waiting for the cops probably wouldn't actually be bleeding to death if it weren't for the Neanderthal street "smarts" of the other guy.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by netgear:
Talk to me when America is responsible for millions of deaths and more than two world wars.

*cough*NativeAmericans*cough*cottonfieldslavery*co ugh*

[swrate]

Yes, with holding evidence.
Withholding evidence, is it right according to International Law?
In such an important case?

Then again the uniform debate, Simey, are these people the terrorists,
aka different brigades marching under the same flag, are they considered or not considered as an army? Evidence would show, any soldier seeing one of them would recognize his "uniform"

will not repost the pic
sigh.
It could become dangerous, imposim^g one views rarely works.
:o I am stunned, progress and democracy builds through openess/diplomacy whereas offensive leads to horror and terror.
People then adhere to extreme ideas.

I think we have a few bad years ahead.

Why? US is withholding evidence. Why?
YYYYYYYYY

[netgear]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
*cough*NativeAmericans*cough*cottonfieldslavery*co ugh*

Something stuck in your throat there? Maybe some of the the ashes of several million Jews that the Germans just stood there and did nothing to stop their demise?

You really have no leg to stand on talking about slavery considering how most German industrial giants reaped large financial rewards from those enslaved during one of two world wars your people started.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You ignore that the guy waiting for the cops probably wouldn't actually be bleeding to death if it weren't for the Neanderthal street "smarts" of the other guy.

Street smarts isn't about offense but how to defend yourself against those without enough respect for one's life that they would take it very cheaply. But thanks for playing though.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by netgear:
Something stuck in your throat there? Maybe some of the the ashes of several million Jews that the Germans just stood there and did nothing to stop their demise?

You really have no leg to stand on talking about slavery considering how most German industrial giants reaped large financial rewards from those enslaved during one of two world wars your people started.

You know, there is a pretty crucial difference, here:

I was neither around, nor have I ever, in any form, expressed any sympathy or support whatsoever for the human rights violations and senseless killings perpetrated by the Nazis.

In fact, it is that very episode of history that DEMANDS that we maintain the utmost level of civility and lawfulness possible. This *should* be obvious from your vantage point. It is not, I see.

But thanks for playing.

-s*

[swrate]

Originally posted by netgear:
Something stuck in your throat there? Maybe some of the the ashes of several million Jews that the Germans just stood there and did nothing to stop their demise?

You really have no leg to stand on talking about slavery considering how most German industrial giants reaped large financial rewards from those enslaved during one of two world wars your people started.

Arguing, Spheric stated in a post I read in another thread? that Germany had made that mistake and all know what being brainwashed means.
What was the population supposed to do against the armed SS of all factions?
"Old Europe" appreciated the colllaboration, and times like that are missing.