Wikileaks

#4
As long as he just presents it and doesnt do anything to make it more interesting then hey, throw away you strange oddball you :p

And aslong as theres no chance that British civilians or Servicemen/women are put at risk because of what is put on the site then fair enough. If any of it does cause a risk then he should be hung from the nearest lampost by his underpants 8)
 
#5
edit: Not wanting to cause a period for you all, but its just an opinion im allowed to express, as are the many muslim extremists who express their hate for uk/us peoples, who behead our soldiers/reporters when captured..

Perhaps we should be scared of these people and give them houses and money instead.. oh...
 
#6
Timbo89 said:
Personally dont understand all the anger/big deal made about torture of iraq prisoners/enemies.

It is a war, they are trying to kill us and are not playing by any rule book, so there is no reason we should either
So we all apply ourselves to the lowest denominator then? 'They' did it so 'we' can?

That will really get us somewhere won't it?

Great philosophy.
 
#7
I suspect that comment will open a gigantic Ethical and Moral can of worms there Timbo.

To put it simply however, we are signatories of the Geneva Convention and its many revisions and therefore bound by word and by morale duty to treat prisoners of war in the manner the convention dictates. Regardless of whether they behave in the same manner or not.

And besides, Torture is Abhorrent and wrong, regardless of any beneficial results it may get
 
#8
Timbo89 said:
Personally dont understand all the anger/big deal made about torture of iraq prisoners/enemies.

It is a war, they are trying to kill us and are not playing by any rule book, so there is no reason we should either
Slide back under your rock before someone steps in you and is forced to clean their shoes.
 

Seaweed

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#10
Since when are unlawful combatants covered by the Geneva Convention? I thought it only covered the uniformed service personnel of a signatory state.
 
#11
You are quite right Seaweed. I was merely pointing out the reasons why we wouldnt torture prisoners in war. Didnt want to go near the issue of a war against terrorist/insurgents alas as that opens a whole load more issues I suspect.

Wondering if Wikileaks needs to be brought to heel though.
 
#12
Scouse_Castaway said:
You are quite right Seaweed. I was merely pointing out the reasons why we wouldnt torture prisoners in war. Didnt want to go near the issue of a war against terrorist/insurgents alas as that opens a whole load more issues I suspect.

Wondering if Wikileaks needs to be brought to heel though.


What can 'they' do about it ? it's out in the open..... we all know things 'happen' in wartime.....that was not my initial intention of starting this thread. What I'd like to know is..... Is there sufficient evidence to substantiate the illegality of this war, and the loss of life (More concerned about our losses - images of Wooton Bassett ) to bring those (Ir)responsible to account.
 
#13
Seaweed said:
Since when are unlawful combatants covered by the Geneva Convention? I thought it only covered the uniformed service personnel of a signatory state.

Since 1949:-

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).[1] However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status; and there are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children. In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of this term and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant under United States law. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgment quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[4] because in the opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action"
 
A

angrydoc

Guest
#14
The mud thrown from this "leak" will affect all coalition forces - as StixJimbo says, we're all the same in the eyes of Islamists.

I wholeheartedly disagree with torture and purposeful civilian deaths but I do wonder what public interest is served in dragging all this up. I am fairly certain you could do the same about any war in any country.
 
#15
Guzzler said:
Timbo89 said:
Personally dont understand all the anger/big deal made about torture of iraq prisoners/enemies.

It is a war, they are trying to kill us and are not playing by any rule book, so there is no reason we should either
So we all apply ourselves to the lowest denominator then? 'They' did it so 'we' can?

That will really get us somewhere won't it?

Great philosophy.
Do on to others and then split? We seem to be doing a lot of that.
 

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
#16
Timbo89 wrote
Personally dont understand all the anger/big deal made about torture of iraq prisoners/enemies.

It is a war, they are trying to kill us and are not playing by any rule book, so there is no reason we should either
Perhaps you'd like to consider remaining a civilian Timbo.

As for Julian Assange, the bloke behind Wikileaks, there is something of the 'I love me who do you love?' about him.
 
#17
angrydoc said:
The mud thrown from this "leak" will affect all coalition forces - as StixJimbo says, we're all the same in the eyes of Islamists.

I wholeheartedly disagree with torture and purposeful civilian deaths but I do wonder what public interest is served in dragging all this up. I am fairly certain you could do the same about any war in any country.
I fully agree with all you say doc, but doesn't this show we're in a different kind of battlefield/warfare now....where someone, who can remain anonymous if need be, create a whole new scenario/put lives at risk, by providing ligitimate, factual information, (Not propaganda)... to the whole world via the internet.... you never know.... some of it might be true !
And after all...... we all want to know the truth..... don't we ?
 
#18
Scouse_Castaway said:
As long as he just presents it and doesnt do anything to make it more interesting then hey, throw away you strange oddball you :p

And aslong as theres no chance that British civilians or Servicemen/women are put at risk because of what is put on the site then fair enough. If any of it does cause a risk then he should be hung from the nearest lampost by his underpants 8)
There are enough people of a similar religion in the UK to ensure that any retribution to the local population here will be effective.
Nice...
 
#19
StixJimboRM said:
Scouse_Castaway said:
As long as he just presents it and doesnt do anything to make it more interesting then hey, throw away you strange oddball you :p

And aslong as theres no chance that British civilians or Servicemen/women are put at risk because of what is put on the site then fair enough. If any of it does cause a risk then he should be hung from the nearest lampost by his underpants 8)
I'm afraid you would be a bit naive if you think that these leaks won't put British servicemen/civilians at risk. The 'insurgent/islamic fundamentalist' sees us all as infidel westerners and as far as he is concerned there are no international boundaries between us/the US as we are all enemies of Islam. These kinds of leaks can, IMHO, only serve to add fuel to the flames and the idiot that runs the wikileak website needs to be bought into check by the elmer gubmint/security services.
Actually Stix the thing I was getting at is EXACTLY what you are saying. I feel this Wikileaks site is behaving recklessly by releasing this. I also dont believe that we can take anything they publish at face value as there is nothing stopping them altering anything to make it more shocking. Julian Assange is in Switzerland because they wont let the US at him.


I merely didnt come out with a more definitive statement because I didnt want the 'The Truth is all that matters' lot flaming me. Its a dangerous thing Assange is doing and Id hope he's made to account for anyone who is harmed as a result of it.

And as an aside, it doesnt matter anymore if Iraq is illegal or not, whats done is done and I hardly think anyone is going to risk opening that can of worms at the Hague
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top