New Wikileaks

**deathgodusmc** · 04-26-11, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

The original statement made made no claims about the reason for eschewing a uniform:

By this statement, many of our first soldiers were cowards.

If you need things broken down to the very last letter and definition then you may be in the wrong forum.

**deathgodusmc** · 04-26-11, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Again with this hand-wavy "times have changed" excuse. Did the Taliban sign the Geneva convention? Do we always follow the Geneva convention with non-signatories?

WHat excuse? ARe you saying things haven't changed dramatically since then? Do you not see how time may have alter the current methods of war? They are only using rocket launchers and ak47's. Its not like they haven't learned how to build bombs or anything. They know perfectly well by not wearing a uniform they can hide more effeciently and dont think for a second it isn't their purpose. This way every insurgant we kill can be a "US kills civilians" news article. No one said they were stupid.

**SmokenScion** · 04-26-11, 02:43 PM

Dude,the Geneva's don't expressly say Lawful Combatant or Illegal combatant.
"A loophole in humanitarian Law"

**deathgodusmc** · 04-26-11, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Dude,the Geneva's don't expressly say Lawful Combatant or Illegal combatant.

Yes they do.

**SmokenScion** · 04-26-11, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Yes they do.

no they don't.

The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals, and case law.[7] However, unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian", the term "unlawful combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.[3][8]

**deathgodusmc** · 04-26-11, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

no they don't.

LOL is this where i say yes they do?

**DJ Ms. White** · 04-26-11, 02:55 PM

You could always quote/link the part that does? Wouldn't that settle the issue?

**SmokenScion** · 04-26-11, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

LOL is this where i say yes they do?

no it's where you post a link to refute me. not act like a ten year old.

I ran asearch on "Illegal combatant and found the Same dribble associated with Interpretation of Text written long ago, with no means to update the current policy, just like the Bible, or constitution.