Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Jihadi's as prisoners of war.

  • 20-07-2016 12:38am
    #1
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭


    When Jihad i's are captured by the military police or secret service agents what official status do they get? I realize this area is very murky yet it seems to me that Jihad i's are warriors, soldiers and thus regardless of their method of attack they should be deemed prisoners of war. What does anyone else believe?

    They tick all the boxes. They are loyal to a military organization. The receive orders, carry them out and usually they provide a reason for the attack and finally they even have a final word to convey to the public their revered prophet who they are serving so all militaries have prisoners so no difference for Jihadists.


Comments

  • #2
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 32,951 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    They are terrorists and should be treated as such.


  • #3
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    It doesn't really matter when we have a UN controlled by the very people who take these prisoners.

    We end up with Guantanamo, water boarding, sleep deprivation etc, etc.

    Fight against terrorism. The 21st century war on drugs.


  • #4
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    NIMAN wrote: »
    They are terrorists and should be treated as such.

    Political prisoners status? Own dress?


  • #5
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    NIMAN wrote: »
    They are terrorists and should be treated as such.

    Does that mean torture, indefinite detention and execution.


  • #6
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    You have to separate prisoners of war from criminals & terrorists. The leaders of Al Qaeda were soldiers of Allah. Many of the people they hired to commit the attacks were petty criminals or maniacal bombers. The worst atrocities are by dangerous criminals and terrorists yet with Jihadist's you have an entire literature built up not to mention a hierarchy and methods to launch deadly attacks. These people who control the organization can be readily identified as prisoners of war once they are caught since they have an intimate knowledge of warfare. They are not average troublemakers.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Does that mean torture, indefinite detention and execution.

    Of course not, that's what THEY do.

    tac


  • #8
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    You have to separate prisoners of war from criminals & terrorists. The leaders of Al Qaeda were soldiers of Allah. Many of the people they hired to commit the attacks were petty criminals or maniacal bombers. The worst atrocities are by dangerous criminals and terrorists yet with Jihadist's you have an entire literature built up not to mention a hierarchy and methods to launch deadly attacks. These people who control the organization can be readily identified as prisoners of war once they are caught since they have an intimate knowledge of warfare. They are not average troublemakers.

    Fair enough, let Allah serve a writ of Habeas corpus and we'll quickly get to the bottom of the justification for their detention......

    ......oh wait......:D

    Next there'll be suggestion drug gang members are 'soldiers' - after all they're part of a hierarchical, if informal, organisation, there's plenty of literature about them (Narcos, Paul Williams, Sunday World) and they've capability and motivation to launch deadly attacks ;)


  • #9
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,102 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Are you referring to jihadis fighting on the front line in syria or jihadis shooting civilians in the west? The former should be treated as prisoners of war. the latter are criminals.


  • #10
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Are you referring to jihadis fighting on the front line in syria or jihadis shooting civilians in the west? The former should be treated as prisoners of war. the latter are criminals.

    Their fighting the same war so both are soldiers no difference. Capture them and they become prisoners of war like the Nazis.


  • #11
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Their fighting the same war so both are soldiers no difference. Capture them and they become prisoners of war like the Nazis.

    Not really - you're looking to apply a modern interpretation on the definition of 'soldier.'

    They're more medieval in their outlook - they don't offer 'quarter' so quarter should not be offered to them.

    I think you've pretty much foregone the right to being treated according to the more modern interpretation of the laws of war when you set fire to downed pilots taken prisoner (non-combatants once the leave the bus) - 'at least' the Germans, and the NVA 'only' beat, shot and lynched downed flyers behind the front lines. Videoed immolation was even beyond them.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,102 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Their fighting the same war so both are soldiers no difference. Capture them and they become prisoners of war like the Nazis.


    you're probably on your own there.


  • #13
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,029 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    To qualify for POW status, you have to be deemed a lawful combatant, the criteria for which are laid out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention .

    So for example, if a Jihadist is fighting as a member of a recognised armed force, he's entitled to POW status or if he's a militiamen who adheres to the four criteria (follows a chain of command, wears distinctive symbols such as a uniform, carrys his arms openly and generally adheres to the Law Of Armed Conflict). However, someone who wears civilian clothes and is part of a terrorist group is an unlawful combatant and cannot claim POW status.
    A good example is when the US invaded Afghanistan: the Taliban were entitled to POW status as the armed forces of Afghanistan (the Bush administration was widely condemned for denying them POW status) while Al-Qaeda were a terrorist organisation and noone batted an eyelid at US denial of their having any right to POW status.


  • #14
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Lockstep wrote: »
    To qualify for POW status, you have to be deemed a lawful combatant, the criteria for which are laid out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention .

    So for example, if a Jihadist is fighting as a member of a recognised armed force, he's entitled to POW status or if he's a militiamen who adheres to the four criteria (follows a chain of command, wears distinctive symbols such as a uniform, carrys his arms openly and generally adheres to the Law Of Armed Conflict). However, someone who wears civilian clothes and is part of a terrorist group is an unlawful combatant and cannot claim POW status.
    A good example is when the US invaded Afghanistan: the Taliban were entitled to POW status as the armed forces of Afghanistan (the Bush administration was widely condemned for denying them POW status) while Al-Qaeda were a terrorist organisation and noone batted an eyelid at US denial of their having any right to POW status.

    What happens in a war scenario when a army hides in hospitals, residential areas and pleasure areas the Geneva Convention was never written to take any of this into account.


  • #15
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    What happens in a war scenario when a army hides in hospitals, residential areas and pleasure areas the Geneva Convention was never written to take any of this into account.

    It was actually. Using the Red Cross/Crescent as cover is a war crime as is using civilians.

    Jihadis can only enjoy the protections of the Geneva and Hague Conventions if they meet the criteria laid out therein AND their state has signed up to them.


  • #16
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,029 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Jawgap wrote: »
    It was actually. Using the Red Cross/Crescent as cover is a war crime as is using civilians.

    Jihadis can only enjoy the protections of the Geneva and Hague Conventions if they meet the criteria laid out therein AND their state has signed up to them.

    Yup, the Geneva Conventions were codified after WWII so they were fully aware of such things.

    However, even if a state hasn't signed up to Geneva Conventions I-IV, they're still bound by them as they're now part of customary international law, as per the Tadic case.


  • #17
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    ...re the right to wear one's own clothes, I presume refers to our own brand of terrorists demanding the right to wear cheap denim jeans instead of rugged denim workwear. Funny how Irish people have no problem having the Americans et al shooting missiles from drones at IS toerags yet they'd have conniptions if the British killed IRA "volunteers" out of hand...


  • #18
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    ...re the right to wear one's own clothes, I presume refers to our own brand of terrorists demanding the right to wear cheap denim jeans instead of rugged denim workwear. Funny how Irish people have no problem having the Americans et al shooting missiles from drones at IS toerags yet they'd have conniptions if the British killed IRA "volunteers" out of hand...

    What are you on about if the Americans starting using internment for Muslims the way the British used it on the Irish than I would agree with you. The targeting from drones or aerial bombardments is purely to knock out the people with rocket launchers & stockpiles of weapons.


  • #19
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    It has become the fashion for some left wingers to constantly criticise the American use of drones as weapons yet they are highly effective and prevent more deaths by IED and suicide vehicles. The critics especially love collateral damage that kills civvies. I consider that some of the Irish critics were quite happy to put the boot into Americans, Brits and especially Israelis using hard tactics yet they were/are prepared to look the other way when it came to atrocities committed closer to home.....regarding jihadis, it's open season. Anyone who goes to fight for IS from Europe should have his passport torn up and not be allowed back into Europe.


  • #20
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    It has become the fashion for some left wingers to constantly criticise the American use of drones as weapons yet they are highly effective and prevent more deaths by IED and suicide vehicles. The critics especially love collateral damage that kills civvies. I consider that some of the Irish critics were quite happy to put the boot into Americans, Brits and especially Israelis using hard tactics yet they were/are prepared to look the other way when it came to atrocities committed closer to home.....regarding jihadis, it's open season. Anyone who goes to fight for IS from Europe should have his passport torn up and not be allowed back into Europe.

    Fully agree with that and a lot would including those on the left.


  • #21
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    It appears that one of the three 'British' schoolgirls who snuck off to Syria last year to join ISIS and escape the oppressive non-muslin régime of freedom and democracy here in yUK has been zotzed by a Russian bomb.

    Oh dear.

    Oh, look, there's a heron! Don't see many of those around here. Must get my binos before it disappears..................

    tac


  • Advertisement
Advertisement