WORLD WAR II Question

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Enemy combatants shouldn't have any rights according to our constitution.

They shouldn't even have standard Geneva Convention rights applied to them because they weren't uniformed officers or enlisted men.

Bullshit! Many at Gitmo were not captured by American forces. They were simply handed over by the Northern Alliance, and there is substantial evidenced that many of them were victims of grudges or revenge by members of the NA...

They were wearing the standard uniform that they were able to scrounge in that part of the world. A completely false and discredited argument...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, they're all saints down there in Gitmo, aren't they?

You wouldn't mind having them over to watch a football game and have a few beers, right?

The guys in US prisons aren't saints either, but they've had a fucking fair trial to insure that they should actually be there...

[Oxford]

Bottomline Hitler way underestimated Russia ferocity and stamina,Russia were outdated and totally under equipt but they had the hearts and soul to fight.In which Hitler never anticipated.Once we enter the equations with the Brits and the Poland Germany was overwhelmed plain and simple.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
Enemy combatants shouldn't have any rights according to our constitution.

They shouldn't even have standard Geneva Convention rights applied to them because they weren't uniformed officers or enlisted men.

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Sent battalions over mine fields? Show me a source on that one...

I know BBB posted the original comment but I've heard of this too. The Russian Army had many punishment battalions, essentially these were desserters or criminals who had been captured and were offered a chance to redeem themselves by charging German lines essentially unarmed. Taking that on board there's no doubt many were sent straight into minefields, in terms of the cold logic of Stalin's Russia it makes sense.

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by Warham
Enemy combatants shouldn't have any rights according to our constitution.

They shouldn't even have standard Geneva Convention rights applied to them because they weren't uniformed officers or enlisted men.

I think Warham's right on the last bit. My understanding is the Geneva Convention expressly forbids civilians (i.e. non-uniformed combatants) to take part in fighting. If they choose to disobey that they fall outside of the convention.

[Seshmeister]

So what?

The majority weren't combatants and kidnap and torture are against international law as well as natural law and any semblence of morailty.

[Seshmeister]

So what?

The majority weren't combatants and kidnap and torture are against international law as well as natural law and any semblence of morailty.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Mr Grimsdale
I know BBB posted the original comment but I've heard of this too. The Russian Army had many punishment battalions, essentially these were desserters or criminals who had been captured and were offered a chance to redeem themselves by charging German lines essentially unarmed. Taking that on board there's no doubt many were sent straight into minefields, in terms of the cold logic of Stalin's Russia it makes sense.

They were called "penal battalions."

I have heard different, often conflicting opinions and facts regarding their use.

Russians themselves claim they were given more dangerous objectives, and often served as pickets and cannon fodder. But they were armed.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Mr Grimsdale
I think Warham's right on the last bit. My understanding is the Geneva Convention expressly forbids civilians (i.e. non-uniformed combatants) to take part in fighting. If they choose to disobey that they fall outside of the convention.

But many WERE wearing a uniform of sorts...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
The only thing "illegal" about it is the Democrats don't approve. Just another way they are helping the evil-doers.

Both of your sentences in this post are faulty.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Besides, what are these people?

Terrorists.

And this is where your premise is completely fucked!

You CAN'T trust gw&friends to decide that. To have the power to pick people up and make them disappear.

Just like you couldn't trust Hitler, or Stalin, or ANYONE with those sorts of powers. It always gets out of hand.

[Nickdfresh]

And why were they "terrorists" for fighting Northern Alliance and US military personnel on the field of battle?

Whose definition "terrorism" does that meet?

Because now US troops can be labeled "terrorists" for conducting operations, and can be tortured since assholes have decided that the Geneva Conventions only apply when they feel like it...

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, the answers to your WWII questions can be found here: http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/

Use the search function before starting threads, please...

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
They were called "penal battalions."

I have heard different, often conflicting opinions and facts regarding their use.

Russians themselves claim they were given more dangerous objectives, and often served as pickets and cannon fodder. But they were armed.

I've read accounts by Germans saying the penal/punishment battalions were as good as unarmed.

The Russians would probably want to paint a slightly more romantic version of the events.