On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 03:22:08AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:59:08 -0400, > Bijan Soleymani <bijan@psq.com> wrote in message > <[🔎] 20031019205908.GA11299@server.crasseux.com>: > > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:07:12AM -0700, Tom wrote: > > ..really? ;-) > > > > > ..as in; "Where _is_ Osama and Saddam?". And playing the > > > > "west bank settler" games on the Iraqis, is _not_ gonna help. > > > By waging war on Iraq when there was no clear link between Iraq and Al > > Quaeda and when there was no clear evidence of weapons of mass > > destruction, the U.S. wanted to show that they can wage war without > > even making up semi-coherent reasons. I mean Bush kept > > flip-flopping: > > This is about weapons of mass destruction, > > then > > This is about terrorism > > then > > This is about regime change > > ..the removal of _any_ "terrorist" war criminal regime > is a requirement to _any_ legal regime: Check out > "Art. 85 Repression of breaches of this Protocol", > "Art. 86 Failure to act", > "Art. 87 Duty of commanders", > "Art. 88 Mutual assistance in criminal matters", > "Art. 89 Co-operation" and > "Art. 90 International Fact-Finding Commission" of > http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVART?OpenView&Start=1&Count=150&Expand=5#5 You quoted: Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. This is for the protection of victims in international armed conflicts, in other words this applies to wars. The breaches that you mention are all things that are banned in war. That's what all those articles are about: *war* and not *terrorism*. Bijan -- Bijan Soleymani <bijan@psq.com> http://www.crasseux.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature