Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:13:41 -0400, Celejar wrote in
[🔎] 20070321161341.3d5ba74a.celejar@gmail.com:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:58:56 -0400 (EDT) judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
>
>> On 18 Mar, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 02:04:42AM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> ..peace. First we need to hang all our war criminals, then they
>> >> have to hang theirs, all under the strictest combination of Sharia,
>> >> the full 4 Geneva Conventions, the US War Crimes Act, the Norw.
>> >> Military
>> >>
>> penal code etc.
>> >
>> > Sorry. Geneva conventions applies to lawful combatants. Now, if any
>> > coalition troops have committed crimes in violation of the Geneva
>> > conventions, then yes they need to prosecuted. Now, the terrorists
>> > are afforded no such protection under the Geneva Conventions. In
>> > fact, they don't even have to be taken prisoner. They can simply be
>> > shot on sight. It is the grace of the US government that efforts are
>> > made to capture and detain rather than just kill outright. ...
>>
>> Acutually, it is the 3rd Geneva convention that only applies to
>> lawful combatants. The 4th convention, which the US is also a
>> signatory of, applies to unlawful combatants, and non-combatants. And
>> it provides
>
> It is not at all obvious that the fourth convention applies to 'unlawful
> combatants'. The (current US) administration has claimed that it does
> not. Can you prove that it does [0]?
..diversional slant, # 4 protects Civilians and by implication most non-
combattants.
>> protections against, among other things, being tortured and being held
>> indefinitely without trial.
>
>> And 3rd convention protections are to be given to all captives
>> until
>> their combatant status is determined by a "competent tribunal", which,
>> IIRC, is interpreted in international law to be a body of the judicial
>> branch, not the executive.
>
> International law to which the US is a signatory? I violently reject the
> notion that we're bound by international law to which we aren't.
..in that case you become a war criminal. As a civilian and non-
combattant, you are entitled to vehemently voice your _opinion_ even if
it promotes war crime, because you as a civilian are entitled to your
ignorance and religious etc belief in these matters.
..now, as soon as you go _beyond_ _voicing_ your opinion, you must comply
with the full 4 Conventions.
>
> Celejar
>
> [0] http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1169078731.shtml
..neocon propaganda show, ignores the fact that the Taliban was the
Afghan government on 9/11 2001 when W declared war and invoked NATO
treaty Article 5 and by implication the full 4 Geneva Conventions
under their Articles 2 and 3 in all 4 Conventions since some of the
other NATO Member States (Norway, the UK etc) had fully signed, ratified
or acceeded into them.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: