On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:08:42PM +0000, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:13:41 -0400, Celejar wrote in > [🔎] 20070321161341.3d5ba74a.celejar@gmail.com: > > > 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. > You are missing what he said. Civilians and non-combatants are not the same as unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants are basically just civilians or non-combatants who have given up their protected status by engaging combat operations. Of course, combat operations are distinct from self-defense, including protecting other protected persons or places, IIRC. > > > > 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. > Only if you act as an agent of your government. You can go and do whatever you want on your own. You just won't be entitled to the protections of the GCs. > > > > 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. > Sorry, but you argument is null: [0] On September 27, 1996, the ruling members of the Afghan Government were displaced by members of the Islamic Taliban movement. The Taliban declared themselves the legitimate government of Afghanistan; however, the UN continued to recognize the government of Burhanuddin Rabbani. The Organization of the Islamic Conference left the Afghan seat vacant until the question of legitimacy could be resolved through negotiations among the warring factions. By the time of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the September 11 terrorist attacks only Pakistan recognized the Taliban government, though Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had in the past. The Taliban occupied 95% of the territory, called the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The remaining 5% belonged to the rebel forces constituting the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which the United Nations had recognized as the official government in exile. So, the Taliban was only the legitimate government in the sense that they declared themselves to be so. Nobody, outside of Pakistan and at at some point SA and UAE, recognized them as the legitimate government. So tell me again, how are insurgents lawful combatants? Regards, -Roberto [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Afghanistan#The_Former_Taliban_Regime -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature