Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
..reposting, last try was lost in gmane's auth queue.
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:21:58 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[🔎] 20070322012158.GD21910@santiago.connexer.com:
> 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.
..correct this far.
> Unlawful combatants are basically just
..the mercenaries, even spies and war criminals have a right to a trial.
> civilians or non-combatants who have given up their protected status by
> engaging combat operations.
..."by taking up arms against the invading enemy" like aboard flight
UA93, is perfectly legal.
> Of course, combat operations are distinct from self-defense,
..BS, you are at any time and in any circumstance required to fully
comply to the full 4 Conventions.
> including protecting other protected persons or places,
...or object of value to mankind, churches, mosques, corn fields, even
tortured POW's on Gitmo are entitled to this protection.
> IIRC.
..not good enough, I as a civilian, am entitled to be wrong and proven
wrong and to learn about this, _if_ you _are_ a GI or an officer, your
_obligation_ is To Know[TM], the idea is deny war criminals like Adolf
and W. "Ignorance" as a Court Martial or Art 90 Hearing Defense.
>> > 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.
..wrong and wrong. And wrong too if you are trying to seize power in a
coup d'etat or civil war.
> You just won't be entitled to the protections of the GCs.
..this applies only to Mercenaries.
>
>> > 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]
..non-neocon source? (As in credible pre-9/11 2001 dead tree etc issue,
even Wikipedia pages get 0\/\/|\|3|} by neocons.)
> 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.
..which non-regonised military power was recognized as Government by W's
ultimatium on "Hand Over Osama Or Else!!!"?
> 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?
..tell me how this theory differ on Adolf Hitler's theory on Norwegian
"insurgents" in Milorg. ;o)
> Regards,
>
> -Roberto
>
> [0]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Politics_of_Afghanistan#The_Former_Taliban_Regime
>
--
..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: