Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:30:26 -0400, Celejar wrote in
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:08:42 +0000 (UTC) Arnt Karlsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:13:41 -0400, Celejar wrote in
>> [🔎] email@example.com:
>> >  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.
> What are you talking about? Prof. Ramsey writes:
>> Let’s assume there is a category of people who take active part in
>> combat but are not covered by the Third Geneva Convention (because they
>> fail the test of its Article 4) or by Common Article 3 (because the
>> conflict is “of an international character”). It seems fairly
>> inescapable that there is such a category (whether or not Taliban or
>> al-Qaeda fighters are in it).
> He's specifically avoiding the question of whether the Taliban /
> al-Qaeda are covered by Geneva. How is this "neocon propaganda"?
..he _avoids_ the question instead of doing his job under Article 144 in
the 4'th Convention.
Referring to that question as "the Administration's theory" would have
been acceptable, as Coup d'Etat in the US is no war crime, even if it is
a crime in the US.
..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.