Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:29:33 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[🔎] 20070326012933.GB18402@santiago.connexer.com:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:01:29AM +0000, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > [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.)
>>
>>
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.+Con.+Res.+336:
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.CON.RES.26.IH:
>
> There, you can get the dead tree versions yourself if you like.
>
> The first was under the watch of Clinton and the second pre-9/11 Bush
> adminstration, introduced by a Democrat.
>
>> > 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 same one that Clinton dealt with. The Taliban. What difference
> does it make? They had him or knew where he was. Recognized or not,
> they were in control of mufch of the territory of Afghanistan.
..precisely, and precisely why the Taliban are lawful combattants under
the conventions, just like Norwegian Milorg in WWII. Unless you can
prove al-Qaida mercenaries under Article 47 in Protocol Additional, they
too are lawful combattants under the Conventions.
..then "ofcourse" we have war criminals on both sides. And we _should_
know better than prove the enemy right by allowing war crimes.
>> > 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)
>>
> Um, were the Norweigan "insurgents" agents of a recognized government?
> If so, then there is your answer. This theory has nothing to do with
> Hitler's.
..Adolf Hitler argued the Quisling regime was the lawful regime in
Norway, he didn't back it up with an election, but he _did_ back it up
with a _lot_ of troops to protect the Norwegian civilians, even the Jews.
A _very_ embarrassing fact for both Norway, NATO, the US and Afghan
president Karzai, but never the less the truth.
--
..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: