Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:55:57 -0700, zfh wrote in
[🔎] 871323.52137.qm@web83207.mail.mud.yahoo.com:
> --- Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:33:28 -0700, zfh wrote in
>> [🔎] 360937.25915.qm@web83205.mail.mud.yahoo.com:
>>
>>
>> > Sorry to break into your offtopic rants, but I
>> can't resist this one.
>> > Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants
>> that wear no uniforms and
>>
>> ..like the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11?
>>
>> > commit acts of murder and sabotage are considered
>> to be spies and may be
>>
>> ..you speak of murderers, saboteurs and spies, who may only be shot
>> after
>> having received a verdict so ordering in a trial for the murderer, and
>> in
>> an Article 90 hearing _and_ a trial for the saboteur and the spy. The
>> latter 2 generally need to commit some war crime to earn a verdict, but
>> can still be held as POW for the duration of the war without committing
>> any war crimes, read especially the commentary to Article 46 for
>> background:
>>
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750056?OpenDocument
>>
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750056?OpenDocument
>>
>>
>> > leagaly shot on sight.
>>
>> ..this applies only to mercenaries, who first needs to be identified as
>> such under Article 47:
>>
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750057?OpenDocument
>>
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750057?OpenDocument
>>
>> > During the cold war, the understanding developed
>> that everyone has
>> > spies and that if you don't kill mine I won't kill
>> yours.
>>
>> ..true, and irrelevant, as the high contracting powers instead agreed
>> to
>> go after mercenaries.
>>
>> > Are you old enough to remember that famous antiwar
>> photo from
>> > the Tet offensive in Vietnam of an ARVN soldier
>> shooting a captured
>> > vietcong agent in the head? Under the geneva
>> convention, that was
>> > legal.
>>
>> ..citation? ;o)
>>
>> > Al Queda and the Taliban don't care about anyones
>> rights or
>> > freedoms. We need to follow the rules because we
>> are who we are and
>> > need to stay that way if free nations are to
>> survive. Though there have
>> > been some abuses, military tribunals and Gitmo are
>> not necessarily
>> > outside the rules when dealing with an organized
>> terrorist threat.
>>
>> ..really? ;o) They are. On one line:
>>
> http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ihl-article-300906?
>> opendocument
>>
>> ..a good starting point for further reading:
>>
> http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_in_brief?
>> OpenDocument
>>
...
> Its too bad that you never read the documents you site. Look at the
> document on treatment of prisoners of war. The terrorists you seem in
> sympathy with (see the first line you wrote in the previous response)
..are you referring to the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11???
On "Let's roll!" these civilians _became_ lawful combattants under
Arnticle 4A(6) in the 3'rd Convention:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570017?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007?OpenDocument
..more:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750054?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750054?OpenDocument
> make not atempt to qualify under aritcle 4. Under the terms of the
> convention it doesn't apply to them.
..no?
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5KZJAV
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590005?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590005?OpenDocument
> In the present circumstances, the
> US is being extremely civil with the terrorist, better treatment than
> americans and British get around the world even though our armed forces
> do quaify under article 4 and our civilians are clearly civilians.
..do you qualify as a civilian, or a war criminal, on arguing against the
facts on what these Conventions _actually_ cover?
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750064?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750064?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600166?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600166?OpenDocument
..arguing how you would like things to be, is completely different to
arguing how things really are, I for one would like to see mercenaries
legalized so they can earn money by stopping war crimes.
> Where do kidnapings, hostage taking, and beheading figure into the
> conventions?
..as war crimes.
> International terrorism is not solvable in the short term,
> but granting legal protections to to terrorist that under existing teaty
> don't deserve them is the worst possible strategy.
..uhuh. So, you want history repeating itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv47iWKUv5A
--
..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: