Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
--- 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
>
> --
> ..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.
>
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)
make not atempt to qualify under aritcle 4. Under the
terms of the convention it doesn't apply to them. 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. Where do kidnapings,
hostage taking, and beheading figure into the
conventions? 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.
Reply to: