Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:26:44 -0700, zfh wrote in
[🔎] 876724.3288.qm@web83208.mail.mud.yahoo.com:
> --- Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:55:57 -0700, zfh wrote in
>> [🔎] 871323.52137.qm@web83207.mail.mud.yahoo.com:
>>
>> ..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?
>
> With the statements above you clearly demonstrate your irrational
> sympathy with terrorists.
..huh?
> Every legal system recognizes the right of
> the individual to defend against mortal threat.
..correct, and this includes the full 4 Geneva Convention and the NATO
treaty.
> The terrorist boarded
> flight 93 with the intent of committing mass murder. The passengers were
> in the wrong place at the wrong time and decided to attempt to defend
> their lives. They ended up dying, but saving he lives of unknown others
> in the processs.
..correct, and they did so in _full_ compliance to the full 4 Conventions.
The Conventions have rules against dum-dum bullets, and not against nukes
nor against fists.
> Do not soil their act by equating them with the
> terrorists.
..I arguing the passengers belong on Arlington, is "equating them with
the terrorists" how?
> The United states ignored international terrorist for
> twenty years including all of the Clinton Administration. This failure
> to engage a clear enemy bent on killing americans, and enemy bent on
> escalating their acts of terror, brought us to September 11, 2001.
> The way to prevent history from repeating itself is to engage and defeat
> this enemy.
..find and read my posts here on on "root cause", had the Jews been as
smart as the Muslims are now, they would all have fled Europe in 1933, or
killed Adolf Hitler in 1923.
> The terorist are illegal combatants under article 4 and
> tribunals
..here you confuse war criminals, terrorists and mercenaries with lawful
combattants, a war criminal may remain a lawful combattant except of
course when he does commit a war crime, if all a terrorist does is scare
people, he will disqualify as a war criminal because scaring people is
legal in war, and a mercenary is a war criminal under Article 47 in
Protocol Additional I, _regardless_ of what he does, and is indeed an
unlawful combattant.
> and Gitmo are the all justice they deserve.
..death by hanging etc are acceptable verdicts under the Conventions,
Gitmo or Abu Ghraib style torture however is not, not even to mercenaries.
> War is a dirty business,
..I disagree. And, you confuse lawful warfare with war crime, and
endorse it.
> expecially a war like this. Many innocents have died and many
> more will die. If the tribunals do their job, the guilty will be
> puinshed beffiting their crimes. You need to think about what type of
> world might come into being if surrender to the terrorists become a
> reality.
..surrender? I'm neutral, I step aside. ;o)
> With that, I sign off from this thread and commit it to the
> spam filter.
>
> ZFH
..aye, this thread provides ample info on how (and how not) to apply the
Conventions, which are amply discussed here too (urls on one line each):
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ihl-article-300906?
opendocument
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_in_brief?
OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView
--
..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: