Fair Tribunals at Guantanamo? (Was: Re: YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ???)

[Henrietta K Thomas]

(newsgroups trimmed way down)

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:44:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall >
wrote, in us.military.army:

>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>:What would _you_ consider a "fair trial", Fred, and would your opinion
>:change if you were the defendant?
>
>Paul, nobody wants a 'fair trial' when they're the defendant. They
>just want to get off.

Sometimes 'getting off' IS a fair trial. :-)

>This lot will get fairer trials than they've got coming. Why is it
>none of your lot are willing to wait for the bad outcomes you keep
>shrilling about to occur before tearing your hair out and wailing to
>the skies?

Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law,
every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly
advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at
Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international
law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful
nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us.

>Hell, wait until the first trial happens and someone gets sentenced.
>Then you MIGHT have something to complain about. However, I'd bet you
>won't. The military, unlike a civilian court, is going to be pretty
>scrupulous about things before they'll sentence someone to death.

My understanding is that there will be no appeals, or at best,
limited appeals. So if, by chance, something -does- go wrong,
all avenues of redress will be closed. I don't call that a 'fair'
anything.

>You might want to look at just when the last time was that a military
>court handed down a death penalty.

Irrelevant to the question at hand. Regardless of the outcome,
all trials must be fair if justice is to be served.

It would have been better, IMO, if we had asked the UN to
set up an international tribunal to deal with the situation.
But we did not, so we are stuck with the decision made
by our government to do everything in secret behind
closed doors. No offense intended to the US military
justice system, but I think it was a bad call.

YMMV.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Chicago, Illinois

[Colin Campbell]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:43:39 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
> wrote:



>Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law,
>every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
>properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly
>advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at
>Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international
>law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful
>nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us.

You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot
them out of hand?

BTW, are you aware that the rules covering these trials are copied
almost verbatim from the rules for US military courts-martial?



>It would have been better, IMO, if we had asked the UN to
>set up an international tribunal to deal with the situation.

FYI, the defendant has fewer rights under a tribunal than those given
to the prisoners at gitmo.

Also, the judges on a UN tribunal would vote the way their governments
told them to.

>But we did not, so we are stuck with the decision made
>by our government to do everything in secret behind
>closed doors. No offense intended to the US military
>justice system, but I think it was a bad call.

OK, then what is you solution to the problem of providing a fair trial
while protecting US military secrets?

I can just see the result of the US saying to a UN tribunal: "What we
are about to tell you is Top Secret so please promise not to tell your
governments about US military and intelligence capabilities."



--
In every generation the world has produced enemies
of human freedom. They have attacked America because
we are freedom's home and defender. The commitment
of our fathers is not the challenge of our time.
President George W Bush - Sept 14, 2001

[RTO Trainer]

After reviewing Paragraph 5 pf the OPORD of Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:43:39
GMT, Henrietta K Thomas > exclaimed:

>(newsgroups trimmed way down)
>
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:44:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall >
>wrote, in us.military.army:
>
>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>>
>>:What would _you_ consider a "fair trial", Fred, and would your opinion
>>:change if you were the defendant?
>>
>>Paul, nobody wants a 'fair trial' when they're the defendant. They
>>just want to get off.
>
>Sometimes 'getting off' IS a fair trial. :-)
>
>>This lot will get fairer trials than they've got coming. Why is it
>>none of your lot are willing to wait for the bad outcomes you keep
>>shrilling about to occur before tearing your hair out and wailing to
>>the skies?
>
>Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law,
>every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
>properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly
>advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at
>Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international
>law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful
>nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us.
>

Under international law, huh?

Maybe you could point out which agreements constitute the laws in this
case?

>>Hell, wait until the first trial happens and someone gets sentenced.
>>Then you MIGHT have something to complain about. However, I'd bet you
>>won't. The military, unlike a civilian court, is going to be pretty
>>scrupulous about things before they'll sentence someone to death.
>
>My understanding is that there will be no appeals, or at best,
>limited appeals. So if, by chance, something -does- go wrong,
>all avenues of redress will be closed. I don't call that a 'fair'
>anything.
>

Your understanding is based on what?

>>You might want to look at just when the last time was that a military
>>court handed down a death penalty.
>
>Irrelevant to the question at hand. Regardless of the outcome,
>all trials must be fair if justice is to be served.
>

....and you have this basis for thinking that they aren't or may not
be:

......

>It would have been better, IMO, if we had asked the UN to
>set up an international tribunal to deal with the situation.
>But we did not, so we are stuck with the decision made
>by our government to do everything in secret behind
>closed doors. No offense intended to the US military
>justice system, but I think it was a bad call.
>

Show me "in secret behind closed doors."


--
Pain heals.
Chicks dig scars.
Glory lasts forever.
SPC Robert White 31U, OKARNG HHC 45th eSB Thunderbirds!

[Clintok]

Those fellows earned themselves tickets to GTMO. They chose jihad, and
that wont always land you in paradise. Although the sunsets in Gitmo
are wonderful. GDSF Leeward side during Operation Sea Signal.

The UN isn't the answer. For the attrocities commited in Srebernetza
(Bad spelling I know) the commmands who did it landed 17 years. 17
years for killing 5,000 people. So, these little warriors of god go to
the ICC and receive what ?...... Probation ?

International Law did not do this country any good on 9-11. Now we
call the shots. Thank god we do not rely on the UN to enforce law or
will.







Henrietta K Thomas > wrote in message >...
> (newsgroups trimmed way down)
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:44:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall >
> wrote, in us.military.army:
>
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >
> >:What would _you_ consider a "fair trial", Fred, and would your opinion
> >:change if you were the defendant?
> >
> >Paul, nobody wants a 'fair trial' when they're the defendant. They
> >just want to get off.
>
> Sometimes 'getting off' IS a fair trial. :-)
>
> >This lot will get fairer trials than they've got coming. Why is it
> >none of your lot are willing to wait for the bad outcomes you keep
> >shrilling about to occur before tearing your hair out and wailing to
> >the skies?
>
> Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law,
> every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
> properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly
> advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at
> Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international
> law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful
> nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us.
>
> >Hell, wait until the first trial happens and someone gets sentenced.
> >Then you MIGHT have something to complain about. However, I'd bet you
> >won't. The military, unlike a civilian court, is going to be pretty
> >scrupulous about things before they'll sentence someone to death.
>
> My understanding is that there will be no appeals, or at best,
> limited appeals. So if, by chance, something -does- go wrong,
> all avenues of redress will be closed. I don't call that a 'fair'
> anything.
>
> >You might want to look at just when the last time was that a military
> >court handed down a death penalty.
>
> Irrelevant to the question at hand. Regardless of the outcome,
> all trials must be fair if justice is to be served.
>
> It would have been better, IMO, if we had asked the UN to
> set up an international tribunal to deal with the situation.
> But we did not, so we are stuck with the decision made
> by our government to do everything in secret behind
> closed doors. No offense intended to the US military
> justice system, but I think it was a bad call.
>
> YMMV.
>
> Henrietta K. Thomas
> Chicago, Illinois
>

[chebs]

>
>
>Under international law,
>every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
>properly advised of any charges against them,
>
Thread got long so I'm not sure who wrote this but.................
They are not "accused person's" they were caught on the battlefield
shooting at allied troops or supporting those who were. So let 'em
sit till the war is over and then decide what to do with em.
kwc

[TinCanMan]

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 Jul 2003 14:29:19 -0700, (Clintok) wrote:
>
> >Those fellows earned themselves tickets to GTMO. They chose jihad, and
> >that wont always land you in paradise.
>
> Some of them....maybe. But certainly not all of them. Dozens have been
> released as being harmless, some after over a year of captivity
> without charge or representation, or apology come to that.
>
> This is why you're supposed to either try or charge people. Otherwise
> it's just a gulag. If you have the evidence try them in a real civil
> court - judges can get security clearances you know. If you don;t have
> the evidence, then why the hell are you even holding them?
>
> Don't let your prejudices let you tar them all with the same brush.

Well, no. Criminals are entitled to be charged and tried. The folks enjoying
the tropical breezes at Gitmo are not criminals. They are combatants, having
been taken on the battlefield or having been found hiding among the
populace. According to what passes as the laws of war, they will be detained
in camps for such and will be released when hostillities are over. You don't
get to decide when that is, the detaining power does. Some of them may
eventually be charged with war crimes and as such will be tried by a
military tribunal, the details of which are not yet firm. At that time they
will be accorded rights to defend themselves, til then they wait. I'm sure
you don't agree with any of this but, that's too bad. You have no say in the
issue. They are in GITMO. They are going to stay there untill hostillities
are over. There have been any number of unsuccessful attempts to change
their status and they are still there, these past 18 mos. Whining on USENET
is pretty much useless. There is simply no legal venue to try combatants
that have not comitted war crimes. If you don't like it, complain to your
elected officials. I've told mine I was happy with the present status.

[Chris Manteuffel]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...

> Chapter and verse, Colin, please.
>
> (You're usually very clueful, but the GCs are explicit: even spies may
> not be shot out of hand, but must be tried first)

Are you sure? Here is the only passage I can see where it talks about
persons who are not protected under Geneva III or Geneva IV.

Geneva (IV)-1949

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter
is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely
suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the
State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such
rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if
exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to
the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained
as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of
activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person
shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be
regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present
Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity
and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and
regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be
granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the
present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security
of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
</end quote>

They must be "treated with humanity" but from my reading it seems to
be that *if* you try them, the trials must be fair. I don't see any
requirement that they be tried. Indeed, they specifically make
reference to holding someone based on on suspicion and then they are
"regarded as having forfeited rights of communication". Fairly broad
powers there, enshrined under Geneva-IV (1949), from my readings it in
fact seems to justify what's going on at Gitmo completely (if we
assume that the men at Gitmo don't qualify for protection under either
GC III or GC IV).

That brings up Geneva III-1949, Article 5.

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong
to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall
enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as
their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Again, no right to a trial that I can see, only a "competant
tribunal". The US has started releasing men from Gitmo, admitting that
they had been caught up in the dragnet by mistake, so there is some of
this going on; note also that I don't believe they say that the
tribunal (for deciding whether they meet GC III 4.2) must be an open
one. And you don't need a tribunal to declare someone not covered by
III or IV; you only need the tribunal in cases where there is doubt.

The US seems to be loudly protesting that the men aren't entitled to
protection under the GC's, but in all actuality most of the AQ men
wouldn't get any protection anyway (Geneva III (1949) Article 4
section 2 would be the standards that they would have to meet, and
from my knowledge of AQ very few of them would meet them). I don't
think the way the men in the pens are treated would be any different
if the US were to announce that they were to be held under the GC's,
because so many men wouldn't qualify as POW's, not meeting the
requirements of GC (III) 4.2 (which are fairly strict, requiring a
chain-of-command and a mark recoginzable at a distance (distinct from
merely carrying a gun)). The AQ men almost certainly wouldn't, the
Taliban men might, I don't know enough about how the Taliban operated
to know.

Now, giving the British citizens to Britain would be the smart move to
help Tony Blair... it seems so obvious that I don't really know why
they aren't.

Chris Manteuffel

[David Nicholls]

"TinCanMan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 23 Jul 2003 14:29:19 -0700, (Clintok) wrote:
> >
> > >Those fellows earned themselves tickets to GTMO. They chose jihad, and
> > >that wont always land you in paradise.
> >
> > Some of them....maybe. But certainly not all of them. Dozens have been
> > released as being harmless, some after over a year of captivity
> > without charge or representation, or apology come to that.
> >
> > This is why you're supposed to either try or charge people. Otherwise
> > it's just a gulag. If you have the evidence try them in a real civil
> > court - judges can get security clearances you know. If you don;t have
> > the evidence, then why the hell are you even holding them?
> >
> > Don't let your prejudices let you tar them all with the same brush.
>
> Well, no. Criminals are entitled to be charged and tried. The folks
enjoying
> the tropical breezes at Gitmo are not criminals. They are combatants,
having
> been taken on the battlefield or having been found hiding among the
> populace. According to what passes as the laws of war, they will be
detained
> in camps for such and will be released when hostillities are over. You
don't
> get to decide when that is, the detaining power does. Some of them may
> eventually be charged with war crimes and as such will be tried by a
> military tribunal, the details of which are not yet firm. At that time
they
> will be accorded rights to defend themselves, til then they wait. I'm sure
> you don't agree with any of this but, that's too bad. You have no say in
the
> issue. They are in GITMO. They are going to stay there untill hostillities
> are over. There have been any number of unsuccessful attempts to change
> their status and they are still there, these past 18 mos. Whining on
USENET
> is pretty much useless. There is simply no legal venue to try combatants
> that have not comitted war crimes. If you don't like it, complain to your
> elected officials. I've told mine I was happy with the present status.
>
If they are POW's then they should be covered by the various Geneva
Conventions - but the US has explicitly denied them the rights under those
Conventions.

David

[Colin Campbell]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:51:13 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Colin Campbell
> writes
>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:43:39 GMT, Henrietta K Thomas
> wrote:
>>>Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law,
>>>every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
>>>properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly
>>>advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at
>>>Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international
>>>law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful
>>>nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us.
>>
>>You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot
>>them out of hand?
>
>Chapter and verse, Colin, please.
>
>(You're usually very clueful, but the GCs are explicit: even spies may
>not be shot out of hand, but must be tried first)

You are correct. They can be tried - then shot.

>
>>BTW, are you aware that the rules covering these trials are copied
>>almost verbatim from the rules for US military courts-martial?
>
>Apart from issues like secret hearings, strict controls on defence
>counsel and the absence of defence witnesses?

Only specific parts of the hearings will be 'secret.' Those are the
parts where "Information whose unauthorized disclosure can be
reasonable expected to cause harm to the national defense"

I suggest that you actually read the rules instead of somebody's
opinions of the rules. Here is a link to the actual text.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/d20020321ord.pdf



>What rights to the Gitmo prisoners have?

See the above link. Please note: we consider them to be criminals -
not combatants.


>Roughly how many of those detainees are there because of information
>that is currently TOP SECRET US EYES ONLY, out of interest?

I don't know - and if I did I would not be able to discuss it with
you.

FYI, I have talked to people who actually guarded those folks. As a
result, I feel that they are too dangerous to ever be let free.

Or what we can do is give them their weapons back and turn them loose
in your hometown.


--
In every generation the world has produced enemies
of human freedom. They have attacked America because
we are freedom's home and defender. The commitment
of our fathers is not the challenge of our time.
President George W Bush - Sept 14, 2001

[Iain Rae]

chebs wrote:
>>
>>
>> Under international law,
>> every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
>> properly advised of any charges against them,
>
> Thread got long so I'm not sure who wrote this but.................
> They are not "accused person's" they were caught on the battlefield
> shooting at allied troops or supporting those who were. So let 'em
> sit till the war is over and then decide what to do with em. kwc
>
Not all of them, one of the two british born prisoners was extradited
from Pakistan to Afghanistan and then went from there to Guantanamo.

Another was extradited from Zambia.

[Rob van Riel]

"TinCanMan" > wrote in message >...
> They are combatants, having
> been taken on the battlefield or having been found hiding among the
> populace. According to what passes as the laws of war, they will be detained
> in camps for such and will be released when hostillities are over. You don't
> get to decide when that is, the detaining power does.

In other words, you're essentially talking about POWs. POWs have
rights, that are being denied those held at GITMO. Now, I realise that
the US government has decided they have found a legal loophole that
allows them to deny these people POW status, but no lawyer alive can
change the thruth. It is not relevant that many of these people
weren't wearing any kind of uniform when captured, as uniforms were
not in use in Afganistan. Inconvenient to our Western criteria, but
that is the way of that country.

> If you don't like it, complain to your
> elected officials. I've told mine I was happy with the present status.

I don't, and I don't have to, as they already agree with me.
Unfortunately, the US government couldn't care less about that.

Rob

[Rob van Riel]

Colin Campbell (remove underscore)> wrote in message >...
> You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot
> them out of hand?

I don't think the US even had the right to invade Afganistan, let
alone shoot anyone over there. The US government has shown the same
respect for the principles of international law most of the past
century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all.

Mind you, legal or not, I do think that kicking the stuffing out of
the Taliban and Saddam was a good idea, but that's not the issue here.

Rob

[Brian Allardice]

In article >,
says...

>Geneva (IV)-1949

>Art. 5 ....

>...In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity
>and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and
>regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be
>granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the
>present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security
>of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
></end quote>
>
>They must be "treated with humanity" but from my reading it seems to
>be that *if* you try them, the trials must be fair. I don't see any
>requirement that they be tried. Indeed, they specifically make
>reference to holding someone based on on suspicion and then they are
>"regarded as having forfeited rights of communication". Fairly broad
>powers there, enshrined under Geneva-IV (1949), from my readings it in
>fact seems to justify what's going on at Gitmo completely (if we
>assume that the men at Gitmo don't qualify for protection under either
>GC III or GC IV).

But also be granted full protection as soon as possible "consistent with the
security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." Vague, to be
sure... Note also a trial not merely fair but "regular" (whatever that may be
as well - but it doesn't sound like a special tribunal to me) Of course G-IV
applies to "Civilian Persons" and would not apply to the Taliban forces; as to
AQ see below.

Another catch is that we don't really know what is going on at Guantanamo, but
if what is going on in Afghanistan ('death by blunt force trauma' as it was
charmingly put) and in Iraq as reported today by Amnesty, one might reasonably
await further data before justifying anything...

>That brings up Geneva III-1949, Article 5.
>
>"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
>belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong
>to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall
>enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as
>their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

>Again, no right to a trial that I can see, only a "competant
>tribunal".

But that is only to determine their status under Article 4, not a trial for war
crimes. As you note, POW's do not generally face trial, they are merely
interned until the end of hostilities

>The US has started releasing men from Gitmo, admitting that
>they had been caught up in the dragnet by mistake, so there is some of
>this going on; note also that I don't believe they say that the
>tribunal (for deciding whether they meet GC III 4.2) must be an open
>one. And you don't need a tribunal to declare someone not covered by
>III or IV; you only need the tribunal in cases where there is doubt.

I would be very wary of that reading... so should all military men...

>The US seems to be loudly protesting that the men aren't entitled to
>protection under the GC's, but in all actuality most of the AQ men
>wouldn't get any protection anyway (Geneva III (1949) Article 4
>section 2 would be the standards that they would have to meet, and
>from my knowledge of AQ very few of them would meet them).

I would be inclined to agree but I don't know enough about how AQ operated in
Afghanistan to be sure. Even if 4.A.2 fails 4.A.6 might succeed. Enough to
create a doubt, I would think.

>I don't
>think the way the men in the pens are treated would be any different

well, they wouldn't be in pens, for a start...

>if the US were to announce that they were to be held under the GC's,
>because so many men wouldn't qualify as POW's, not meeting the
>requirements of GC (III) 4.2 (which are fairly strict, requiring a
>chain-of-command and a mark recoginzable at a distance (distinct from
>merely carrying a gun)). The AQ men almost certainly wouldn't, the
>Taliban men might, I don't know enough about how the Taliban operated
>to know.

The Taliban would seem to fall very clearly under 4.A.1 - hence covered.

Despite all the talk of tribunals &c GC III seems to deal only with those acts
committed while in captivity, except for

"85: Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts
committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the
present Convention."

Now how to interpret that one....?

Cheers,
dba





>Now, giving the British citizens to Britain would be the smart move to
>help Tony Blair... it seems so obvious that I don't really know why
>they aren't.
>
>Chris Manteuffel

[TinCanMan]

"David Nicholls" > wrote in message
...
>
> "TinCanMan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 23 Jul 2003 14:29:19 -0700, (Clintok) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Those fellows earned themselves tickets to GTMO. They chose jihad,
and
> > > >that wont always land you in paradise.
> > >
> > > Some of them....maybe. But certainly not all of them. Dozens have been
> > > released as being harmless, some after over a year of captivity
> > > without charge or representation, or apology come to that.
> > >
> > > This is why you're supposed to either try or charge people. Otherwise
> > > it's just a gulag. If you have the evidence try them in a real civil
> > > court - judges can get security clearances you know. If you don;t have
> > > the evidence, then why the hell are you even holding them?
> > >
> > > Don't let your prejudices let you tar them all with the same brush.
> >
> > Well, no. Criminals are entitled to be charged and tried. The folks
> enjoying
> > the tropical breezes at Gitmo are not criminals. They are combatants,
> having
> > been taken on the battlefield or having been found hiding among the
> > populace. According to what passes as the laws of war, they will be
> detained
> > in camps for such and will be released when hostillities are over. You
> don't
> > get to decide when that is, the detaining power does. Some of them may
> > eventually be charged with war crimes and as such will be tried by a
> > military tribunal, the details of which are not yet firm. At that time
> they
> > will be accorded rights to defend themselves, til then they wait. I'm
sure
> > you don't agree with any of this but, that's too bad. You have no say in
> the
> > issue. They are in GITMO. They are going to stay there untill
hostillities
> > are over. There have been any number of unsuccessful attempts to change
> > their status and they are still there, these past 18 mos. Whining on
> USENET
> > is pretty much useless. There is simply no legal venue to try combatants
> > that have not comitted war crimes. If you don't like it, complain to
your
> > elected officials. I've told mine I was happy with the present status.
> >
> If they are POW's then they should be covered by the various Geneva
> Conventions - but the US has explicitly denied them the rights under those
> Conventions.
>
> David
>
>
They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's

[Fred J. McCall]

(Rob van Riel) wrote:

:Colin Campbell (remove underscore)> wrote in message >...
:>
:> You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot
:> them out of hand?
:
:I don't think the US even had the right to invade Afganistan, let
:alone shoot anyone over there.

Fortunately, you aren't an arbiter of international law, since you
seem to not understand it very well. Or do you not think that the
attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center constitute
sufficient cassus belli? If they don't, what would?

:The US government has shown the same
:respect for the principles of international law most of the past
:century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all.

Well, that sounds like your mind is firmly made up and you decline to
be bothered by facts. Vote for Gore, did you?

One small fact is that we came in on the side of the last recognized
government of the place. You can count the nations who recognized the
Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan on your thumbs, and
Pakistan withdrew their recognition.

Another small fact is that we went in after a group who had 'declared
war' on us first, who were taking actions that essentially constituted
war crimes against us, and whom the folks controlling the territory
they were in refused to do anything about. Sounds like legitimate
cause for war to me, even if the Taliban HAD been the legal government
of Afghanistan.

:Mind you, legal or not, I do think that kicking the stuffing out of
:the Taliban and Saddam was a good idea, but that's not the issue here.

Both legal AND a good idea.

--
"Now this is the Law of the Jungle --
as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper,
but the Wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk
the Law runneth forward and back --
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf,
and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack."

-- "The Law of the Jungle", Rudyard Kipling

[Fred J. McCall]

(Brian Allardice) wrote:

:But also be granted full protection as soon as possible "consistent with the
:security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." Vague, to be
:sure... Note also a trial not merely fair but "regular" (whatever that may be
:as well - but it doesn't sound like a special tribunal to me)

So the Nuremberg trials were illegal?

:>The US has started releasing men from Gitmo, admitting that
:>they had been caught up in the dragnet by mistake, so there is some of
:>this going on; note also that I don't believe they say that the
:>tribunal (for deciding whether they meet GC III 4.2) must be an open
:>one. And you don't need a tribunal to declare someone not covered by
:>III or IV; you only need the tribunal in cases where there is doubt.
:
:I would be very wary of that reading... so should all military men...

I always find this to be most peculiar reasoning. It essentially
amounts to "Don't ever follow the rules of the Conventions to declare
someone to NOT be a POW, since then someone might ignore the
Conventions and declare your POWs to not be POWs".

You know, there's a simple answer in that case. If legitimate
combatants are declared as unlawful combatants and then treated badly
(tortured, executed, etc.), we go in and kick the ass of the folks who
do it, but them on trial, and hang them for war crimes.

Note that despite all the 'cautionary tales' from folks who don't like
our holding these people, we are NOT engaging in any of those things I
mention above (which always seem to figure in the 'cautionary tales'
to 'warn' us).

:>I don't
:>think the way the men in the pens are treated would be any different
:
:well, they wouldn't be in pens, for a start...

Free range terrorists?

:>if the US were to announce that they were to be held under the GC's,
:>because so many men wouldn't qualify as POW's, not meeting the
:>requirements of GC (III) 4.2 (which are fairly strict, requiring a
:>chain-of-command and a mark recoginzable at a distance (distinct from
:>merely carrying a gun)). The AQ men almost certainly wouldn't, the
:>Taliban men might, I don't know enough about how the Taliban operated
:>to know.
:
:The Taliban would seem to fall very clearly under 4.A.1 - hence covered.

Why?

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

[Jim]

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
om...
> Colin Campbell (remove underscore)> wrote in
message >...
> > You realize that under international law the US has the right to shoot
> > them out of hand?
>
> I don't think the US even had the right to invade Afganistan, let
> alone shoot anyone over there. The US government has shown the same
> respect for the principles of international law most of the past
> century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all.
>
> Mind you, legal or not, I do think that kicking the stuffing out of
> the Taliban and Saddam was a good idea, but that's not the issue here.
>
> Rob

Rob,

You are incorrect, once the Twin towers came down the US was at war and as
such has the right to self defense.
We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those
who gave them aid and comfort.

Nuff said

Jim

[Jim Watt]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:

>They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's

In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
purports to support it says:

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

You can find the rest at
http://www.gibnet.com/texts/udhr.htm


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:

>We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those
>who gave them aid and comfort.

I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed
their country and buildings.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
>
> >We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and
those
> >who gave them aid and comfort.
>
> I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed
> their country and buildings.
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Unfortunatly they had the wrong leader...
I doubt soviets like Stalin, Some Germans I understand disliked the
Bavarian corpural too.
and I doubt they enjoyed Sherman tanks crossing the rhine or B17 flying over
Berlin.

War sucks.

Jim

[Fred J. McCall]

David Evans > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:>Fortunately, you aren't an arbiter of international law, since you
:>seem to not understand it very well. Or do you not think that the
:>attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center constitute
:>sufficient cassus belli? If they don't, what would?
:
:Even the 911 attacks are no excuse for genocide.

True. It's no excuse for Brazilian wax jobs, either. So what?

[Fred J. McCall]

Jim Watt > wrote:

:On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:
:
:>They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's
:
:In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
:purports to support it says:
:
:Article 9
:No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next?

--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.

[Fred J. McCall]

Jim Watt > wrote:

:On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
:
:>We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those
:>who gave them aid and comfort.
:
:I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed
:their country and buildings.

Yeah, they do. Most of 'em still don't like Saddam and the Baathists.

[Bill Smith]

"Iain Rae" > wrote in message
...
> TinCanMan wrote:
> > "Jim Watt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's
> >>
> >>In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
> >>purports to support it says:
> >>
> >>Article 9
> >>No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
> >>
> >>You can find the rest at
> >>http://www.gibnet.com/texts/udhr.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
> >
> >
> > Oh, my! Perhaps in your zeal to find some justification, any
justification
> > for your belief, you've skipped over the operative word. That word is
> > arbitrary. Did you miss that or did that part not suit your preconceived
> > agenda? You see, they are detained within the laws of war and are
detained
> > in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The reason is because they
are
> > combatants or supported combatants. Nothing arbitrary about it at all.
Very
> > objective. Get caught under arms, get locked up for the duration.
> >
> >
>
> or indeed, get grabbed by the Pakistani police, find yourself in a
> cellar in Afghanistan, get locked up for the duration.
>
>

Actually they were taken by the Pakistani Army with the assistance of their
security agency and turned over to the U.S. as Al Qaeda members. In acting
as a stateless army they will find themselves on the battlefield wherever
they might be. They choose the venue. The U.S. responded. That they hide
among the populace till they perform their good deeds costs them the
privledges of POW status.

[Fred J. McCall]

David Evans > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:>:Even the 911 attacks are no excuse for genocide.
:>
:>True. It's no excuse for Brazilian wax jobs, either. So what?
:
:The US isn't having a Brazilian wax job. It is committing genocide.

On anyone we know? Or do you not know what 'genocide' means?

The US is closer to having a Brazilian wax job than it is to
committing genocide on anyone.

--
"If told to fight regardless of the consequences, I shall
run wild the first six months or a year, but I have utterly
no confidence for the second or third year. Thus, I hope
you will avoid war with the United States."
-- Admiral Yamamoto

[Chris Manteuffel]

(Brian Allardice) wrote in message >...

> But also be granted full protection as soon as possible "consistent with the
> security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." Vague, to be
> sure... Note also a trial not merely fair but "regular" (whatever that may be
> as well - but it doesn't sound like a special tribunal to me) Of course G-IV
> applies to "Civilian Persons" and would not apply to the Taliban forces; as to
> AQ see below.

Well, G (III) doesn't seem to cover the rights of people who don't
qualify for its protections (if it does I can't find it), whereas G
(IV) does. Therefore, if you are building a case that people don't get
protection under either, IV would be where to start for how to treat
them.

> Another catch is that we don't really know what is going on at Guantanamo, but
> if what is going on in Afghanistan ('death by blunt force trauma' as it was
> charmingly put) and in Iraq as reported today by Amnesty, one might reasonably
> await further data before justifying anything...

Yes, I have been trying to avoid rushing to judgement on this, because
there is so much that we simply don't know. Most newspapers don't seem
to be pushing for the sort of information that interests me (how were
these men caught? what were they doing when they were caught?
situation? who was with them? who turned them in? etc. etc. etc.) Much
more fun to write editorials debating whether Iraq is a quagmire (it
isn't yet, though it might become so in the future, IMO) or to write
editorials arguing over whether WMD's will be found (I think evidence
of a program will be found, eventually, but it certainly will not have
been of the 'ready to go in 30 minutes' variety we were told before
the war). Actual research in an unpleasant country sounds like its
hard work.

> But that is only to determine their status under Article 4, not a trial for war
> crimes.

Yes, but if they don't get the protections of GC (III) then they fall
into the grey area (one could say an area just as grey as they are
now, but sanctioned under international law); in many ways I would
think that their status as POW's or not would be the more important to
decide.

> As you note, POW's do not generally face trial, they are merely
> interned until the end of hostilities

And at the end of hostilities, if need be, they got tried (in WW2).
Going to be interesting to see how they handle that in this war.
Incidentally, many civilians were detained before the war was over and
then tried afterwards; men like the civil administrator of Poland, for
example, who was hanged at Nurmemburg (after a trial). If holding them
was justified, then holding these men would seem to be equally
justified.

> I would be very wary of that reading... so should all military men...

I'm not thrilled with it either, but it seems to be what the GC's say.
Either there has been this loophole since the GC's were written or I'm
misreading it. I don't see any required process to decide that someone
does not fall under G III or G IV. In fact, G IV spefically legalizes
holding people under suspicion who then forfeit rights, so it seems
like its in the occupier's favor on this subject. (Which makes sense
because the people writing GC's in 1949 were representatives of
countries more likely to occupy then be occupied. The 1977 protocols
were written by representatives of countries more likely to have
resistence movements then face them, so they are written to grant them
vastly more protection, placing the burden entirely on the organized
force.)

> I would be inclined to agree but I don't know enough about how AQ operated in
> Afghanistan to be sure.

Agreed. All the journalists attention has been distracted by other
things, and so they aren't investigating what was happening on the tip
of the spear in the past. Pity.

> Even if 4.A.2 fails 4.A.6 might succeed. Enough to
> create a doubt, I would think.

Most AQ people were not natives; they came to Afghanistan to be
trained and inspired by Osama Bin Laden et al. In exchange for letting
them use Taliban controlled areas as a base AQ provided troops to be
the shock troops for Taliban operations. There actually seems to be
have been quite a lot of native Afghan/"tourist" AQ friction, as the
AQ looked down on the Afghans as dirty bumpkins and the natural
xenophobia of the Afghans got triggered by the AQ's. I don't think
that (6) can apply to AQ at all (the men who carried out the attack on
the WTC and Pentagon seem to have been a fair cross section of
'typical AQ' groups; AQ has some people who are US, UK, German, Kenyan
citizenship etc, but they do not seem to be as trusted or as numerous
as the Arab members).

> well, they wouldn't be in pens, for a start...

Oh really? Should tell John McCain that, he'd be glad to hear that
PoW's don't get put into solitary confinement. Would probably make his
day. Or tell all the PoW's in the first Iraq War (in the 2nd they were
better treated because many Iraqis understood their importance as
bargaining chips).

> The Taliban would seem to fall very clearly under 4.A.1 - hence covered.

Depends on their chain of command and uniform. In pictures (stock
footage?) I saw on the news and in papers I saw no mark that
distinighished them, but I don't know, which was why I tried to be
vague about it. No mark, no protection, but they might have done
something about that. The Taliban in general could not get
justification under (6), because they clearly were not in advance of
an occupation force, though individuals might claim to fall under that
provision.

> "85: Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts
> committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the
> present Convention."

Which again goes back to the very interesting question of whether they
should get any benefits from the GC (III). I don't think its a cut and
dried issue that they should have any; I'd like to see it dealt with
on an individual basis, out in public, but I can understand why the
USG is reluctant to reveal what it knows in public about the various
men it has detained if it doesn't have to.

What AQ has done is expose to us how out-of-date many things are, from
international treaties (which seem to need a rewrite to take into
account all the various NGO groups and rebel factions that are
becoming the dominant mode of conflict) to American intelligence.
Interesting lessons.

Chris Manteuffel

[Jim Watt]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:29:06 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Jim Watt > wrote:
>
>:On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
>:
>:>We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those
>:>who gave them aid and comfort.
>:
>:I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed
>:their country and buildings.
>
>Yeah, they do. Most of 'em still don't like Saddam and the Baathists.

I have not seen the Disney version yet. Thats the one where the
American troops are welcomed and the mosques are demolished
to make way for McDonalds and Baptist churches?
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:07:50 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:

>
>"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's
>>
>> In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
>> purports to support it says:
>>
>> Article 9
>> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
>>
>> You can find the rest at
>> http://www.gibnet.com/texts/udhr.htm
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
>
>Oh, my! Perhaps in your zeal to find some justification, any justification
>for your belief, you've skipped over the operative word. That word is
>arbitrary. Did you miss that or did that part not suit your preconceived
>agenda? You see, they are detained within the laws of war and are detained
>in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The reason is because they are
>combatants or supported combatants. Nothing arbitrary about it at all. Very
>objective. Get caught under arms, get locked up for the duration.

Duration of what? the Bush dynasty?

There is nothing in the UDHR that says it only applies to civilians
and there is no war in progress.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:08 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Jim Watt > wrote:
>
>:On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:
>:
>:>They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's
>:
>:In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
>:purports to support it says:
>:
>:Article 9
>:No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
>
>And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next?

I appreciate you may not find the word in the McDonalds dictionary
(given away free with large fries) or on American television where
words of more than six letters are avoided to prevent confusion.

ar·bi·trary (adjective)

1. Depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)
and not fixed by law.

2.1 Not restrained or limited in the exercise of
power : ruling by absolute authority

2.2 Marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often
tyrannical exercise of power

2.3 Using unlimited personal power without considering
other people's wishes:

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:11:05 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:

>I find it interesting they, as did the U.S. choose
>to disregard them. Had they believed it important to their "culture" to
>legitimize sniping at an armed force and hiding among the populace while
>claiming protection as POW's, they would have signed.

Yet the Americans continued to sponsor terrorism by the IRA
who did exactly that, demanded POW status if caught and
have now been released.



--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jeffrey Smidt]

> :The US government has shown the same
> :respect for the principles of international law most of the past
> :century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all.


International Law is a concept not a reality. Law implies someone
enforces behavior and punishes misbehavior as directed by the law.
There is no international enforcement, nor international legislative
or adjudication bodies. The UN is a meeting of ambassadors who can
purpose treaties which member nations can accept or reject. Imagine a
community with a written set of suggestions for proper behavior, but
no courts, police or judges....... Thats 'international law'.

[TinCanman]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:07:50 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's
> >>
> >> In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
> >> purports to support it says:
> >>
> >> Article 9
> >> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
> >>
> >> You can find the rest at
> >> http://www.gibnet.com/texts/udhr.htm
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
> >
> >Oh, my! Perhaps in your zeal to find some justification, any
justification
> >for your belief, you've skipped over the operative word. That word is
> >arbitrary. Did you miss that or did that part not suit your preconceived
> >agenda? You see, they are detained within the laws of war and are
detained
> >in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The reason is because they are
> >combatants or supported combatants. Nothing arbitrary about it at all.
Very
> >objective. Get caught under arms, get locked up for the duration.
>
> Duration of what? the Bush dynasty?
>
> There is nothing in the UDHR that says it only applies to civilians
> and there is no war in progress.
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Did you forget about the arbitrary part? Your observation there is no war
iss irrelevant and carries no weight. That a state of war exists would be up
to the combatants to decide. The UDHR fails at the word arbitrary.

[Fred J. McCall]

Jim Watt > wrote:

:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:29:06 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Jim Watt > wrote:
:>
:>:On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
:>:
:>:>We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those
:>:>who gave them aid and comfort.
:>:
:>:I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed
:>:their country and buildings.
:>
:>Yeah, they do. Most of 'em still don't like Saddam and the Baathists.
:
:I have not seen the Disney version yet.

Apparently you're too busy with the Goebbels version. That's the one
where the US comes in, levels the country, and murders everyone but
the bad guys.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Chris Manteuffel]

(Brian Allardice) wrote in message >...

> >I'm not thrilled with it either, but it seems to be what the GC's say.
> >Either there has been this loophole since the GC's were written or I'm
> >misreading it.
>
> It does look a bit like a loophole to me. I don't imagine anyone really
> expected someone to say "Of course there is *no doubt* ... they are obviously
> *not* POW's"

Yep. Of course, I seem to recall that the Chinese in Korea tried to do
something similiar with their forced confessions from pilots that they
had been dropping biological weapons on the rice fields and then try
them for war crimes. Fortunately we got most everyone back after that
unpleasantness so there wasn't a big deal out of it, but the GC's seem
to have more loopholes then one would like.

> I never claimed everyone else scrupulously observed the GC's... Mind you, the
> VietNamese claimed with McCain there was "no doubt" that he was not a POW, he
> was obviously an Air Pirate... You can see why that loophole in Art.5 troubles
> me.

Indeed. But I'm not sure that if the US abstained from taking
advantage of it, everyone else would (and technically the US is not
taking advantage of it, having declared that they aren't even part of
the POW-Civilian-Other process).

> >Depends on their chain of command and uniform. In pictures (stock
> >footage?) I saw on the news and in papers I saw no mark that
> >distinighished them, but I don't know, which was why I tried to be
> >vague about it. No mark, no protection, but they might have done
> >something about that.
>
> I might be reading it wrong here, but 4.A.1 (applying to the forces and
> associated militias &c) contains none of the conditions of 4.A.2 (applying to
> "other" militias &c). I was a bit surprised when I noticed that... I wonder
> where Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys would fit in....

Yes, you do seem to be right here. Just to make things more
complicated, the US never recognized the Taliban government as the
government of Afghanistan, and the wording 4.A.1 is "Party to the
conflict"- I'm not sure whether they mean High Contracting Party in
the conflict or simply a group involved with the conflict. The use of
the capital P suggests it might be HCP, which could complicate matters
even more.

> Even although written in 49, there is still a vague *19th C* feel to the whole
> document, isn't there....

Agreed. There seems to have been concious effort to make the language
similar to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

The 1977 protocols were supposed to fix it all up and make it more
modern, but the US passed on ratifying it because they felt it was too
protective of resistance groups that they would have to deal with in
the future.

The problem that I see with it is Article 44 section 3-
"3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from
the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish
themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an
attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack.
Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts
where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant
cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a
combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is
engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack
in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be
considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1
(c)."

In other words, you can shoot all you want when you have the advantage
of surprise, and then melt back into the civillian population without
loss of PoW status when captured. You need not have any sort of c-o-c,
distinguishing mark, or anything like that, as long as you carry arms
openly WHILE FIGHTING you are protected; put down the gun and hide
back in the general population all you wish.

Chris Manteuffel

[Fred J. McCall]

Jim Watt > wrote:

:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:08 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Jim Watt > wrote:
:>
:>:On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:
:>:
:>:>They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's
:>:
:>:In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
:>:purports to support it says:
:>:
:>:Article 9
:>:No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
:>
:>And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next?
:
:I appreciate you may not find the word in the McDonalds dictionary
:(given away free with large fries) or on American television where
:words of more than six letters are avoided to prevent confusion.
:
:ar·bi·trary (adjective)
:
:1. Depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)
: and not fixed by law.

They're getting treatment (and not getting treatment) as prescribed by
both treaty and law.

:2.1 Not restrained or limited in the exercise of
: power : ruling by absolute authority

Restrained by the rules already put in place for the holding of these
folks and the conduct of their hearings.

:2.2 Marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often
: tyrannical exercise of power

This would appear to have been the property of the folks being held,
not the folks holding them.

:2.3 Using unlimited personal power without considering
: other people's wishes:

See? Like I said. Not arbitrary.

You've proved two things here:

1) You can read.

2) Your comprehension isn't up to your reading.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Jim]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:11:05 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > wrote:
>
> >I find it interesting they, as did the U.S. choose
> >to disregard them. Had they believed it important to their "culture" to
> >legitimize sniping at an armed force and hiding among the populace while
> >claiming protection as POW's, they would have signed.
>
> Yet the Americans continued to sponsor terrorism by the IRA
> who did exactly that, demanded POW status if caught and
> have now been released.

Some Americans Yes, America no, and by the way they who supported the IRA
should be brough to justice in my opinion
Jim

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Evans" > wrote in message
...
>
> A fine example of this is the US spy planes which persistently defile
> Chinese air space. The Chinese claim their air space extends 20 miles
> from its coast, like its territorial waters. The US claim that
> airspace extends just 10 miles from shore under international law - a
> law the Chinese have never accepted.
>
> Pedants note: the 10 and 20 mile limits are from memory, and actual
> distances may be different. The concept of this post is true.
>

I'm working from memory as well, but I believe the distances are 12 and 200
miles. Territorial waters and national airspace use the same limit, 12
miles. The 200 mile distance is an exclusive economic zone. Other nations
have the freedom of navigation in this area, air and sea, but only the
nation concerned has the right to fish in this area and to minerals on the
floor.

[ZZBunker]

"Jim" > wrote in message >...
> "Jim Watt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:11:05 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >I find it interesting they, as did the U.S. choose
> > >to disregard them. Had they believed it important to their "culture" to
> > >legitimize sniping at an armed force and hiding among the populace while
> > >claiming protection as POW's, they would have signed.
> >
> > Yet the Americans continued to sponsor terrorism by the IRA
> > who did exactly that, demanded POW status if caught and
> > have now been released.
>
> Some Americans Yes, America no, and by the way they who supported the IRA
> should be brough to justice in my opinion

But, just like Al Qauda. They who supported the IRA after
about 1960, aren't even Americans. After the IRA went
commie in the 30's, their Ameican support went
from close to 100% to close to 0%, just about overnight.
You probably have to ask The New York Yankees who
supporting them now, since they're probably the
only people who know.

[Jim Watt]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:39:38 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:

>
>"David Evans" > wrote in message
...
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> >:Even the 911 attacks are no excuse for genocide.
>> >
>> >True. It's no excuse for Brazilian wax jobs, either. So what?
>>
>> The US isn't having a Brazilian wax job. It is committing genocide.
>> --
>> David
>
>David,
>
>Pull you head from where ever it is. 9-11 is provacation for war.
>War isn't neat clean or pretty.

or legally declared. Nor was Iraq in any way linked.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:57:44 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Jim Watt > wrote:
>
>:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:08 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:
>:>Jim Watt > wrote:
>:>
>:>:On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:
>:>:
>:>:>They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's
>:>:
>:>:In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
>:>:purports to support it says:
>:>:
>:>:Article 9
>:>:No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
>:>
>:>And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next?
>:
>:I appreciate you may not find the word in the McDonalds dictionary
>:(given away free with large fries) or on American television where
>:words of more than six letters are avoided to prevent confusion.
>:
>:ar·bi·trary (adjective)
>:
>:1. Depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)
>: and not fixed by law.
>
>They're getting treatment (and not getting treatment) as prescribed by
>both treaty and law.

I believe the GC prohibits torturing prisioners to extract
information.

>See? Like I said. Not arbitrary.

Strange it seems arbitary to me, indeed the reason they
are in Cuba is because your Government is anxious about the
legal basis of its grubby little operation.

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:50:39 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:

>
>"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:11:05 -0700, "TinCanMan"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I find it interesting they, as did the U.S. choose
>> >to disregard them. Had they believed it important to their "culture" to
>> >legitimize sniping at an armed force and hiding among the populace while
>> >claiming protection as POW's, they would have signed.
>>
>> Yet the Americans continued to sponsor terrorism by the IRA
>> who did exactly that, demanded POW status if caught and
>> have now been released.
>
>Some Americans Yes, America no, and by the way they who supported the IRA
>should be brough to justice in my opinion
>Jim

http://www.sinnfeinbookshop.com/en-us/dept_20.html

"Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams today brushed aside claims that his
party was glorifying violence by advertising IRA t-shirts on its new
website."
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Fred J. McCall]

David Evans > wrote:

:A fine example of this is the US spy planes which persistently defile
:Chinese air space.

They don't enter Chinese airspace.

:The Chinese claim their air space extends 20 miles
:from its coast, like its territorial waters. The US claim that
:airspace extends just 10 miles from shore under international law - a
:law the Chinese have never accepted.

The preceding is irrelevant, since our 'spy planes' don't get that
close to the coast.

:Pedants note: the 10 and 20 mile limits are from memory, and actual
:distances may be different. The concept of this post is true.

Now let's inject a little truth, shall we? What China was and is
claiming is the right to control air and sea traffic in what is known
as the Exclusive Economic Zone. Note that the very treaty which
establishes such a zone requires the State whose Exclusive Economic
Zone an area is to RESPECT THE RIGHT OF OTHER STATES TO FREE
NAVIGATION.

China was wrong. Read something other than the People's Daily.

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

[TinCanman]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:11:05 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > wrote:
>
> >I find it interesting they, as did the U.S. choose
> >to disregard them. Had they believed it important to their "culture" to
> >legitimize sniping at an armed force and hiding among the populace while
> >claiming protection as POW's, they would have signed.
>
> Yet the Americans continued to sponsor terrorism by the IRA
> who did exactly that, demanded POW status if caught and
> have now been released.
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland.

[TinCanman]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:17:30 -0700, "TinCanman"
> > wrote:
>
> >Did you forget about the arbitrary part?
>
> No I answered that fully.
>
But you answered it with a textbook definition from the dictionary that
doesn't support your position. ????

> >Your observation there is no war iss irrelevant and carries no weight.
>
> Thats an interesting way of ignoring it.

Your observation there is no war IS irrelevant to the issue because it is
purely opinion on your part. The belligerent parties believe there is a war.
You'll note their soldiers are dying. That is the only thing that matters.
Third parties sitting on the hillside picnicking and pontificating on the
existence of hostilities while the combatants in the valley maim and kill
one another is ridiculous.

>
> >That a state of war exists would be up to the combatants to decide.
>
> Did the Japanese get away with that when they bombed Pearl Harbour?
>
Oh, for the love of Pete. This is getting sillier by the paragraph. I'm just
going to chalk the last statement up to an early start on the weekend's
festivities. Please try to stay with the current situation. I'll not be
trading analogies with you as they are seldom equalities

[Brian Allardice]

In article >,
says...
>
(Brian Allardice) wrote in message
>...

>Yep. Of course, I seem to recall that the Chinese in Korea tried to do
>something similiar with their forced confessions from pilots that they
>had been dropping biological weapons on the rice fields and then try
>them for war crimes...

To go off topic when we are already off topic might seem silly, but if you have
been following the US/Vietnam "Catfish War" one of the reasons advanced by US
producers for banning Vietnamese catfish is that they are probably unfit for
human consumption due to contamination by residues from Agent Orange.
Hmmm.....


>> I might be reading it wrong here, but 4.A.1 (applying to the forces and
>> associated militias &c) contains none of the conditions of 4.A.2 (applying
to
>> "other" militias &c). I was a bit surprised when I noticed that... I wonder
>> where Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys would fit in....
>
>Yes, you do seem to be right here. Just to make things more
>complicated, the US never recognized the Taliban government as the
>government of Afghanistan, and the wording 4.A.1 is "Party to the
>conflict"- I'm not sure whether they mean High Contracting Party in
>the conflict or simply a group involved with the conflict. The use of
>the capital P suggests it might be HCP, which could complicate matters
>even more.

I'm glad someone finally said that... sometimes, judging by the discourse
here, I think I must be hallucinating. But to return the the point, I don't
think mutual recognition of the Parties is a problem..

"4.A.3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government
or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power."

>The 1977 protocols were supposed to fix it all up and make it more
>modern, but the US passed on ratifying it because they felt it was too
>protective of resistance groups that they would have to deal with in
>the future.
>
>The problem that I see with it is Article 44 section 3-

-snip details-

>In other words, you can shoot all you want when you have the advantage
>of surprise, and then melt back into the civillian population without
>loss of PoW status when captured. You need not have any sort of c-o-c,
>distinguishing mark, or anything like that, as long as you carry arms
>openly WHILE FIGHTING you are protected; put down the gun and hide
>back in the general population all you wish.

Well, at least that has the merit of grappling with the realities of
"asymmetrical warfare", from American colonists sniping at the Redcoats to
almost everything going on today and for the forseeable future.

Cheers,
dba

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chris
Manteuffel > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>
>> Chapter and verse, Colin, please.
>>
>> (You're usually very clueful, but the GCs are explicit: even spies may
>> not be shot out of hand, but must be tried first)
>
>Are you sure?

Certainly says so in the "Laws of War" section of my MTQ2 folder (which
dates from 1991 - the current JWP says something similar but it's at
work) "Spies are not protected, except that they may not be punished
without trial."

Then you can play the quote game - "the following acts are and shall
remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect
to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording
all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples."

and

"Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment
and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or
occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power
of which they are not nationals."

> They must be "treated with humanity" but from my reading it
> seems to be that *if* you try them, the trials must be fair. I don't
> see any requirement that they be tried.

Quite so - you can always let them go :)

_If_ you want to punish them, they get a fair trial first (at which
point you dish out appropriate sentences to the guilty). Time spent in
detention pre-trial is deducted from any sentence of imprisonment.

However, this is specific to "protected persons" anyway, which takes us
to your next cite.

> That brings up Geneva III-1949, Article 5.

> "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having
> committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of
> the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article
> 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present
> Convention until such time as their status has been determined
> by a competent tribunal."

> Again, no right to a trial that I can see, only a "competant
> tribunal". The US has started releasing men from Gitmo,
> admitting that they had been caught up in the dragnet by
> mistake, so there is some of this going on;

At the current rate, the status of the last detainee will be determined
in 2025 or thereabouts: not exactly a timely judgement, is it?

There's also a side issue of how you read Article 3: "Persons taking no
active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who
have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness,
wounds, detention, or any other cause". To me that reads as protecting
surrendering enemy soldiers, and all the sick, wounded and captured.

> note also that I don't
> believe they say that the tribunal (for deciding whether they meet
> GC III 4.2) must be an open one.

Just needs to be "competent". However, the detainees are POWs until
proved otherwise.

> And you don't need a tribunal to
> declare someone not covered by III or IV; you only need the
> tribunal in cases where there is doubt.

They're either POWs, or doubt exists as to their status and a tribunal
decides. Same issue as spies - you can't go _directly_ to sentencing.

> The US seems to be loudly protesting that the men aren't entitled
> to protection under the GC's, but in all actuality most of the AQ
> men wouldn't get any protection anyway (Geneva III (1949)
> Article 4 section 2 would be the standards that they would have
> to meet, and from my knowledge of AQ very few of them would
> meet them).

How many are al-Qaeda and how many Taliban? One frequent claim is that
these men were "captured on the battlefield, gun in hand", but that
doesn't seem to fit the facts.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[Jim Watt]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:52:14 -0700, "TinCanman"
> wrote:

>Your observation there is no war IS irrelevant

Its a legal point, and the reason for introducing the Japanese
premptive strike was that after the war your country used that
to prosecute the Japanese.

The reasons why America refuses to accept an international
criminal court to deal with these problems is clear. You are
the criminals.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:58:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Of course it does. Because it's not what you want (which is
>apparently these people given their guns back and sent home).

In the case of the British nationals one did not have a gun
because he was an aid worker and in any event we were
talking of repatriating both to Britain for a fair trial

>The more you talk, the sillier you sound....

Uhuh when the argument fails attack the person presenting it
and marginalise them. I think I know that tactic.

But fine, your country kidnaps people holds them illegally, forces
confessions out of them and then executes them, what exactly are you
protecting? freedom?
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:55:04 -0700, "TinCanman"
> wrote:

>I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland.

Its a convenient example of international terrorism funded and
supported by Americans.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[TinCanman]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:52:14 -0700, "TinCanman"
> > wrote:
>
> >Your observation there is no war IS irrelevant
>
> Its a legal point, and the reason for introducing the Japanese
> premptive strike was that after the war your country used that
> to prosecute the Japanese.
>
> The reasons why America refuses to accept an international
> criminal court to deal with these problems is clear. You are
> the criminals.
>
>
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Well, that does it for me. If there was ever the slightest doubt why the
U.S. has not signed on to the Uropeen IKK, there exists none now. Not even a
glimmer.

[Fred J. McCall]

"TinCanman" > wrote:

:"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
.. .
:>
:> Yet the Americans continued to sponsor terrorism by the IRA
:> who did exactly that, demanded POW status if caught and
:> have now been released.
:
:I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland.

Most of us don't, but there's always the UK odd sod who feels the need
to bring them up at every opportunity as an equivalent to any bad
thing you care to name.

Most of that sort, as Mr Watt above, are unable to differentiate
between "some Americans" and "the Americans".

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[Fred J. McCall]

(Brian Allardice) wrote:

:"4.A.3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government
:or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power."

Except the overwhelming bulk of Taliban forces were not "regular armed
forces", since that implies little details like uniforms, chain of
command, responsibility to follow the rules of war, etc.

:Well, at least that has the merit of grappling with the realities of
:"asymmetrical warfare", from American colonists sniping at the Redcoats to
:almost everything going on today and for the forseeable future.

Yes, but the issue (and the reason we didn't sign) is whether an
asymmetrical force SHOULD be entitled to the protections of the
Conventions, since they will never follow them.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

(Brian Allardice) wrote:

:In article >,
:says...
:
:>You know, there's a simple answer in that case. If legitimate
:>combatants are declared as unlawful combatants and then treated badly
:>(tortured, executed, etc.), we go in and kick the ass of the folks who
:>do it, but them on trial, and hang them for war crimes.
:
:I'll remember that if GWB ever ends up at the end of a rope..

You know, this is the sort of dumb**** remark that pretty much makes
anything sensible you might say get ignored.

:>Note that despite all the 'cautionary tales' from folks who don't like
:>our holding these people, we are NOT engaging in any of those things I
:>mention above (which always seem to figure in the 'cautionary tales'
:>to 'warn' us).
:
:(at least) 2 murdered at Bhagram,

Yes, and you'll note that WE are the ones who found it, military
coroners made the ruling, there's an ongoing investigation, etc.
Funny how that works, isn't it?

:"stress and duress", hoods, shackles... Not
:quite cricket, that.

Sorry, but all the preceding pretty much ARE 'cricket'. There's no
requirement that people must be kept at the Hilton and fed bonbons.

:>:The Taliban would seem to fall very clearly under 4.A.1 - hence covered.
:>
:>Why?
:
:Will you read the damned thing......

I have. Will you? With a brain connected up and running?

I know you want to pretend that the rules about 'clearly identifiable'
only apply to those who don't fall under 4.A.1, but that's merely
silly. Unorganized militias must wear clear and identifiable
insignia, but the regular military can wear sport coats and golf
shoes? I think not.

The overwhelming majority of those fighting for the Taliban were not
part of the armed forces nor were they part of "militias or volunteer
corps forming part of such armed forces". That's why they fall
outside the Conventions.

[There is a somewhat more convincing argument that would put some of
them (but only some of them) within its protections, but you would
have to actually engage in thought to get there, so I'm not expecting
it to happen.]

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

David Evans > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:>So ending the Nazi Party was 'genocide', by your lights?
:>
:>Why am I not surprised....
:
:Godwin's Law evoked.

You can't invoke it when the reference is an appropriate comparison.

:I win you lose.

Wrong again.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

Jim Watt > wrote:

:On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:58:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Of course it does. Because it's not what you want (which is
:>apparently these people given their guns back and sent home).
:
:In the case of the British nationals one did not have a gun
:because he was an aid worker and in any event we were
:talking of repatriating both to Britain for a fair trial
:
:>The more you talk, the sillier you sound....
:
:Uhuh when the argument fails attack the person presenting it
:and marginalise them. I think I know that tactic.

Yes, I think you do, since it is precisely the basis for your entire
position.

:But fine, your country kidnaps people holds them illegally, forces
:confessions out of them and then executes them, what exactly are you
:protecting? freedom?

Who's had a confession 'forced out of them'? Who's been executed?

See what I mean? Make things up and then complain when folks don't
accept your fantasy as reality.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

Jim Watt > wrote:

:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:55:04 -0700, "TinCanman"
> wrote:
:
:>I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland.
:
:Its a convenient example of international terrorism funded and
:supported by Americans.

International only if you consider Northern Ireland a separate nation
from England.

[Despite attempts to portray it otherwise to draw unwarranted
parallels.]

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Chris Manteuffel]

(Brian Allardice) wrote in message >...
> To go off topic when we are already off topic might seem silly, but if you have
> been following the US/Vietnam "Catfish War" one of the reasons advanced by US
> producers for banning Vietnamese catfish is that they are probably unfit for
> human consumption due to contamination by residues from Agent Orange.
> Hmmm.....

Well, the main argument about that is that the Vietnamese are dumping
the catfish on the US market; pollution is really only a minor element
in the argument, which mostly boils down to "they are undercutting us
because their labor and sunk costs are so much lower". Marion Berry
(D-Ark) mentioned it in his speech on the house floor, but almost no
one else has, as they mostly focus on the price issues and want it
labelled as "product of Vietnam" or "pangas Catfish" or similar, to
differentiate it from good honest wholesome American catfish.

> >Yes, you do seem to be right here. Just to make things more
> >complicated, the US never recognized the Taliban government as the
> >government of Afghanistan, and the wording 4.A.1 is "Party to the
> >conflict"- I'm not sure whether they mean High Contracting Party in
> >the conflict or simply a group involved with the conflict. The use of
> >the capital P suggests it might be HCP, which could complicate matters
> >even more.
>
> I'm glad someone finally said that... sometimes, judging by the discourse
> here, I think I must be hallucinating. But to return the the point, I don't
> think mutual recognition of the Parties is a problem..

I agree completely that it doesn't matter whether you recongize the
government that you are facing, I think that the Taliban being a High
Contracting Party to the treaty might not be true, since they aren't
really a successor government to the Afghanistan Constitutional
Monarchy government that signed the treaty all those years ago. This
is a fairly weak argument but I can't see what other reason to have
that capital P there; it might be a typo in the ICRC website, but the
Avalon project has the same letter choice, so if it is typographical
error it was introduced in a common source document between the two.

> Well, at least that has the merit of grappling with the realities of
> "asymmetrical warfare", from American colonists sniping at the Redcoats to
> almost everything going on today and for the forseeable future.

You are just saying that to deliberately incite Americans; forming
skirmish lines and using bad country to break up enemy formations is
much much much older then the Revolution (where it was only done on a
few occasions anyway, the vast majority of American troops fought in
lines just like the British and Hessians did; among the regulars,
really only Morgan's Riflemen would fight out of skirmish lines, and
even then only when the terrain made it useful, like at Freeman's Farm
and Bemis Heights but not at Charleston or Yorktown), and is not
really asymmetrical warfare in the modern sense at all[1].

And incidentally, "grappling with the realities" is a long way from
"improving". In my opinion, granting such protections to people who do
such odious things is a mistake, steps should be taken to discourage
using civillians as human shields, rather then encouraging it by
offering people who do so protections under international law.

[1] "Barnett defines asymmetrical warfare as not simply a case of
pitting one's strength against another's weakness but rather of taking
the calculated risk to exploit an adversary's inability or
unwillingness to prevent, or defend against, certain actions." - a
review of Roger Barnett's book _Asymmetrical Warfare_.

Chris Manteuffel

[Jim Watt]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:35:55 -0700, "TinCanman"
> wrote:

>
>"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:52:14 -0700, "TinCanman"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Your observation there is no war IS irrelevant
>>
>> Its a legal point, and the reason for introducing the Japanese
>> premptive strike was that after the war your country used that
>> to prosecute the Japanese.
>>
>> The reasons why America refuses to accept an international
>> criminal court to deal with these problems is clear. You are
>> the criminals.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
>
>Well, that does it for me. If there was ever the slightest doubt why the
>U.S. has not signed on to the Uropeen IKK, there exists none now. Not even a
>glimmer.

International not Euopean.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:09:47 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Jim Watt > wrote:
>
>:On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:58:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:
>:>Of course it does. Because it's not what you want (which is
>:>apparently these people given their guns back and sent home).
>:
>:In the case of the British nationals one did not have a gun
>:because he was an aid worker and in any event we were
>:talking of repatriating both to Britain for a fair trial
>:
>:>The more you talk, the sillier you sound....
>:
>:Uhuh when the argument fails attack the person presenting it
>:and marginalise them. I think I know that tactic.
>
>Yes, I think you do, since it is precisely the basis for your entire
>position.

On the contary, I've kept to facts rather than decending into
peronal abuse - apart from your president who is an
<expletive deleted>


>:But fine, your country kidnaps people holds them illegally, forces
>:confessions out of them and then executes them, what exactly are you
>:protecting? freedom?
>
>Who's had a confession 'forced out of them'? Who's been executed?
>
>See what I mean? Make things up and then complain when folks don't
>accept your fantasy as reality.

I see, its a summer camp then? The reports on the prisoners
being blindfolded and kept in solitary confinement are false?

Glad to hear it.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>Jim Watt > wrote:
>
>:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:55:04 -0700, "TinCanman"
> wrote:
>:
>:>I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland.
>:
>:Its a convenient example of international terrorism funded and
>:supported by Americans.
>
>International only if you consider Northern Ireland a separate nation
>from England.

Several bombing campaigns in Germany, mainly against BAoR, but that's
pretty international.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

[Jim Watt]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:10:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Jim Watt > wrote:
>
>:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:55:04 -0700, "TinCanman"
> wrote:
>:
>:>I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland.
>:
>:Its a convenient example of international terrorism funded and
>:supported by Americans.
>
>International only if you consider Northern Ireland a separate nation
>from England.

No, the IRA murdered people in Germany, Holland and planned
a substantial operation in Gibraltar

Their joint operation recently with the FARC went badly wrong as you
can see from the Sinn Fein website, where they are campaigning to
bring their terrorists, errr boys, home.

There is also a report that they provided the triggering device
for the OKC bomb, having developed the technology and passed
it on to ETA amongst others.

is that International enough ?
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Fred J. McCall
> writes
>Jim Watt > wrote:
>:Its a convenient example of international terrorism funded and
>:supported by Americans.
>
>International only if you consider Northern Ireland a separate nation
>from England.

Funded (in part) from the US, based (in part) in the Irish Republic,
armed and trained (in part) by the Libyans, shopping for arms in
Florida, branching off into teaching Colombian terrorists how to kill
policemen and convenient US personnel. What _does_ constitute
"international" to you, Fred?

By your standard, September 11 2001 was an all-domestic affair.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[Iain Rae]

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:
> In article >,
> Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>
>>Jim Watt > wrote:
>>
>>:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:55:04 -0700, "TinCanman"
> wrote:
>>:
>>:>I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland.
>>:
>>:Its a convenient example of international terrorism funded and
>>:supported by Americans.
>>
>>International only if you consider Northern Ireland a separate nation
>
>>from England.
>
> Several bombing campaigns in Germany, mainly against BAoR, but that's
> pretty international.
>
and there were the Australians killed in Holland

[TinCanman]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:35:55 -0700, "TinCanman"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:52:14 -0700, "TinCanman"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Your observation there is no war IS irrelevant
> >>
> >> Its a legal point, and the reason for introducing the Japanese
> >> premptive strike was that after the war your country used that
> >> to prosecute the Japanese.
> >>
> >> The reasons why America refuses to accept an international
> >> criminal court to deal with these problems is clear. You are
> >> the criminals.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
> >
> >Well, that does it for me. If there was ever the slightest doubt why the
> >U.S. has not signed on to the Uropeen IKK, there exists none now. Not
even a
> >glimmer.
>
> International not Euopean.
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Not from my perspective. It's merely a continuation of the Uropeen Diplomacy
model designed to hamstring the powerful and level the playing field for the
has beens. That model is in failure mode and is no longer appropriate as is
the U.N. The U.N. as an international forum for mediation has failed. It
sucks up a tremendous amount of resources and provides a platform for the
worlds despots with little to show for the effort; IOW, just more jawboning
lawyers and politicians. I doubt the new world order will be as you have
envisioned it.

[Fred J. McCall]

David Evans > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:>:> Yet the Americans continued to sponsor terrorism by the IRA
:>:> who did exactly that, demanded POW status if caught and
:>:> have now been released.
:>:
:>:I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland.
:>
:>Most of us don't, but there's always the UK odd sod who feels the need
:>to bring them up at every opportunity as an equivalent to any bad
:>thing you care to name.
:>
:>Most of that sort, as Mr Watt above, are unable to differentiate
:>between "some Americans" and "the Americans".
:
:"The Americans" did nothing to prevent NORAID collections. That is
:tacit support.

So the IRA was supported by the British (who also did nothing
effective to prevent various collections of funds in various places
and hence must also have been in tacit support)?

See what happens when you start trying to stretch reality to make an
incorrect statement on your part correct?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

Jim Watt > wrote:

:On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:09:47 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Jim Watt > wrote:
:>
:>:On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:58:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:>:
:>:>Of course it does. Because it's not what you want (which is
:>:>apparently these people given their guns back and sent home).
:>:
:>:In the case of the British nationals one did not have a gun
:>:because he was an aid worker and in any event we were
:>:talking of repatriating both to Britain for a fair trial
:>:
:>:>The more you talk, the sillier you sound....
:>:
:>:Uhuh when the argument fails attack the person presenting it
:>:and marginalise them. I think I know that tactic.
:>
:>Yes, I think you do, since it is precisely the basis for your entire
:>position.
:
:On the contary, I've kept to facts rather than decending into
:peronal abuse - apart from your president who is an
:<expletive deleted>

Exactly my point. I'm pleased you finally admit that you haven't
bothered to keep to facts in this discussion. Perhaps you're on your
way to getting well. The first step is realizing you're lying and
admitting it....

:>:But fine, your country kidnaps people holds them illegally, forces
:>:confessions out of them and then executes them, what exactly are you
:>:protecting? freedom?
:>
:>Who's had a confession 'forced out of them'? Who's been executed?
:>
:>See what I mean? Make things up and then complain when folks don't
:>accept your fantasy as reality.

Ah, I note that you provide no evidence for either of your claims
above. Thank you for demonstrating how well-founded they are.

:I see, its a summer camp then? The reports on the prisoners
:being blindfolded and kept in solitary confinement are false?

If I blindfold you you'll 'confess'? If I put you in a private cell
you'll die? These must be true, since this is the only support you
offer for your claims of confessions "forced out of them" and people
being "executed".

:Glad to hear it.

Me too.

[Fred J. McCall]

Jim Watt > wrote:

:On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:10:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Jim Watt > wrote:
:>
:>:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:55:04 -0700, "TinCanman"
> wrote:
:>:
:>:>I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland.
:>:
:>:Its a convenient example of international terrorism funded and
:>:supported by Americans.
:>
:>International only if you consider Northern Ireland a separate nation
:>from England.
:
:No, the IRA murdered people in Germany, Holland and planned
:a substantial operation in Gibraltar

And who were they going after in Germany? In Holland? In Gibraltar
(where they were pretty much shot out of hand, by the way).

:Their joint operation recently with the FARC went badly wrong as you
:can see from the Sinn Fein website, where they are campaigning to
:bring their terrorists, errr boys, home.

It's gone from 'training' to a 'joint operation' now?

:There is also a report that they provided the triggering device
:for the OKC bomb, having developed the technology and passed
:it on to ETA amongst others.

Any reports of alien abductions?

:is that International enough ?

Given your earlier predilections for distortion of the facts, no, it's
not. You went into their homes, so they started coming out after you.
Hardly the same thing as international terrorism, Mr Watt.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Jim Watt > wrote:
>Mind you he might make a better president than the one
>you have at present.
>
>http://www.runjerryrun.com/
>

Bill and Opus. No contest.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation research group
Physics Department, UW Aberystwyth
"When I was young I used to scintillate
now I only sin 'til ten past three" (Ogden Nash)

[Jim Watt]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:24:11 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>:On the contary, I've kept to facts rather than decending into
>:peronal abuse - apart from your president who is an
>:<expletive deleted>
>
>Exactly my point. I'm pleased you finally admit that you haven't
>bothered to keep to facts in this discussion. Perhaps you're on your
>way to getting well. The first step is realizing you're lying and
>admitting it....

I must have missed something there. Facts are things which can
be established. Opinions are something everyone has. Abuse
is a bad way to try and win an argument, but guess that all thats
available.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:26:35 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote:
>
>:In article >,
>:Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>:>Jim Watt > wrote:
>:>
>:>:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:55:04 -0700, "TinCanman"
> wrote:
>:>:
>:>:>I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland.
>:>:
>:>:Its a convenient example of international terrorism funded and
>:>:supported by Americans.
>:>
>:>International only if you consider Northern Ireland a separate nation
>:>from England.
>:
>:Several bombing campaigns in Germany, mainly against BAoR, but that's
>:pretty international.
>
>Well, since (at least originally) BAoR were the folks being rotated
>through Northern Ireland, this seems more like following the opposing
>military force back to their 'sanctuaries' and attacking them rather
>than international terrorism.

England is not part of Ireland, and the extensive IRA terrorist
campaign in that country, largely funded by Americans, in itself
constitutes international terrorism.

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Fred J. McCall]

Jim, you've made too little sense for far too long. While you show
glimmers of intelligence, you steadfastly refuse to use it.

Goodbye.

<plonk>

Jim Watt > wrote:

:On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:44:42 -0700, "TinCanman"
> wrote:
:
:>
:>"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
:>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:35:55 -0700, "TinCanman"
:>> > wrote:
:>>
:>> >
:>> >"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
:>> ...
:>> >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:52:14 -0700, "TinCanman"
:>> >> > wrote:
:>> >>
:>> >> >Your observation there is no war IS irrelevant
:>> >>
:>> >> Its a legal point, and the reason for introducing the Japanese
:>> >> premptive strike was that after the war your country used that
:>> >> to prosecute the Japanese.
:>> >>
:>> >> The reasons why America refuses to accept an international
:>> >> criminal court to deal with these problems is clear. You are
:>> >> the criminals.
:>> >>
:>> >>
:>> >> --
:>> >> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
:>> >
:>> >Well, that does it for me. If there was ever the slightest doubt why the
:>> >U.S. has not signed on to the Uropeen IKK, there exists none now. Not
:>even a
:>> >glimmer.
:>>
:>> International not Euopean.
:>> --
:>> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
:>
:>Not from my perspective. It's merely a continuation of the Uropeen Diplomacy
:>model designed to hamstring the powerful and level the playing field for the
:>has beens. That model is in failure mode and is no longer appropriate as is
:>the U.N. The U.N. as an international forum for mediation has failed. It
:>sucks up a tremendous amount of resources and provides a platform for the
:>worlds despots with little to show for the effort; IOW, just more jawboning
:>lawyers and politicians. I doubt the new world order will be as you have
:>envisioned it.
:
:How easy it is to dismiss the UN when it does not rubber stamp
:everything that suits you. The UN and its agencies organise
:international telecommunications, air travel, safety of life at sea
:and do a lot of good in the world.
:
:Its a big world, and some parts of it are more civilised than
:the extended version of the Jerry Springer show that your
:perspective is based on.
:
:Mind you he might make a better president than the one
:you have at present.
:
:http://www.runjerryrun.com/

[Jim Watt]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:30:05 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Given your earlier predilections for distortion of the facts, no, it's
>not. You went into their homes, so they started coming out after you.
>Hardly the same thing as international terrorism,

Can't recall going into anyone's home in Belfast, although I did
recently visit the RUC, who were very decent guys.

I am aware that the IRA came to mine with the intention of blowing up
a bank, along with an adjoining catholic middle school, a jewish
retirement home, some tourists and a few bandsmen with 100 lbs
of Semtex.

Those things are facts.

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Fred J. McCall]

David Evans > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:>David Evans > wrote:
:>
:>:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>:
:>:>:> Yet the Americans continued to sponsor terrorism by the IRA
:>:>:> who did exactly that, demanded POW status if caught and
:>:>:> have now been released.
:>:>:
:>:>:I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland.
:>:>
:>:>Most of us don't, but there's always the UK odd sod who feels the need
:>:>to bring them up at every opportunity as an equivalent to any bad
:>:>thing you care to name.
:>:>
:>:>Most of that sort, as Mr Watt above, are unable to differentiate
:>:>between "some Americans" and "the Americans".
:>:
:>:"The Americans" did nothing to prevent NORAID collections. That is
:>:tacit support.
:>
:>So the IRA was supported by the British (who also did nothing
:>effective to prevent various collections of funds in various places
:>and hence must also have been in tacit support)?
:
:Given the fact that most IRA members are British I find the above
:comment totally ignorant.

Well, **** you too. In case you haven't figured it out yet, most IRA
members DO NOT WANT TO BE BRITISH (as in subjects of the UK
government), which is sort of the point of what they're doing, no? So
calling them 'the British' is something of a misnomer, tantamount to
calling the Canadians 'Americans', since, after all, they live on
North America too.

:Various British governments tried various strategies to bring a halt
:to IRA terrorism. This included imploring the US to ban collections
:for the terrorist organisation.

So, as I said above, by your reasoning, the IRA was supported by the
British (even the British government, now), since they really did
nothing but talk.

:>See what happens when you start trying to stretch reality to make an
:>incorrect statement on your part correct?
:
:Yes, I make you look a fool.

Of course you do. You just keep telling yourself that, if it helps
you get through the day....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Iain Rae]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Jim Watt > wrote:
>
> :On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:10:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> > wrote:
> :
> :>Jim Watt > wrote:
> :>
> :>:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:55:04 -0700, "TinCanman"
> > wrote:
> :>:
> :>:>I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland.
> :>:
> :>:Its a convenient example of international terrorism funded and
> :>:supported by Americans.
> :>
> :>International only if you consider Northern Ireland a separate nation
> :>from England.
> :
> :No, the IRA murdered people in Germany, Holland and planned
> :a substantial operation in Gibraltar
>
> And who were they going after in Germany? In Holland?

Anyone english speaking with short hair if the results are anything to
go by.

> In Gibraltar
> (where they were pretty much shot out of hand, by the way).

But but the US's current rules they were unlawful combatants operating
in the battlefield and therefore eliglble to be shot out of hand.

In terms of being international well perhaps you could tell me what part
of the UK Jerry McCabe was in when he was killed and which part of the
British security services he was a member of at the time.

[TinCanMan]

"Gary Carson" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:13:54 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Well, no. Criminals are entitled to be charged and tried. The folks
> enjoying
> >the tropical breezes at Gitmo are not criminals. They are combatants,
> having
> >been taken on the battlefield or having been found hiding among the
> >populace. According to what passes as the laws of war, they will be
> detained
> >in camps for such and will be released when hostillities are over.
>
>
> And the war on terror will be finished before or after the war on
> drugs?


And the war on drugs has exactly what to do with the war on terror?

[Fred J. McCall]

Iain Rae > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> In Gibraltar
:> (where they were pretty much shot out of hand, by the way).
:
:But but the US's current rules they were unlawful combatants operating
:in the battlefield and therefore eliglble to be shot out of hand.

Try again. The first part of your sentence is true. The last part is
not, as all those live folks in Cuba demonstrate.

:In terms of being international well perhaps you could tell me what part
:of the UK Jerry McCabe was in when he was killed

The part that managed to get its independence while you were
distracted. Sorry, it's hard to consider the other part of Ireland
(the part you don't hold any more) as constituting 'international',
given the aims of the IRA and such.

As worked up as some of you folks get over this, I'd think you'd have
a MUCH better case put together by now than you seem to be able to
present.

--
"You keep talking about slaying like it's a job. It's not.
It's who you are."
-- Kendra, the Vampire Slayer

[Brian Allardice]

In article >,
says...

>Yes, but the issue (and the reason we didn't sign) is whether an
>asymmetrical force SHOULD be entitled to the protections of the
>Conventions, since they will never follow them.

I dare say that seems probable, but for the moment as neither Afghanistan or
the US are signed up to them I would imagine it doesn't much matter one way or
the other.

Cheers,
dba

[Jim Watt]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:57:42 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:

>> How easy it is to dismiss the UN when it does not rubber stamp
>> everything that suits you. The UN and its agencies organise
>> international telecommunications, air travel, safety of life at sea
>> and do a lot of good in the world.
>
>Dismiss? I did no such thing. I've carefully analyzed the available
>information on their performance and come to the conclusion we aren't
>getting good value for our investment. The U.N. performs almost no useful
>function, which could not be accomplished more effectively in another venue,
>the ITU not withstanding. That could easily be wrapped up in the ISO as can
>any other standards body. Safety of life at sea???? Give me a break here. I
>have over 20 years at sea and still maintain a seaman's document and a close
>relationship with those who do. I haven't seen one damn thing in that time
>with a U.N. influence. I, also, work in a shipyard (23 years) and we work to
>no U.N. standards and use no U.N. documents. So tell me, just what is it
>they do with this safety at sea. Perhaps jawbone and wring their hands,
>maybe hold a conference or two at some resort. You'll note nations have been
>negotiating treaties regarding the sea for centuries without the U.N.

Just because the UN would not rubber stamp the American invasion
of Iraq - based on the evidence presented, who would, you have it
in for the organisation as a whole. It may have flaws but it provides
a lot of services of value and its clearly not run by your government.

My only dealings with the IMO was when the company I worked
for purchased their rules for container loading and I implemented
them. The level of safety increased.

The IMO introduction says it better than I can:

"Shipping is perhaps the most international of all the world's great
industries and one of the most dangerous. It has always been
recognized that the best way of improving safety at sea is by
developing international regulations that are followed by all
shipping nations and from the mid-19th century onwards a number of
such treaties were adopted. Several countries proposed that a
permanent international body should be established to promote
maritime safety more effectively, but it was not until the
establishment of the United Nations itself that these hopes were
realized"

>You presume I have a TV. Big mistake. I put a torch to mine 10 years ago and
>haven't seen one since. Which is exactly what should be done with all
>useless things, the U.N. included. Your presumption the U.S. is like the TV
>tends to lead me to believe you are watching entirely too much of it and are
>unable to separate reality from entertainment. It's much more interesting to
>watch these "diplomats" who formerly lived in grass shacks, mud huts or
>tents, cruising the streets of New York in limousines, escorting their hired
>whores to black tie functions on the public teat. You'll note the Iraqi
>diplomatic corp to the U.N.. with one exception, remains in New York, paid
>by the U.N., although they have no one to represent. Why should they return
>to the mud hovel when life is good in N.Y.

Intersting. What powers of vision you must have to see all this
without the aid of television.

However, despite what you might think, a lot of the world is more
civilised than many parts of New York and has fewer cockroaches.

Bagdad had a lot of very nice modern buildings before it was bombed
by the Bush family.

I may be visiting the UN C24 in October can you come and pick me up
in a limo and we can discuss this further.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:28:29 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Iain Rae > wrote:
>
>:Fred J. McCall wrote:
>:> In Gibraltar
>:> (where they were pretty much shot out of hand, by the way).
>:
>:But but the US's current rules they were unlawful combatants operating
>:in the battlefield and therefore eliglble to be shot out of hand.
>
>Try again. The first part of your sentence is true. The last part is
>not, as all those live folks in Cuba demonstrate.
>
>:In terms of being international well perhaps you could tell me what part
>:of the UK Jerry McCabe was in when he was killed
>
>The part that managed to get its independence while you were
>distracted. Sorry, it's hard to consider the other part of Ireland
>(the part you don't hold any more) as constituting 'international',
>given the aims of the IRA and such.
>
>As worked up as some of you folks get over this, I'd think you'd have
>a MUCH better case put together by now than you seem to be able to
>present.

Theres a quote about the value of singing to pigs that applies.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Rob van Riel]

(TinCanMan) wrote in message >...
> No, I am NOT talking about POW's. I am talking about combatants who
> are not entitled to the privledges of POW status under GC III. There
> is no legal loophole.

They are people who were fighting a war against a foreign invader, and
were captured by that invader in the process. What more to you need to
do to qualify as a POW? If the GC definitions do not include these
people, than its wording is insufficient, and constitutes a legal
loophole.


> Afganistan is
> a signatory to the Geneva Conventions I thru IV and agreed to the
> terms and conditions. It is not "western culture".

Just curious, but which Afganistan would that be? The Taliban
dominated one, or its predecessor? A rather big difference. Before
everything went down the drain in that country, it had things like a
more or less regular army, fit for fighting wars according to the
international rulebook. Since the Taliban, that disintegrated, like
most other 'civilised' institutions. I agree that it is not really
relevant which cultures gave rise the the GCs, as they've been widely
adopted. The problem is, the Taliban reduced Afganistan to the
cultural level of a bunch of Neanderthals, and most civilised concepts
no longer existed in that country when the troops went in.

> FWIW, the provisions you seek for these
> folks are included in the Additional Protocols I & II. These protocols
> were first offered in 1977 and some countries are still signing on,
> the most recent in 2002.

Can I find these anywhere on the net? They would make interesting
reading, I think.

> Had Afganistan wanted those protections and
> believed they needed them because of their cultural differences, they
> could have signed on. They didn't, go figger.

Afganistan, at least under Taliban rule, had no interest in playing by
the rules of the world at large, or even in the same game as the world
at large. However, if the US signed on to the provisions you mention
(and I honestly don't know that), I would think they are bound by
them, even if their opponent is not.
One of the disadvantages of morals and such, is that no matter how
horribly they are violated, and no matter how much you suffer as a
result, if you claim to uphold them, you are bound by them.


Rob

[William Black]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...

> Firstly like many americans you are ill informed, there is no such
> thing as a British Subject.

Actually there is, but there are not too many of them.

They are people who were born in old colonies and opted to become British
Subjects when the UK withdrew from the colony. They have no right of
residence in the UK.

Technically people resident in the last few British colonies (Gib,
Falkland's Islands, Pitcairn and a couple of others) may become British
Subjects.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[William Black]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...

> Well, since (at least originally) BAoR were the folks being rotated
> through Northern Ireland, this seems more like following the opposing
> military force back to their 'sanctuaries' and attacking them rather
> than international terrorism.

So when Iraqis start blowing up bases in the USA you won't kick too hard
then?

Stop being silly Fred, international terrorism is international terrorism,
and you'll notice that as soon as Bush said it was bad PIRA stopped playing
silly buggers around the world, and then tried to pretend it wasn't their
evil ****s who got caught in Colombia.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Brett]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Watt" > wrote in message
| ...
|
| > Firstly like many americans you are ill informed, there is no such
| > thing as a British Subject.
|
| Actually there is, but there are not too many of them.
|
| They are people who were born in old colonies and opted to become
British
| Subjects when the UK withdrew from the colony. They have no right of
| residence in the UK.

It also includes people born in the Republic of Ireland before January
1, 1949 who I thought did have the right to live in Britain.

http://www.ukpa.gov.uk/_6_eligibility/6_who_is.asp

[TinCanMan]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:57:42 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > wrote:
>
> >> How easy it is to dismiss the UN when it does not rubber stamp
> >> everything that suits you. The UN and its agencies organise
> >> international telecommunications, air travel, safety of life at sea
> >> and do a lot of good in the world.
> >
> >Dismiss? I did no such thing. I've carefully analyzed the available
> >information on their performance and come to the conclusion we aren't
> >getting good value for our investment. The U.N. performs almost no useful
> >function, which could not be accomplished more effectively in another
venue,
> >the ITU not withstanding. That could easily be wrapped up in the ISO as
can
> >any other standards body. Safety of life at sea???? Give me a break here.
I
> >have over 20 years at sea and still maintain a seaman's document and a
close
> >relationship with those who do. I haven't seen one damn thing in that
time
> >with a U.N. influence. I, also, work in a shipyard (23 years) and we work
to
> >no U.N. standards and use no U.N. documents. So tell me, just what is it
> >they do with this safety at sea. Perhaps jawbone and wring their hands,
> >maybe hold a conference or two at some resort. You'll note nations have
been
> >negotiating treaties regarding the sea for centuries without the U.N.
>
> Just because the UN would not rubber stamp the American invasion
> of Iraq - based on the evidence presented, who would, you have it
> in for the organisation as a whole. It may have flaws but it provides
> a lot of services of value and its clearly not run by your government.

All sovereign nations act on the world stage in ways benefiting them. The
U.S. is no different. France, Germany and Russia have their panties in a wad
because their oil, chemical and weapons sales in Iraq are being gored. The
U.N. is the same. I forget the exact figures but, the U.N. was pulling some
very fat profits approving the sale (transaction fees) of Iraqi oil under
the food for oil program and it was not in the interests of the U.N. to see
them ended. It appears the activists are correct when they say, "it's about
oil". It is, they're just wrong when they say it is the U.S., which is
benefiting. France, Russia, Germany and the U.N. are acting in the ways that
benefit them. No surprise there. The U.N. is the most corrupt of the bunch
and needs to be dismantled. It is based on the failed Uropeen diplomacy
model. The U.N. no longer benefits the U.S. and we should not support
organizations which do us harm.

>
> My only dealings with the IMO was when the company I worked
> for purchased their rules for container loading and I implemented
> them. The level of safety increased.

And yet we have the ISO and other international standards bodies, completely
voluntary, supported by industry, spending a fraction of what the U.N.
spends and it works. No pork barrel diplomats.

>
> The IMO introduction says it better than I can:
>
> "Shipping is perhaps the most international of all the world's great
> industries and one of the most dangerous. It has always been
> recognized that the best way of improving safety at sea is by
> developing international regulations that are followed by all
> shipping nations and from the mid-19th century onwards a number of
> such treaties were adopted. Several countries proposed that a
> permanent international body should be established to promote
> maritime safety more effectively, but it was not until the
> establishment of the United Nations itself that these hopes were
> realized"

And you believe the U.N.'s own press. You may as well be getting your news
from the telly.
>
> >You presume I have a TV. Big mistake. I put a torch to mine 10 years ago
and
> >haven't seen one since. Which is exactly what should be done with all
> >useless things, the U.N. included. Your presumption the U.S. is like the
TV
> >tends to lead me to believe you are watching entirely too much of it and
are
> >unable to separate reality from entertainment. It's much more interesting
to
> >watch these "diplomats" who formerly lived in grass shacks, mud huts or
> >tents, cruising the streets of New York in limousines, escorting their
hired
> >whores to black tie functions on the public teat. You'll note the Iraqi
> >diplomatic corp to the U.N.. with one exception, remains in New York,
paid
> >by the U.N., although they have no one to represent. Why should they
return
> >to the mud hovel when life is good in N.Y.
>
> Intersting. What powers of vision you must have to see all this
> without the aid of television.

You ARE getting your news from the telly! Now I understand. Repeat after me:
It's entertainment, It's entertainment, It's entertainment. OK, now you.
Here in the U.S. we have these wonderful places called libraries. You can
read newspapers from around the world and they even have books. Some folks
are intimidated by books as they require an attention span greater than a
sound bite but, they offer so much more information than the talking heads.
I also have a broadband connection and know where the leading news sources
reside.

>
> However, despite what you might think, a lot of the world is more
> civilised than many parts of New York and has fewer cockroaches.

Sorry, I have 20 some years traveling both the Atlantic and Pacific rims. I
have first hand experience in both the civilized and the not so civilized
world and I have lived in the four corners of the U.S. I have no illusions
as to reality.

>
> Bagdad had a lot of very nice modern buildings before it was bombed
> by the Bush family.

Yes, all built on the misery of the populace and owned and inhabited by the
friends and family of Sadam. Wonder how many of the missing are buried in
the walls or floors? Well, probably not too many, they had mass graves for
them. Much more civilized, eh?

>
> I may be visiting the UN C24 in October can you come and pick me up
> in a limo and we can discuss this further.
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[TinCanMan]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 19:38:07 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gary Carson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:13:54 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Well, no. Criminals are entitled to be charged and tried. The folks
> >> enjoying
> >> >the tropical breezes at Gitmo are not criminals. They are combatants,
> >> having
> >> >been taken on the battlefield or having been found hiding among the
> >> >populace. According to what passes as the laws of war, they will be
> >> detained
> >> >in camps for such and will be released when hostillities are over.
> >>
> >>
> >> And the war on terror will be finished before or after the war on
> >> drugs?
> >
> >
> >And the war on drugs has exactly what to do with the war on terror?
>
> They are both expensive delusions.
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Sorta like the NA thing.

[Chris Manteuffel]

(Brian Allardice) wrote in message >...

> That's an interesting point. Afghanistan joined in 56 (but not
> Additional Protocols I & II, so they don't count) and is still currently
> listed.

Yes, and someone pointed out in an email that term "High Contracting
Party" is defined, legally, in such a way that it extends to cover
every sort of successor state, from a coup to an election, etc. He
didn't have a cite on where it is defined, though.

> What has happened (if anything) to other states with coup, revolution, &c?

After the dissolution of the USSR James Baker went to Moscow and got
an agreement that Russia would adhere to all of the USSR's treaty
obligations, and in case of nuclear weapons deployed in what were now
independent countries, would continue to meet those as well (for
purposes of START II).

Chris Manteuffel

[TinCanMan]

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
m...
> (TinCanMan) wrote in message
>...
> > No, I am NOT talking about POW's. I am talking about combatants who
> > are not entitled to the privledges of POW status under GC III. There
> > is no legal loophole.
>
> They are people who were fighting a war against a foreign invader, and
> were captured by that invader in the process. What more to you need to
> do to qualify as a POW? If the GC definitions do not include these
> people, than its wording is insufficient, and constitutes a legal
> loophole.
>

No one is suggesting they had no right to resist. In order to qualify for
the elevated privileges of POW they need to meet the requirements of Article
4, GC III. They don't and therefore are not categorized as POW's (a special
category of prisoner). Oh, the GC and other treaties do include these
people. They are just excluded from the elevated privileges of POW status.
Understand, POW status is an elevated status of prisoner under GC III. They
are, of course, "prisoners of a war". They are not "Prisoners of War". There
is no loophole here. The words of the GC III were very carefully crafted to
preclude combatants from acquiring POW status when they act in this manner.
In an attempt to circumvent the provisions of Article 4, GC III the U.N.
proposed the additional protocols I and II. Not surprisingly, many nations
(including the U.S.) refused to sign and ratify the new protocols and even
fewer have ratified Article 90 (D90) of Protocol I

>
> > Afganistan is
> > a signatory to the Geneva Conventions I thru IV and agreed to the
> > terms and conditions. It is not "western culture".
>
> Just curious, but which Afganistan would that be? The Taliban
> dominated one, or its predecessor? A rather big difference. Before
> everything went down the drain in that country, it had things like a
> more or less regular army, fit for fighting wars according to the
> international rulebook. Since the Taliban, that disintegrated, like
> most other 'civilised' institutions. I agree that it is not really
> relevant which cultures gave rise the the GCs, as they've been widely
> adopted. The problem is, the Taliban reduced Afganistan to the
> cultural level of a bunch of Neanderthals, and most civilised concepts
> no longer existed in that country when the troops went in.

Either one. The Taliban was the defacto government of Afghanistan by their
actions. As successor, they are bound by and accorded the privileges of the
treaties of their predecessor until they deny them. None of that matters,
though. The U.S., as signatory, is bound by the GC I-IV and is obligated to
honor their commitment. They appear to be doing just that. Nothing more,
nothing less. That is what has some folks with their panties in a wad. They
want more and are attempting, unsuccessfully, to twist the meaning of
Article 4.


>
> > FWIW, the provisions you seek for these
> > folks are included in the Additional Protocols I & II. These protocols
> > were first offered in 1977 and some countries are still signing on,
> > the most recent in 2002.
>
> Can I find these anywhere on the net? They would make interesting
> reading, I think.

All of it, including the signatories and additional protocols are on the
ICRC site:
http://www.icrc.org

>
> > Had Afganistan wanted those protections and
> > believed they needed them because of their cultural differences, they
> > could have signed on. They didn't, go figger.
>
> Afganistan, at least under Taliban rule, had no interest in playing by
> the rules of the world at large, or even in the same game as the world
> at large. However, if the US signed on to the provisions you mention
> (and I honestly don't know that), I would think they are bound by
> them, even if their opponent is not.
> One of the disadvantages of morals and such, is that no matter how
> horribly they are violated, and no matter how much you suffer as a
> result, if you claim to uphold them, you are bound by them.

All of which is irrelevant. I didn't make any of this up, nor did I read
anything into it. It's all in black and white. The U.S. is committed to
honoring the treaties they've entered into. Nothing more, nothing less. The
problem is; some folks don't like the present agreement and want more than
it is. They attempt to twist the words to mean what they would like them to
be, not what they are.

[William Black]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...

> It also includes people born in the Republic of Ireland before January
> 1, 1949 who I thought did have the right to live in Britain.

All Irish citizens are EC citizens and so have automatic right of abode
anywhere in the UK.

Before the UK entered the EC citizens of the Republic of Ireland had the
right of residence in the UK and citizens of the UK who were resident in
Northern Ireland had right of residence in the Republic.

However I don't remember all the details of who actually qualified, and I
don't think anyone ever actually refused anyone residence prior to entry
into the EC.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[William Black]

"David Evans" > wrote in message
...

> AFAIK all British Citizens are Subjects of the Crown, but not all
> Subjects of the Crown are British Citizens.

I am a British Citizen, I'm not aware of any other status. I may be a
subject of Queen Elizabeth II, but so far nobody seems to have mentioned it
in any documentation I've seen.

Neither have I ever been asked to swear allegiance, unlike soldiers...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Jim Watt]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:38:33 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:

>I also have a broadband connection and know where the leading news sources
>reside.

That makes two of us, and as a lot of my work these days is with
news organisations and their systems.

Also do not confuse the access to television you have tightly
controlled by cable companies to what I have from an array
of dishes.

Before Dubya bombed it I could watch Iraq television direct.

>Sorry, I have 20 some years traveling both the Atlantic and Pacific rims. I
>have first hand experience in both the civilized and the not so civilized
>world and I have lived in the four corners of the U.S. I have no illusions
>as to reality.

My experience is of course based on living in a hole in the road with
four yorkshiremen.

>> Bagdad had a lot of very nice modern buildings before it was bombed
>> by the Bush family.
>
>Yes, all built on the misery of the populace and owned and inhabited by the
>friends and family of Sadam. Wonder how many of the missing are buried in
>the walls or floors? Well, probably not too many, they had mass graves for
>them. Much more civilized, eh?

I smell prejudice here.

>> I may be visiting the UN C24 in October can you come and pick me up
>> in a limo and we can discuss this further.-


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:10:21 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
> wrote:

>"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Firstly like many americans you are ill informed, there is no such
>> thing as a British Subject.
>
>Actually there is, but there are not too many of them.
>
>They are people who were born in old colonies and opted to become British
>Subjects when the UK withdrew from the colony. They have no right of
>residence in the UK.
>
>Technically people resident in the last few British colonies (Gib,
>Falkland's Islands, Pitcairn and a couple of others) may become British
>Subjects.

Oh dear Fred, you really do pick the wrong people to lecture to:

The British Nationality Act (1981) created three type of
British Citizen:

a) British Citizens, who have the right of residence in the United
Kingdom

b) Citizens of British Overseas territories

c) British overseas Citizenship

At no time does the word 'Subject' figure in the law or on a passport.

Now although initially Gibraltarians were to be classed under b)
along with the other British overseas territories, as Gibraltar became
a member of the EU under the UK treaty of accession (1973)
the Gibraltarians acquired the right of residence in all other EU
territories. This was considered an anomaly in that they did not
automatically have that right in the UK.

So we protested and after a small campaign, and exception was
made and Gibraltar acquired the right to British Citizenship (type a)

That status has now been made available to all other British
Overseas territories. Those particularly affected were the
residents of St Helena, as many wanted to work in the UK.

Now open the box and eat the banana.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:02:19 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:

>All of which is irrelevant. I didn't make any of this up, nor did I read
>anything into it. It's all in black and white. The U.S. is committed to
>honoring the treaties they've entered into. Nothing more, nothing less.

Kyoto ?
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[TinCanMan]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:38:33 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > wrote:
>
> >I also have a broadband connection and know where the leading news
sources
> >reside.
>
> That makes two of us, and as a lot of my work these days is with
> news organisations and their systems.

You missed the point. I have broadband NET access and I have no TV or TV
tuner on my PC. I get much of my news from the electronic version of the
print media. Some direct from Reuters, AP, AFP and the other agencies.

>
> Also do not confuse the access to television you have tightly
> controlled by cable companies to what I have from an array
> of dishes.
>
> Before Dubya bombed it I could watch Iraq television direct.

OK, I see. Uropeen TV good. U.S. TV bad. Talk about prejudice. I think those
yorkshireman have had a bad influence on you. Let me make this as simple as
possible. All television is entertainment. Yours, mine, everybody's. There
is no such thing as an authorative, independent news source on the telly.
It's entertainment!

>
> >Sorry, I have 20 some years traveling both the Atlantic and Pacific rims.
I
> >have first hand experience in both the civilized and the not so civilized
> >world and I have lived in the four corners of the U.S. I have no
illusions
> >as to reality.
>
> My experience is of course based on living in a hole in the road with
> four yorkshiremen.

If you say so.
>
> >> Bagdad had a lot of very nice modern buildings before it was bombed
> >> by the Bush family.
> >
> >Yes, all built on the misery of the populace and owned and inhabited by
the
> >friends and family of Sadam. Wonder how many of the missing are buried in
> >the walls or floors? Well, probably not too many, they had mass graves
for
> >them. Much more civilized, eh?
>
> I smell prejudice here.

Pot... Kettle... Black. Sorta like being a television elitist, eh? Or maybe
you think yourself above yorkshireman?

[TinCanMan]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:02:19 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > wrote:
>
> >All of which is irrelevant. I didn't make any of this up, nor did I read
> >anything into it. It's all in black and white. The U.S. is committed to
> >honoring the treaties they've entered into. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Kyoto ?


Dare I ask?????????

[Fred J. McCall]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

:In message >, Fred J. McCall
> writes
:>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
:>:By your standard, September 11 2001 was an all-domestic affair.
:>
:>Loon button for Paul noted and ignored.
:
:Frantic evasion by Fred noted with amusement.

Paul, you can expect this every time your name and the IRA appear
together. I know it's one of the topics where your brain shuts down
and your 'cream' glands fire up.

:What would PIRA have had to do in order to qualify as "international"?

Actually being a problem for someone besides the English would be a
big start. The IRA, like the Palestinians, is pretty much a REGIONAL
problem (and yes, the Palestinians have operated in other countries,
too).

Being 'international' requires actually having global reach (out of
region) routinely, not just the one-off op or so.

You will, of course, insist that the IRA is exactly like <insert evil
group of choice>, even though you appear pretty short of facts on the
ground to support that contention. This is why I don't generally
bother to talk about this issue with you, Paul. Reason left when this
topic comes up in your vicinity.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Linda]

No, I don't. You've done nothing but ask rhetorical questions. Go ask your
handlers what you SHOULD have said, okay?

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> "William Black" > wrote:
>
> :
> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> .. .
> :
> :> Well, since (at least originally) BAoR were the folks being rotated
> :> through Northern Ireland, this seems more like following the opposing
> :> military force back to their 'sanctuaries' and attacking them rather
> :> than international terrorism.
> :
> :So when Iraqis start blowing up bases in the USA you won't kick too hard
> :then?
>
> Certainly I will. I will not, however, call it terrorism.
>
> :Stop being silly Fred,
>
> Anyone who starts a statement in this way is almost invariably about
> to say something which they know cannot stand the light of logic being
> shone upon it. That's why they try to recategorize any disagreement
> with them as 'silly' immediately.
>
> :international terrorism is international terrorism,
> :and you'll notice that as soon as Bush said it was bad PIRA stopped
playing
> :silly buggers around the world, and then tried to pretend it wasn't their
> :evil ****s who got caught in Colombia.
>
> See what I mean?
>
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
>

[Jim Watt]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:20:16 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:

>You missed the point. I have broadband NET access

Oh ****ing wow.

Do you think I use tin cans and a piece of string?

>> Also do not confuse the access to television you have tightly
>> controlled by cable companies to what I have from an array
>> of dishes.

>OK, I see. Uropeen TV good. U.S. TV bad. Talk about prejudice.

That isn't what I said, although its generally accepted to be true.

What I did say is that due to my geographical location I can watch
a lot of national television direct, which is simply not available in
the US.

You also asserted all television was rubbish although you are
not able to see it.

>Pot... Kettle... Black. Sorta like being a television elitist, eh? Or maybe
>you think yourself above yorkshireman?

Those who live in a paper bag for sure..

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Rob van Riel]

"TinCanMan" > wrote in message >...
> "Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
> In an attempt to circumvent the provisions of Article 4, GC III the U.N.
> proposed the additional protocols I and II. Not surprisingly, many nations
> (including the U.S.) refused to sign and ratify the new protocols and even
> fewer have ratified Article 90 (D90) of Protocol I

OK, I very obviously have some reading to catch up on.


> > Can I find these anywhere on the net? They would make interesting
> > reading, I think.
>
> All of it, including the signatories and additional protocols are on the
> ICRC site:
> http://www.icrc.org

Thanks.


> > Afganistan, at least under Taliban rule, had no interest in playing by
> > the rules of the world at large, or even in the same game as the world
> > at large. However, if the US signed on to the provisions you mention
> > (and I honestly don't know that), I would think they are bound by
> > them, even if their opponent is not.
>
> All of which is irrelevant.

You are correct, I was basing this on the (unfounded) assumption that
the US had agreed to the additional protocols you mentioned. That not
being the case, it is indeed irrelevant.


Rob

[William Black]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Fred J. McCall
> > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >:By your standard, September 11 2001 was an all-domestic affair.
> >
> >Loon button for Paul noted and ignored.
>
> Frantic evasion by Fred noted with amusement.
>
> What would PIRA have had to do in order to qualify as "international"?

For Fred?

Attack the continental USA of course.

Hawaii obviously is a legitimate target, it's got a Union Flag in the top
quarter of the state flag...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Jim]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:39:38 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Evans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >>
> >> >:Even the 911 attacks are no excuse for genocide.
> >> >
> >> >True. It's no excuse for Brazilian wax jobs, either. So what?
> >>
> >> The US isn't having a Brazilian wax job. It is committing genocide.
> >> --
> >> David
> >
> >David,
> >
> >Pull you head from where ever it is. 9-11 is provacation for war.
> >War isn't neat clean or pretty.
>
> or legally declared. Nor was Iraq in any way linked.
>
>
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Oh ok Jim

Korea didn't happen, Vietnam didn't happen, Civil war.... , in fact
looking at history,
we have had more "undeclared wars" then declared ones. However, I seem
to recall
congress did vote to authorize force even if some of the current political
weasels are acting like they didn't.

That is what is know as advise and consent.

The President is Commander in Chief and is allowed to deploy forces as
needed.
Now congress could try to invoke the War Powers Act. However, every
president, Democrat or Republican has
said it is unconstitutional law. It would need to be heard from the USSC
before anything would happen.


Jim

[David Casey]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:40:09 +0200, Jim Watt wrote:

>>OK, I see. Uropeen TV good. U.S. TV bad. Talk about prejudice.
>
> That isn't what I said, although its generally accepted to be true.
>
> What I did say is that due to my geographical location I can watch
> a lot of national television direct, which is simply not available in
> the US.

During the almost six years I lived in Germany, I enjoyed watching not just
US and German movies, but movies from all over the world dubbed in German.
I do miss that at times here in the states, but one thing I did notice was
how much American TV was all over the German TV networks. In fact, many of
my German friends were as addicted to shows like 90210, Melrose Place, The
A-Team (believe it or not!), Knight Rider, etc. as some folks in the US. I
had to sometimes explain, that life wasn't really like that back home.

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

[William Black]

"David Evans" > wrote in message
...
> William Black wrote:
>
> >Neither have I ever been asked to swear allegiance, unlike soldiers...
>
> I bet you stay seated when you toast Her too.

Nope.

I stand, like everybody else with reasonable manners.

To suggest otherwise is a grave insult.

'He who steals my purse steals trash, but he who steals my good name...'

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Paul H. Lemmen]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
<SNIP>

Shoot all the *******s, all of them on both sides. The only ones with morals
and beliefs have departed and left the immoral communist *******s behind. I
am not alone in this sentiment.

Slainte,
--
Paul H. Lemmen
Just because I choose to act civilised does not mean that I am.

[gblack]

"David Evans" > wrote in message
...
: William Black wrote:
:
: >
: >"David Evans" > wrote in message
: ...
: >> William Black wrote:
: >>
: >> >Neither have I ever been asked to swear allegiance, unlike
soldiers...
: >>
: >> I bet you stay seated when you toast Her too.
: >
: >Nope.
: >
: >I stand, like everybody else with reasonable manners.
: >
: >To suggest otherwise is a grave insult.
:
: As far as I know, naval officers aboard a ship toast the Queen
seated.
:
: Am I wrong?

If ever you get to see HMS Victory you will understand how people
didn't stand up suddenly ;-)

--
_________________________________________
George Black
ICQ#: 6963409
More ways to contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/6963409
_________________________________________
Home page: http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/

[Jim]

"Brian Allardice" > wrote in message
. ca...
> In article >,

> says...
>
> >You know, there's a simple answer in that case. If legitimate
> >combatants are declared as unlawful combatants and then treated badly
> >(tortured, executed, etc.), we go in and kick the ass of the folks who
> >do it, but them on trial, and hang them for war crimes.
>
> I'll remember that if GWB ever ends up at the end of a rope..
>
> >Note that despite all the 'cautionary tales' from folks who don't like
> >our holding these people, we are NOT engaging in any of those things I
> >mention above (which always seem to figure in the 'cautionary tales'
> >to 'warn' us).
>
> (at least) 2 murdered at Bhagram, "stress and duress", hoods, shackles...
Not
> quite cricket, that.
>
>
> >:The Taliban would seem to fall very clearly under 4.A.1 - hence covered.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Will you read the damned thing......
>
> Cheers,
> dba

Have you considered that we may have read it and simply don't agree with
your opinion.

Jim

[Jim]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:09:47 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> > wrote:
>
> >Jim Watt > wrote:
> >
> >:On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:58:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> > wrote:
> >:
> >:>Of course it does. Because it's not what you want (which is
> >:>apparently these people given their guns back and sent home).
> >:
> >:In the case of the British nationals one did not have a gun
> >:because he was an aid worker and in any event we were
> >:talking of repatriating both to Britain for a fair trial
> >:
> >:>The more you talk, the sillier you sound....
> >:
> >:Uhuh when the argument fails attack the person presenting it
> >:and marginalise them. I think I know that tactic.
> >
> >Yes, I think you do, since it is precisely the basis for your entire
> >position.
>
> On the contary, I've kept to facts rather than decending into
> peronal abuse - apart from your president who is an
> <expletive deleted>


Considserbly better then you.

[Jim Watt]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:54:16 GMT, David Casey >
wrote:

>During the almost six years I lived in Germany, I enjoyed watching not just
>US and German movies, but movies from all over the world dubbed in German.
>I do miss that at times here in the states, but one thing I did notice was
>how much American TV was all over the German TV networks. In fact, many of
>my German friends were as addicted to shows like 90210, Melrose Place, The
>A-Team (believe it or not!), Knight Rider, etc. as some folks in the US. I
>had to sometimes explain, that life wasn't really like that back home.

The A-team are still going strong on RTL. there are a lot of German
channels free-to-air. Just wish I could understand more of the Arabic
channels to know what they really think.

The ability to acquire exceeds the ability to extract meaning.

DW provides an interesting European perspective on world news
as does Morocco who broadcast news in faultless Spanish and French.

Its interesting when there is a live news conference shown by a number
of stations what time delay is involved, and who shows the most.

BBC Parliament is also very interesting as one can watch the political
debates live, in full and without any spin added by journalists.

Particularly useful when they showed a repeat of Dr Kelly giving
evidence, which contrasted to the parts out of context the news
channels showed.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:42:43 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:

>> On the contary, I've kept to facts rather than decending into
>> peronal abuse - apart from your president who is an
>> <expletive deleted>
>
>
>Considserbly better then you.

He is certainl;y better at telling lies, killing innocent people
taking cocaine and getting elected in Florida.

"I stand by all the misstatements
that I've made." - George W. Bush
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[TinCanMan]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:20:16 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > wrote:
>
> >You missed the point. I have broadband NET access
>
> Oh ****ing wow.

Well, now I am impressed.

>
> Do you think I use tin cans and a piece of string?

I'm sure I don't know, nor do I care.

>
> >> Also do not confuse the access to television you have tightly
> >> controlled by cable companies to what I have from an array
> >> of dishes.
>
> >OK, I see. Uropeen TV good. U.S. TV bad. Talk about prejudice.
>
> That isn't what I said, although its generally accepted to be true.

I see. You just didn't want to appear to be saying it.

>
> What I did say is that due to my geographical location I can watch
> a lot of national television direct, which is simply not available in
> the US.

You, also, said "generally accepted". See what I mean about appearing?

>
> You also asserted all television was rubbish although you are
> not able to see it.

No, I didn't. Read it again. Go for comprehension this time. I didn't even
imply it. If you're going to paraphrase, try to get it right. I said it was
entertainment and it is, even the news and proported documentaries. FWIW,
I'm not a hermit living in a cave. I had TV till 10 years ago and decided it
was entertainment, poor entertainment at that. I'm also aware those who
choose to do so may obtain inexpensive satellite service providing 500+
channels of programming, including numerous Canadian, Mexican and other
Latin American stations. I don't find it surprising you might receive Iraqi
programming as it is no farther from Seville-Baghdad than it is
Miami-Seattle and I can drive there without being subject to the whims of
half dozen or so tinpot dictators who's ideas of justice include the
traumatic removal of body parts for minor indiscretions and the stoning of
women for adultry. And you say you're offended we execute murderers.
Uropeeans appear quite happy to do business with these folks without a
wimper and yet question U.S. justice and motivation. How cheesy. No wonder
Congress rejected the IKK.

>
> >Pot... Kettle... Black. Sorta like being a television elitist, eh? Or
maybe
> >you think yourself above yorkshireman?
>
> Those who live in a paper bag for sure..

Ah, let's see... The Uropeean family gathered round the telly for an evening
of cultural awareness, intellectual stimulation and refined viewing
presented in the best traditions of the Benny Hill Show. Guess there's no
accounting for the tastes of the cultural elitists. I see the error of my
ways.

[IBM]

Jim Watt > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:42:43 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
>
>>> On the contary, I've kept to facts rather than decending into
>>> peronal abuse - apart from your president who is an
>>> <expletive deleted>
>>
>>
>>Considserbly better then you.
>
> He is certainl;y better at telling lies, killing innocent people
> taking cocaine and getting elected in Florida.

Certainly more talented than Algore and his crew.

IBM

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[IBM]

Jim Watt > wrote in
:

[snip]

> Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA is a socialist party rather
> like the Ba'ath party.

Suggestive of certain possibilities that is.
Like oh say delivering a ton or so of high speed steel and concrete
to Gerry Adams' front sitting room some fine evening.

IBM

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Fred J. McCall]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

:In message >, Fred J. McCall
> writes
:>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
:>:Frantic evasion by Fred noted with amusement.
:>
:>Paul, you can expect this every time your name and the IRA appear
:>together. I know it's one of the topics where your brain shuts down
:>and your 'cream' glands fire up.
:
:Fred, you're the one showing signs

Nope, because I'm going to once again decline to be dragged down into
yet another pointless discussion with you of the whichness of the why
on this issue. I realize that my not caring to play your games is one
of the things that foams your mouth up, but I consider that a personal
problem on your part and not something I'm particularly concerned
about.

:>The IRA, like the Palestinians, is pretty much a REGIONAL
:>problem (and yes, the Palestinians have operated in other countries,
:>too).
:
:If "regional" includes operations across Europe, in North Africa and in
:both Americas, then yes.

'Operations'? Sorry, but acquisition of funds and material and hiring
out as trainers are not 'operations'.

:Which terrorist organisations _don't_ fit this model of "regional"?

Al Qaeda, for one.

:>Being 'international' requires actually having global reach (out of
:>region) routinely, not just the one-off op or so.
:
:Oh, so now we're accepting that PIRA _do_ have "international reach",
:just not _enough_ of it to meet your definition?

Paul, anyone who can afford an airplane ticket potentially has 'global
reach' for one-off ops. That hardly makes them a global organization.

:>This is why I don't generally
:>bother to talk about this issue with you, Paul. Reason left when this
:>topic comes up in your vicinity.
:
:Yep,

Well, pleased to see you're at least finally admitting that reason
indeed deserts you on this issue. Recognizing you have the problem is
the first step toward doing something about it.

:but I'm not the one ignoring the facts and making up definitions on
:the fly.

No, you're just the one foaming and blotting, as usual, while
substituting snide remarks for logic.

Again, not interested in that game.

--
"I was lucky in the order. But I've always been lucky
when it comes to killin' folks."
-- William Munny, "Unforgiven"

[Jim Watt]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:20:28 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:

<internet nonsense omitted>
<television rant snipped>

> I said it was
>entertainment and it is, even the news and proported documentaries. FWIW,
>I'm not a hermit living in a cave. I had TV till 10 years ago and decided it
>was entertainment, poor entertainment at that. I'm also aware those who
>choose to do so may obtain inexpensive satellite service providing 500+
>channels of programming, including numerous Canadian, Mexican and other
>Latin American stations.

As I keep telling you that is American television.

Thats not what I am talking about.

I've seen whats on US cable. You have not seen whats available
here. spot the difference.

>I don't find it surprising you might receive Iraqi
>programming as it is no farther from Seville-Baghdad than it is
>Miami-Seattle and I can drive there without being subject to the whims of
>half dozen or so tinpot dictators who's ideas of justice include the
>traumatic removal of body parts for minor indiscretions and the stoning of
>women for adultry.

Have you any evidence that that was happening in Iraq?

>And you say you're offended we execute murderers.

How many wrongs make something right?

>Uropeeans appear quite happy to do business with these folks without a
>wimper

And the US is very happy to take oil from Saudi and sell them all
sorts of hardware. Indeed Saddam was good business at one time
and who was shipping arms to Iraq?

>and yet question U.S. justice and motivation. How cheesy.

We cannot even question things then?

>No wonder Congress rejected the IKK.

Yes, because it would act as a control on your excesses.

But the bottom line is that British citizens expect their
government to attempt to ensure that when accused of a
crime by a foreign government that they either receive a
fair trial abroad, or they are repatriated to face the British
Justice system.

There is not the slightest evidence that people kidnapped
and taken to an offshore US base in Cuba, held in dubious
conditions etc are going to see justice.

There is no point in a 'war on terrosm' when your leaders act
in exactly the same way as terrorists themselves.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On 29 Jul 2003 04:58:21 GMT, IBM > wrote:

>Jim Watt > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:42:43 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
>>
>>>> On the contary, I've kept to facts rather than decending into
>>>> peronal abuse - apart from your president who is an
>>>> <expletive deleted>
>>>
>>>
>>>Considserbly better then you.
>>
>> He is certainl;y better at telling lies, killing innocent people
>> taking cocaine and getting elected in Florida.
>
> Certainly more talented than Algore and his crew.

Can we interest you in Tony Blair ? He may not be able to
kick a ball like Bechkam but he can put more spin on things.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[David Casey]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 01:05:05 +0200, Jim Watt wrote:

> The A-team are still going strong on RTL. there are a lot of German
> channels free-to-air. Just wish I could understand more of the Arabic
> channels to know what they really think.

Once I began learning German, I liked to watch a lot of shows on German TV.
One of the favorite channels was RTL because they showed a lot of the more
recent shows and such. I even today miss listening to German radio
stations not just for the music, but the news and such every hour.

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

[Brian Allardice]

In article >,
says...
>
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:20:28 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:

>> I said it was
>>entertainment and it is, even the news and proported documentaries. FWIW,
>>I'm not a hermit living in a cave. I had TV till 10 years ago and decided it
>>was entertainment, poor entertainment at that. I'm also aware those who
>>choose to do so may obtain inexpensive satellite service providing 500+
>>channels of programming, including numerous Canadian, Mexican and other
>>Latin American stations.
>
>As I keep telling you that is American television.

Well, hold on a minute.......

Cheers,
dba

[Jeffrey Smidt]

(TomR) wrote in message >...
> (Jeffrey Smidt) wrote in message >...
> > > :The US government has shown the same
> > > :respect for the principles of international law most of the past
> > > :century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all.
> >
> >
> > International Law is a concept not a reality. Law implies someone
> > enforces behavior and punishes misbehavior as directed by the law.
> > There is no international enforcement, nor international legislative
> > or adjudication bodies. The UN is a meeting of ambassadors who can
> > purpose treaties which member nations can accept or reject. Imagine a
> > community with a written set of suggestions for proper behavior, but
> > no courts, police or judges....... Thats 'international law'.
>
>
> International law is codified in treaties. Most countries have some
> defined method of ratifying treaties, after which they have the force
> of law within that country.
>
> You right that there is no overarching power that forces governments
> to comply with their treaty obligations, but how is this any different
> from the lack of anyone forcing governments to comply with domestic
> laws? I don't think anyone would say that the U.S. government, for
> example, is not constrained by law at home. (Thought the courts might
> be less willing to reign in the executive branch--does anyone know of
> a case where a foreign government/entity used the U.S. court system to
> force U.S. treaty compliance?)
>
> And, at a more mundane, civil law level--air traffic, contracts, money
> flows, trade, postal services, etc--international law seems to work
> quite well. Hard to imagine that the global economy would be quite so
> global if it was just anarchy out there!

The treaties request the voluntary compliance of the participants,
with no binding legal authority and no government with the power to
enforce participation. The closest we get to it was the UN
resolutions against Iraq, authorizing the use of force to enforce the
will of the council.

When it comes down to it though, it's still a bunch of people living
in a community following self imposed 'rules of proper behavior'.
Sorta like the wild, wild west except their ain't no sherriff, nor
marshall. The 'town' leaders gather in the saloon once and a while to
argue, and suggest changes to the rules. The only way 'law' gets
enforced is forming a posse.

[vince]

Henrietta K Thomas > wrote in message >...
> (newsgroups trimmed way down)
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:44:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall >
> wrote, in us.military.army:
>
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >
> >:What would _you_ consider a "fair trial", Fred, and would your opinion
> >:change if you were the defendant?
> >
> >Paul, nobody wants a 'fair trial' when they're the defendant. They
> >just want to get off.
>
> Sometimes 'getting off' IS a fair trial. :-)
>
> >This lot will get fairer trials than they've got coming. Why is it
> >none of your lot are willing to wait for the bad outcomes you keep
> >shrilling about to occur before tearing your hair out and wailing to
> >the skies?
>
> Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law,
> every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
> properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly
> advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at
> Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international
> law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful
> nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us.
>
> >Hell, wait until the first trial happens and someone gets sentenced.
> >Then you MIGHT have something to complain about. However, I'd bet you
> >won't. The military, unlike a civilian court, is going to be pretty
> >scrupulous about things before they'll sentence someone to death.
>
> My understanding is that there will be no appeals, or at best,
> limited appeals. So if, by chance, something -does- go wrong,
> all avenues of redress will be closed. I don't call that a 'fair'
> anything.
>
> >You might want to look at just when the last time was that a military
> >court handed down a death penalty.
>
> Irrelevant to the question at hand. Regardless of the outcome,
> all trials must be fair if justice is to be served.
>
> It would have been better, IMO, if we had asked the UN to
> set up an international tribunal to deal with the situation.
> But we did not, so we are stuck with the decision made
> by our government to do everything in secret behind
> closed doors. No offense intended to the US military
> justice system, but I think it was a bad call.
>

Actually the trick is to use the threat of the kangaroo courts to
force guilty pleas

from Today' washington post


LACKAWANNA, N.Y. -- Even now, after the arrests and the anger and the
world media spotlight, the mystery for neighbors in this old steel
town remains this: Why would six of their young men so readily agree
to plead guilty to terror charges, accepting long prison terms far
from home?......

But defense attorneys say the answer is straightforward: The federal
government implicitly threatened to toss the defendants into a secret
military prison without trial, where they could languish indefinitely
without access to courts or lawyers.That prospect terrified the men.
They accepted prison terms of 61/2 to 9 years.

"We had to worry about the defendants being whisked out of the
courtroom and declared enemy combatants if the case started going well
for us," said attorney Patrick J. Brown, who defended one of the
accused. "So we just ran up the white flag and folded. Most of us wish
we'd never been associated with this case.".....

Future defendants in terror cases could face the same choice: Plead
guilty or face the possibility of indefinite imprisonment or even the
death penalty. That troubles defense attorneys and some legal
scholars, not least because prosecutors never offered evidence that
the Lackawanna defendants intended to commit an act of terrorism.....

"The defendants believed that if they didn't plead guilty, they'd end
up in a black hole forever," said Neal R. Sonnett, chairman of the
American Bar Association's Task Force on Treatment of Enemy
Combatants. "There's little difference between beating someone over
the head and making a threat like that."

Several of Buffalo's better-known defense attorneys signed on to
represent the Lackawanna Six. The lawyers didn't view their clients as
innocent but planned to poke enough holes in the prosecution case to
draw a better deal. They found that allegations that their clients
spent large sums of money arose from a casino credit card jointly held
by an extended family. And there was no evidence that the men had
spoken of or planned an attack."We'd been able to convince the press
and the public that there wasn't all that much evidence," said John J.
Molloy, who represented al-Bakri. "We had enough to make the
government work for its pound of flesh."

But they did not reckon on the new legal world. The defense lawyers
asked to question .....al-Dosari, in hopes of proving their clients
had been duped into traveling to Afghanistan. .....Al-Dosari is widely
reported to be held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
But the Justice Department does not acknowledge that. "Juma?" U.S.
Attorney Battle asked last week. "I don't know anyone named Juma."

Battle said defense lawyers came to realize two facts of life.
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft would not hesitate to veto any
deals. And the Defense Department stood ready to ask Bush to designate
the defendants as enemy combatants.....

comment

This is just another example of how the adminstration is willing to
throw away hundreds of years of development of law and civilization.
Winning will be meaningless if we push the world back into barbarism.

Vince

[William Black]

"David Evans" > wrote in message
...
> William Black wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Evans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> William Black wrote:
> >>
> >> >Neither have I ever been asked to swear allegiance, unlike
soldiers...
> >>
> >> I bet you stay seated when you toast Her too.
> >
> >Nope.
> >
> >I stand, like everybody else with reasonable manners.
> >
> >To suggest otherwise is a grave insult.
>
> As far as I know, naval officers aboard a ship toast the Queen seated.
>
> Am I wrong?

On a ship yes, and I think there's an army unit of some sort that doesn't
stand at any time, but I'm not sure about that, a vague memory of an old
story about some king or other saying something like 'No need gentlemen,
you loyalty is not in doubt'.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[BF Lake]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...

> > As far as I know, naval officers aboard a ship toast the Queen seated.
> >
> > Am I wrong?
>
> On a ship yes, and I think there's an army unit of some sort that doesn't
> stand at any time, but I'm not sure about that, a vague memory of an old
> story about some king or other saying something like 'No need gentlemen,
> you loyalty is not in doubt'.

http://www.readyayeready.com/tradition/customs-of-the-navy/9-wardroom-customs.htm

About half way down covers the Loyal Toast (article from mid-1950s) A RN
ref from 1934 says to sit when drinking the Loyal Toast is not permitted
when the National Anthem is played, following a ruling given by the late
Marquis of Milford Haven on June 4th, 1914, when he was First Sea Lord.

Men toasted the Sovereign at the Grog Tub drinking their tot as soon as it
was issued, the motto "The King, God Bless Him" being written on the Grog
Tub. When quinine was issued in the Army or Navy the senior officer would
toast the Sovereign with his draught, thus ensuring that all officers and
men following in line took their medicine out of loyalty if not obedience.

Regards,
Barry

[TinCanMan]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:20:28 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > wrote:
>
> <internet nonsense omitted>
> <television rant snipped>
>
> > I said it was
> >entertainment and it is, even the news and proported documentaries. FWIW,
> >I'm not a hermit living in a cave. I had TV till 10 years ago and decided
it
> >was entertainment, poor entertainment at that. I'm also aware those who
> >choose to do so may obtain inexpensive satellite service providing 500+
> >channels of programming, including numerous Canadian, Mexican and other
> >Latin American stations.
>
> As I keep telling you that is American television.

The point being; your little corner of the world is not the only place with
variety and international options. And here we don't even need an array.
You're right, it is American Television, and Asian television and Uropeean
television. Television... yours, mine, everybody's is entertainment. It's
not haute culture nor is it authoratative, objective reporting.


>
> Thats not what I am talking about.

It certainly is. You implied U.S. television was inferior as compared to
Uropeean TV as you had "an array" and international programming. That's not
surprising, as my uncle's farm is larger then some Uropeean nations. Hell,
California has a larger economy than France.


>
> I've seen whats on US cable. You have not seen whats available
> here. spot the difference.

Yes, I did spot the difference. Uropeen snobbery. In past years I've had
opportunity to observe TV around the globe. The one common denominator was
TV. No matter where I was I could always turn on the TV and be inundated
with the same inane palaver. I have no reason to believe TV in Gibraltar is
any different. Perhaps you should check in on some of the other threads for
comments by other posters on what passes for popular viewing in Urope these
days.


>
> >I don't find it surprising you might receive Iraqi
> >programming as it is no farther from Seville-Baghdad than it is
> >Miami-Seattle and I can drive there without being subject to the whims of
> >half dozen or so tinpot dictators who's ideas of justice include the
> >traumatic removal of body parts for minor indiscretions and the stoning
of
> >women for adultry.
>
> Have you any evidence that that was happening in Iraq?

I didn't mention Iraq or any specific country but since you asked... It
seems secular Iraq is a bit more violent than the typical enlightened
Sha'ria justice system practiced in the mid east and North Africa. In Iraq
they just murder them quickly behind closed doors and dump them in mass
graves. There's sufficient evidence of that since the families of the
victims have been digging up the graves after the liberation from Saddam.
There's plenty of evidence of Sha'ria justice around when you get your head
out of the telly for a while. I doubt Nigeria will be televising the stoning
of that woman for giving birth out of wedlock. They bury you up to the neck
in dirt. Then the good villagers pummel your exposed head with fist sized
rocks til it's mush. The Saudi's didn't televise the stoning of one of their
princesses either. That's Sha'ria, the enlightened Islamic system of
justice. The Taliban used a soccer stadium built with U.N. funds to conduct
the beheaddings and appendage removals.

Strangely, I don't hear a complaint from Urope's enlightened justice system
over these outrageous acts. Don't seem to have heard the enlightened ones
complaining of Nazi Germany placing the Jews in concentration camps either.
Perhaps the sophisticated Uropeean community hasn't learned anything from
their experience in WWII. The common thread seems to be stick your head in
the sand and ignore it when it happens in your back yard. Better yet, spend
your time pointing out the shortcomings of others; it'll make yours seem
smaller.

Ya want to know about tinpot dictators? Try Lybia for size. Your 3rd world
buddies in the U.N. just finished electing Lybia to chair the UNHRC. Here's
a list of Libya's "arbitrarily" detained and missing:
http://members.tripod.com/sijill/prison/

And you wonder why the U.N. has no creditability and needs to be replaced?
Tell me about the good they

>
> >And you say you're offended we execute murderers.
>
> How many wrongs make something right?

You tell me. Lets see... You don't seem to have a problem with stonings and
the French would prefer to live with a gruesome murderer (Ira Einhorn) among
them. How enlightened.

>
> >Uropeeans appear quite happy to do business with these folks without a
> >wimper
>
> And the US is very happy to take oil from Saudi and sell them all
> sorts of hardware. Indeed Saddam was good business at one time
> and who was shipping arms to Iraq?
>

At the time we believed he was useful as a balance of power in the mid-east
but, we eventually figured out he was just another tinpot dictator. Unlike
France, Germany and Russia we stopped doing business with him. Uropeen
nations continued selling weapons till the last. Nuther piece of the common
thread.

> >and yet question U.S. justice and motivation. How cheesy.
>
> We cannot even question things then?

Sure you can question it. You'll just have to appear to be cheesy when you
don't question the motives of the third world dictatorships as well. Makes
others think you have your own intrests at heart.

>
> >No wonder Congress rejected the IKK.
>
> Yes, because it would act as a control on your excesses.

Excess is in the eye of the beholder. The IKK's sole purpose is a bully
pulpit for third world despots to bring trumped up charges against U.S.
citizens. Seems to me Belgium is rethinking their universal jurisdiction
statutes since the phony charges against Gen. Franks where dropped on their
doorstep. And you wonder why the U.S. won't ratify the IKK. Sheesh!

>
> But the bottom line is that British citizens expect their
> government to attempt to ensure that when accused of a
> crime by a foreign government that they either receive a
> fair trial abroad, or they are repatriated to face the British
> Justice system.

What trial? They are combatants being held for the duration. They are
entitled to be restrained and treated IAW the laws and customs of war and
the GC. Had you caght them, they would be entitled to the same treatment and
within the protections offered British citizens. Unfortunately, they are not
in British custody.

> There is not the slightest evidence that people kidnapped
> and taken to an offshore US base in Cuba, held in dubious
> conditions etc are going to see justice.

And there is no evidence they will not. It is purely supposition and
conjecture on your part. Capturing folks on the battlefield or accepting
prisoners taken by third parties having escaped from the battlefield but
still under arms is not kidnapping. Sounds like sour grapes to me. There is
nothing dubious about the conditions they are being held under. They receive
regular visits by the ICRC as required under the GC. That you don't get to
know what the conditions are is just too bad. You have no standing.

Justice? Justice is for criminals and others accused of crime. These folks
are combatants and are being held for the duration of hostilities, however
long that might take. Some may eventually be charged with war crimes after
which they will be tried by a military tribunal and receive justice. The
remainder will have been repatriated.

>
> There is no point in a 'war on terrosm' when your leaders act
> in exactly the same way as terrorists themselves.
>
One occasionally gets dirty cleaning up the filth. Seems we had to do this a
couple hundred years ago when the enlightened Uropeean powers of the time
failed to act in curtailing the proclivity of the Barbary Pirates in taking
hostages for ransom and extracting tribute from merchant shipping. Hmmm,
Yup. Stick your head in the sand again. Nuther piece of the common thread.
The U.S. does not shirk its duty simply because it is unpleasant.

In 1816 President James Madison informed the Dey of Algiers, "the United
States, whilst they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none."
He concluded that it was the "settled policy" of the United States "that as
peace is better than war, war is better than tribute."

[TinCanMan]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:07:29 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Don't seem to have heard the enlightened ones
> >complaining of Nazi Germany placing the Jews in concentration camps
either.
> >Perhaps the sophisticated Uropeean community hasn't learned anything from
> >their experience in WWII. The common thread seems to be stick your head
in
> >the sand
>
> I believe that invokes Godwins law.
>
> Just because some Americans speak a dialect English one assumes they
> are civilised. In practice this seems unjustified.
>
Godwin's law is only invoked when the anology is not true. In this case, the
NAZI card is a well documented fact and invocation of Godwin is admission of
an inadequate arguement.

[David Casey]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:05:40 -0700, TinCanMan wrote:

>> I believe that invokes Godwins law.
>>
>> Just because some Americans speak a dialect English one assumes they
>> are civilised. In practice this seems unjustified.
>>
> Godwin's law is only invoked when the anology is not true. In this case, the
> NAZI card is a well documented fact and invocation of Godwin is admission of
> an inadequate arguement.

Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer,
the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is
over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there
is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of
Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be
unsuccessful.

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

[TinCanMan]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:36:05 GMT, David Casey >
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:05:40 -0700, TinCanMan wrote:
> >
> >>> I believe that invokes Godwins law.
> >>>
> >>> Just because some Americans speak a dialect English one assumes they
> >>> are civilised. In practice this seems unjustified.
> >>>
> >> Godwin's law is only invoked when the anology is not true. In this
case, the
> >> NAZI card is a well documented fact and invocation of Godwin is
admission of
> >> an inadequate arguement.
> >
> >Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer,
> >the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches
one."
> >There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread
is
> >over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
> >argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
> >existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However
there
> >is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of
> >Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be
> >unsuccessful.
> >
> >http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html
> >
> >Dave
>
> On that basis further argument with morally bankrupt septics
> is pointless.
>
> Resistance is fertile - Dyslexic of Borg.
>
>
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

In other words, neither you or any organization with standing can prove your
assertations the U.S. is somehow committing human rights violations by
detaining combatants in Gitmo till the hostilities are over. Perhaps the
Libyan Chair of the UNCHR will champion your cause and bring charges against
the U.S. in the IKK.

[TinCanMan]

"vince" > wrote in message
m...
> David Casey > wrote in message
>...
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:05:40 -0700, TinCanMan wrote:
> >
> > >> I believe that invokes Godwins law.
> > >>
> > >> Just because some Americans speak a dialect English one assumes they
> > >> are civilised. In practice this seems unjustified.
> > >>
> > > Godwin's law is only invoked when the anology is not true. In this
case, the
> > > NAZI card is a well documented fact and invocation of Godwin is
admission of
> > > an inadequate arguement.
> >
> > Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows
longer,
> > the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches
one."
> > There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread
is
> > over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
> > argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
> > existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However
there
> > is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of
> > Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be
> > unsuccessful.
> >
> > http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html
> >
> > Dave
>
> Must be awfully hard to discuss WWII with such nitwits.
>
> the nazis are a historical fact, adn nazi like behaviro is also a
> historical fact. But I suppose neo-nazis dont like the comparison so
> they invoke such a law to prevent it. that was the nazi way
>
> Vince

Typical "stick your head in the sand" mentality.

[David Casey]

On 30 Jul 2003 16:49:02 -0700, vince wrote:

> Must be awfully hard to discuss WWII with such nitwits.

I think you're missing the humor here, but I suppose so long as you keep
the number of comparisons involving Hitler or the Nazi's to zero you'll do
fine. ;-)

> the nazis are a historical fact, adn nazi like behaviro is also a
> historical fact. But I suppose neo-nazis dont like the comparison so
> they invoke such a law to prevent it. that was the nazi way

You are missing the humor.

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

[Jim Watt]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:25:25 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:

>In other words, neither you or any organization with standing can prove your
>assertations the U.S. is somehow committing human rights violations by
>detaining combatants in Gitmo till the hostilities are over. Perhaps the
>Libyan Chair of the UNCHR will champion your cause and bring charges against
>the U.S. in the IKK.

The fact that America retains a base on Cuba given your Governments
unreasonable persecution of that country is in itself an crime.

But lets get one thing straight, its your Government who are currently
kissing Gadaffi's arse, presumably because they want his oil too.

I see he has converted his house that was badly bombed by the
American air force into a museum.

However, that distracts from the argument that kidnapping people
misstreating them and holding them in death camp is at the best
illegal and is not the way a civilised country should behave.

"for the duration" indicates that there will be some end to some
process. There is no war, apart from some mythical 'war on
terrorism' which like the 'war on drugs' will be ongoing and
forever.

BUT if the Prime Minister of the only country foolish enough
to help you in your imperalist aggression in the middle east
asks you for his nationals back, its very insulting to ignore him.

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[ian maclure]

In article >, "Jim Watt"
> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:25:25 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> > wrote:
>
>>In other words, neither you or any organization with standing can prove
>>your assertations the U.S. is somehow committing human rights violations
>>by detaining combatants in Gitmo till the hostilities are over. Perhaps
>>the Libyan Chair of the UNCHR will champion your cause and bring charges
>>against the U.S. in the IKK.
>
> The fact that America retains a base on Cuba given your Governments
> unreasonable persecution of that country is in itself an crime.

When Cuba decides to become a democracy we'll talk about that. Until
then Gitmo remains a US base and with any luck a thorn in Fidels' body
politic.

IBM

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Jim Watt]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:37:00 -0700, "TinCanMan"
> wrote:

Its pointless arguing with someone who bleats on about
'socialism' as if its some kind of child molestation, and
uses it as a label to discredit any argument that makes
you uncomfortable.

But just carry on supporting an evil regime that infringes
human rights, and is morally and financially bankrupt.

I'm not convinced.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[vince]

David Casey > wrote in message >...
> On 30 Jul 2003 16:49:02 -0700, vince wrote:
>
> > Must be awfully hard to discuss WWII with such nitwits.
>
> I think you're missing the humor here, but I suppose so long as you keep
> the number of comparisons involving Hitler or the Nazi's to zero you'll do
> fine. ;-)

this was an attmept at humor, oh well

>
> > the nazis are a historical fact, and nazi like behavior is also a
> > historical fact. But I suppose neo-nazis dont like the comparison so
> > they invoke such a law to prevent it. that was the nazi way
>
> You are missing the humor.
>
Godwin's law is about as humorous as Bush using the term "class
warfare" for any suggestion that the rich are rich because of the
society we have built and they ought to pay a fair share.

Vince

[Fred J. McCall]

"ian maclure" > wrote:

:In article >, "Jim Watt"
> wrote:
:>
:> The fact that America retains a base on Cuba given your Governments
:> unreasonable persecution of that country is in itself an crime.
:
: When Cuba decides to become a democracy we'll talk about that. Until
: then Gitmo remains a US base and with any luck a thorn in Fidels' body
: politic.

And obviously, the fact that we have a lease, we pay it every year,
and part of the original leasehold that we no longer needed was turned
back long ago, makes no difference to Mr Watt's thinking. But then,
why cloud a good tirade with facts?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Jim Watt]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:52:06 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>And obviously, the fact that we have a lease, we pay it every year,

If its a lease, when does it expire? Why occupy someone elses
country against the wishes of its inhabitants ?

Dunno whether is because I've been complaining about your
Government, but they are now making if difficult to impossible
to visit your fair land by withdrawing the visa waiver scheme
as from October

No problem in visiting Cuba though.

>why cloud a good tirade with facts?

The tirade is factual, maybe not what you want to hear, but
thats life.

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:28:48 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

> Notice the US freezing the US-based assets of the Real IRA... presumably
> they're such a regional problem they prefer to bank in the USA.

Would those have been IRAs that the IRA put their money in?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Fred J. McCall]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

:In message >, Fred J. McCall
> writes
:>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
:>:Fred, you're the one showing signs
:>
:>Nope, because I'm going to once again decline to be dragged down into
:>yet another pointless discussion with you of the whichness of the why
:>on this issue.
:
:Translation - Fred's been caught in a mistake (again).

Translation - Paul's elected to start lying (again).

:>:If "regional" includes operations across Europe, in North Africa and in
:>:both Americas, then yes.
:>
:>'Operations'? Sorry, but acquisition of funds and material and hiring
:>out as trainers are not 'operations'.
:
:Killing people and blowing stuff up counts as "operations".

Yes, but this is something of a non sequitur to what I said above.

:>:Which terrorist organisations _don't_ fit this model of "regional"?
:>
:>Al Qaeda, for one.
:
:So, there's only one "international terrorist group"?

Now, where did I say that?

:You're saying the _PLO_ weren't international, and they've had a seat at
:the UN for thirty years!

Another bit of gorilla dust you like to throw ... 'political wing' is
not 'terrorist wing'. Having an observer seat at the UN means bugger
all. If that makes an organization 'international', I guess we'd all
better be very worried about Tong a....

:>:Oh, so now we're accepting that PIRA _do_ have "international reach",
:>:just not _enough_ of it to meet your definition?
:>
:>Paul, anyone who can afford an airplane ticket potentially has 'global
:>reach' for one-off ops. That hardly makes them a global organization.
:
:PIRA trained, based, raised funds, and killed in many countries. Seems
:sufficient to call them "international".

Fine, Paul. The Irish are evil incarnate. Why, they are the very
Devil reborn. They should be wiped from the face of the Earth, since
they are worse than any other possible evil extant or potential on the
planet.

Happy now?

:>:Yep,
:>
:>Well, pleased to see you're at least finally admitting that reason
:>indeed deserts you on this issue.
:
:Oh, stop being so idiotic, Fred.

Very well, I'll stop taking you at your word and simply pretend you're
saying other words entirely. After all, that's your preferred tactic
with me.

:>Recognizing you have the problem is
:>the first step toward doing something about it.
:
:My only problem is finding you so funny when you get on your high horse
:in defiance of facts. Usually in preparation to ride off into the sunset
:when you show you've not only grabbed the wrong end of the stick, but
:beaten yourself senseless with it.

You mean when you foam sufficiently prolifically to be a dead loss of
time, which is where you've been headed for a while in this thread.

:Remember when you claimed that nobody used PGMs for CAS, and that dumb
:iron was preferred? That you spoke for the aviation community with one
:voice? Whoops. (Of course you fled the debate at that point, perhaps
:because you realised what you'd said)

I disagreed with your contention that JAMS from B-52s at 30,000 feet
constituted 'close air support'. Given a choice between those and
'dumb iron', the Marines, at least, will use 'dumb iron' (if the
questions we've been getting from them are any indicator).

[We are now about to enter the famous Paul Adam "winning through
extraneous volume on an unrelated issue" tactic ... nab, it's not
worth bothering with.]

:>:but I'm not the one ignoring the facts and making up definitions on
:>:the fly.
:>
:>No, you're just the one foaming and blotting, as usual, while
:>substituting snide remarks for logic.
:
:I'm the one with the facts, Fred, you're the one claiming black is
:white. Again.

Stick to torpedoes, Paul.

:Keep it up, it's funny.

To you, no doubt it is. This sort of game being 'amusing' for you is
one of the reasons you keep cycling into my killfile. Not worth the
time and bother once you start 'playing', and combatting your lies and
distortion is hardly either 'entertaining' or useful. You can
certainly lie bigger and faster than anyone I know can tell the truth.

<plonk>

--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

[Fred J. McCall]

David Casey > wrote:

:On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:05:40 -0700, TinCanMan wrote:
:
:>> I believe that invokes Godwins law.
:>>
:>> Just because some Americans speak a dialect English one assumes they
:>> are civilised. In practice this seems unjustified.
:>>
:> Godwin's law is only invoked when the anology is not true. In this case, the
:> NAZI card is a well documented fact and invocation of Godwin is admission of
:> an inadequate arguement.
:
:Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer,
:the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
:There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is
:over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
:argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
:existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there
:is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of
:Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be
:unsuccessful.
:
:http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

One has to wonder how Mr Godwin's name got attached to this, since it
was around long before he discovered the net.

[Mary Shafer]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 02:46:39 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

> David Casey > wrote:
>
> :http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html
>
> One has to wonder how Mr Godwin's name got attached to this, since it
> was around long before he discovered the net.

Are you sure you're thinking of the correct Mike Godwin? He, and his
law, were around in about 1989.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Kristan Roberge]

Ya know that post-ww2 at the war crimes trials for the Nazi elite, the
prisoners there
got more freedoms and rights afforded to them than the folks at Guantanamo
have. Pretty
bad when the allies treated nazi's better than the USA treats
'non-combatants'. Canada's
external affairs department STILL hasn't been told the identities of the
canadians being held
their, nor allowed to see them/speak with them. Britain only recently was
allowed to contact
their citizens being held there.

Henrietta K Thomas wrote:

> (newsgroups trimmed way down)
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:44:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall >
> wrote, in us.military.army:
>
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >
> >:What would _you_ consider a "fair trial", Fred, and would your opinion
> >:change if you were the defendant?
> >
> >Paul, nobody wants a 'fair trial' when they're the defendant. They
> >just want to get off.
>
> Sometimes 'getting off' IS a fair trial. :-)
>
> >This lot will get fairer trials than they've got coming. Why is it
> >none of your lot are willing to wait for the bad outcomes you keep
> >shrilling about to occur before tearing your hair out and wailing to
> >the skies?
>
> Because, by that time, it may be too late. Under international law,
> every accused person is entitled to be treated humanely, to be
> properly advised of any charges against them, to be properly
> advised of their right to defend themselves. Holding people at
> Guantanamo doesn't excuse the US from obeying international
> law. We get away with it only because we're the most powerful
> nation on earth and no one dares to challenge us.
>
> >Hell, wait until the first trial happens and someone gets sentenced.
> >Then you MIGHT have something to complain about. However, I'd bet you
> >won't. The military, unlike a civilian court, is going to be pretty
> >scrupulous about things before they'll sentence someone to death.
>
> My understanding is that there will be no appeals, or at best,
> limited appeals. So if, by chance, something -does- go wrong,
> all avenues of redress will be closed. I don't call that a 'fair'
> anything.
>
> >You might want to look at just when the last time was that a military
> >court handed down a death penalty.
>
> Irrelevant to the question at hand. Regardless of the outcome,
> all trials must be fair if justice is to be served.
>
> It would have been better, IMO, if we had asked the UN to
> set up an international tribunal to deal with the situation.
> But we did not, so we are stuck with the decision made
> by our government to do everything in secret behind
> closed doors. No offense intended to the US military
> justice system, but I think it was a bad call.
>
> YMMV.
>
> Henrietta K. Thomas
> Chicago, Illinois
>

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Fred J. McCall
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>:Translation - Fred's been caught in a mistake (again).
>
>Translation - Paul's elected to start lying (again).

Easy accusation, Fred - though you can never back it up.

>:Killing people and blowing stuff up counts as "operations".
>
>Yes, but this is something of a non sequitur to what I said above.

You asked for operations on multiple continents, I provided, now you're
weaselling?

>:You're saying the _PLO_ weren't international, and they've had a seat at
>:the UN for thirty years!
>
>Another bit of gorilla dust you like to throw ... 'political wing' is
>not 'terrorist wing'. Having an observer seat at the UN means bugger
>all. If that makes an organization 'international', I guess we'd all
>better be very worried about Tong a....

How many people have been killed over Tongan independence in the last
forty years?

>:PIRA trained, based, raised funds, and killed in many countries. Seems
>:sufficient to call them "international".
>
>Fine, Paul. The Irish are evil incarnate. Why, they are the very
>Devil reborn. They should be wiped from the face of the Earth, since
>they are worse than any other possible evil extant or potential on the
>planet.
>
>Happy now?

No. I _like_ most of the Irish I've met. They're generally as worried
about IRA activities as we are, because these aren't cuddly freedom
fighters: they're criminals using a political agenda to cover a
thoroughly ruthless racketeering operation.

You might want to check out who Michael McKevitt is, and where's he's
on trial, what he's tried with, and observe the total lack of protest
and demonstration at his persecution by the authorities (including MI5,
Gardai and FBI)

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant, though.


And what did any of the above have to do with disproving international
activity by the IRA?

>:Oh, stop being so idiotic, Fred.
>
>Very well, I'll stop taking you at your word and simply pretend you're
>saying other words entirely.

Can't hurt, given your demonstrated incomprehension.

>:My only problem is finding you so funny when you get on your high horse
>:in defiance of facts. Usually in preparation to ride off into the sunset
>:when you show you've not only grabbed the wrong end of the stick, but
>:beaten yourself senseless with it.
>
>You mean when you foam sufficiently prolifically to be a dead loss of
>time, which is where you've been headed for a while in this thread.

You're more than usually content-free, Fred.

>:Remember when you claimed that nobody used PGMs for CAS, and that dumb
>:iron was preferred? That you spoke for the aviation community with one
>:voice? Whoops. (Of course you fled the debate at that point, perhaps
>:because you realised what you'd said)
>
>I disagreed with your contention that JAMS from B-52s at 30,000 feet
>constituted 'close air support'.

You explicitly stated that CAS could not be done with guided weapons, or
from high altitude, and you stated that nobody who gave a damn about the
lives of the troops on the ground would use such methods.

"one does not do CAS with 'smart weapons' or ANYTHING dropped from
30,000 feet (if one truly gives a damn about the folks on the ground)."
Fred J. McCall, 23 June 2003

Your words, not mine. Unfortunately they're not correct.

>Given a choice between those and
>'dumb iron', the Marines, at least, will use 'dumb iron' (if the
>questions we've been getting from them are any indicator).

Oh, so your sweeping statements are in fact specific to one service of
one nation? Strange how you were adamant that other services and other
NATO nations (and even the USMC's own doctrine) is irrelevant to you...

>[We are now about to enter the famous Paul Adam "winning through
>extraneous volume on an unrelated issue" tactic ... nab, it's not
>worth bothering with.]

This is Fred's usual distraction tactic when it's pointed out that
actually _did_ make the incorrect statements attributed to him.

>:I'm the one with the facts, Fred, you're the one claiming black is
>:white. Again.
>
>Stick to torpedoes, Paul.

You're out of date, Fred. Again, your confidence exceeds your grasp of
facts.

>:Keep it up, it's funny.
>
>To you, no doubt it is. This sort of game being 'amusing' for you is
>one of the reasons you keep cycling into my killfile. Not worth the
>time and bother once you start 'playing', and combatting your lies and
>distortion is hardly either 'entertaining' or useful.

Show me one lie, Fred.

Oh, I forgot - you can't, can you?

>You can
>certainly lie bigger and faster than anyone I know can tell the truth.

Challenge Fred for proof, and he disappears in a puff of falsehood.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[Jim Watt]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 02:45:49 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Fine, Paul. The Irish are evil incarnate. Why, they are the very
>Devil reborn. They should be wiped from the face of the Earth,

No you are mixing them up with America, aka the Great Satan.

The point being made was a simple one that the IRA is
an international terrorist organisation. Enough evidence
has been quoted, to convice all but the blind.

It was funded and supported by Americans, and since your
government has discovered that international terrorism is a
bad thing, that has been restricted and there is a chance that
peace may come to Ireland.

It may be slightly 'off topic' to discuss a naval matter but I
also read that the development of the submarine in the US
was funded by the Fenians who wanted to attack British
shipping.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Fred J. McCall]

Mary Shafer > wrote:

:On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 02:46:39 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:> David Casey > wrote:
:>
:> :http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html
:>
:> One has to wonder how Mr Godwin's name got attached to this, since it
:> was around long before he discovered the net.
:
:Are you sure you're thinking of the correct Mike Godwin? He, and his
:law, were around in about 1989.

Yes, but 'the law' was around before that. It was not at all uncommon
to see the first mention of Hitler or Nazis greeted with "Bzzzzt! I
win!" as early as 1985 or so. I couldn't put a date to it, but I
remember when Mike Godwin first posted. The whole "the first person
to mention the Nazis loses" thing was around before that.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

[Fred J. McCall]

Kristan Roberge > wrote:

:Ya know that post-ww2 at the war crimes trials for the Nazi elite, the prisoners there
:got more freedoms and rights afforded to them than the folks at Guantanamo have. Pretty
:bad when the allies treated nazi's better than the USA treats 'non-combatants'.

What 'non-combatants'? You know, your arguments would be a lot more
convincing if you could only get the basic facts right.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Jim Watt]

<snip>

I came across this statement in the house in my travels;

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin):

On 3 July, the United States designated six detainees, including
two British nationals held at Guantanamo Bay, as eligible for trial
under a military commission. We have strong reservations about the
military commission. We have raised, and will continue to raise them
energetically with the US. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the US
Secretary of State, Colin Powell, about that over the weekend and
will speak to him again in the next few days.

So far, neither of the detainees has been charged. However, we have
made it clear to the US that we expect the process to fulfil
internationally accepted standards of a fair trial. We will follow
the process carefully.

The US is aware of our fundamental opposition to the use of the
death penalty in all circumstances. If there is any suggestion that
the death penalty might be sought in these cases, we would raise the
strongest possible objections.

As regards the conditions in which all those prisoners are held, the
Prime Minister has, on a number of occasions, made it clear that he
regards the situation in Guantanamo Bay as unsatisfactory.

+++


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim]

Why occupy someone elses
> country against the wishes of its inhabitants ?

Like IRELAND?

[Jim]

Robert K. Dornen, U.S. Congressman. 1995
"Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jim wrote:
>
> > little.
> > It stood-by the genicide in Camboida and Africa and what? nothing!
> > It places countries onto committiees like Cuba as head of the sub
committe
> > on human rights, need I say more.
>
> considering cuba treats its citizens better as far as human rights go than
many
> US-allies of convenience
> in foreign lands, you should just shut yer cake hole now.

Yea a 9mm to the back of the head is good treatment...


Jim

[Jim]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 02:45:49 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> > wrote:
>
> >Fine, Paul. The Irish are evil incarnate. Why, they are the very
> >Devil reborn. They should be wiped from the face of the Earth,
>
> No you are mixing them up with America, aka the Great Satan.
>
> The point being made was a simple one that the IRA is
> an international terrorist organisation. Enough evidence
> has been quoted, to convice all but the blind.
>
> It was funded and supported by Americans, and since your
> government has discovered that international terrorism is a
> bad thing, that has been restricted and there is a chance that
> peace may come to Ireland.

Are the english leaving?

[Jim]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> <snip>
>
> I came across this statement in the house in my travels;
>
> The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and
> Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin):
>
> On 3 July, the United States designated six detainees, including
> two British nationals held at Guantanamo Bay, as eligible for trial
> under a military commission. We have strong reservations about the
> military commission. We have raised, and will continue to raise them
> energetically with the US. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the US
> Secretary of State, Colin Powell, about that over the weekend and
> will speak to him again in the next few days.
>
> So far, neither of the detainees has been charged. However, we have
> made it clear to the US that we expect the process to fulfil
> internationally accepted standards of a fair trial. We will follow
> the process carefully.

Completly understandable, we would do the same if the situation was
reversed.

> The US is aware of our fundamental opposition to the use of the
> death penalty in all circumstances. If there is any suggestion that
> the death penalty might be sought in these cases, we would raise the
> strongest possible objections.

Noted, thank you. How ever in our laws there is a place for the death
penelty.
Providing they get a fair trail, the punishment is up to the judge
depending on the crime of course.
If they committed a capital crime, to bad, so sad.

> As regards the conditions in which all those prisoners are held, the
> Prime Minister has, on a number of occasions, made it clear that he
> regards the situation in Guantanamo Bay as unsatisfactory.

What is unsatisfactory in your View might I ask..
I understand they get food, shelter, water, medical care, exercise, are
allowed to pratice there religion.
They are questioned wearing restraints sure, but they are not beat or
tourtured...

So what is the beef? It is a detention compounnd not the Ritz. What no
cable TV?

Jim

[William Black]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> Why occupy someone elses
> > country against the wishes of its inhabitants ?
>
> Like IRELAND?

And which bit of the island of Ireland is occupied against the wishes of a
majority of its inhabitants?

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[ZZBunker]

Jim Watt > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:52:06 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> > wrote:
>
> >And obviously, the fact that we have a lease, we pay it every year,
>
> If its a lease, when does it expire? Why occupy someone elses
> country against the wishes of its inhabitants ?

The original lease was a hundred years.
Since then, it's been extended. Since Cuba is desparately
in need of US tourism money far more than it's
need of Gitmo or UN money.

We're not occuying Cuba, since if we were, we'd
be occupying Havana, not Gitmo.



>
> Dunno whether is because I've been complaining about your
> Government, but they are now making if difficult to impossible
> to visit your fair land by withdrawing the visa waiver scheme
> as from October

But, that parts of our master plan.
We don't really care if Al Qauda visits Guantonemo Bay, Cuba
or Mecca. But we've withdrawn all of their
Visas for New York, or anyplace in the US
that has non-government jobs.

[Jim Watt]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:05:48 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:

>"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 02:45:49 GMT, Fred J. McCall
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Fine, Paul. The Irish are evil incarnate. Why, they are the very
>> >Devil reborn. They should be wiped from the face of the Earth,
>>
>> No you are mixing them up with America, aka the Great Satan.
>>
>> The point being made was a simple one that the IRA is
>> an international terrorist organisation. Enough evidence
>> has been quoted, to convice all but the blind.
>>
>> It was funded and supported by Americans, and since your
>> government has discovered that international terrorism is a
>> bad thing, that has been restricted and there is a chance that
>> peace may come to Ireland.
>
>Are the english leaving?

The English live in England. Sometimes they leave
on holiday, sometimes they leave the country.

In case you missed it, the money donated by Americans
was used to fund a socialist party, various gangsters, to kill Irish
people, irrespective of religion in the North and South and attempt to
murder and to murder other nationalities in other countries.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:23:47 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:

>What is unsatisfactory in your View might I ask..

The fact that your government is detaining British citizens
illegally. and that they are facing a kangaroo court.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On 4 Aug 2003 18:08:45 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote:

> The original lease was a hundred years.
> Since then, it's been extended. Since Cuba is desparately
> in need of US tourism money far more than it's
> need of Gitmo or UN money.

I thought it was illegal for US citizens to go there at present.

Fidel does not bank the rent cheque for your occupied territory

(or so he said on television, I have no personal knowledge of his
finances)

> We're not occuying Cuba, since if we were, we'd
> be occupying Havana, not Gitmo.

>> Dunno whether is because I've been complaining about your
>> Government, but they are now making if difficult to impossible
>> to visit your fair land by withdrawing the visa waiver scheme
>> as from October
>
> But, that parts of our master plan.
> We don't really care if Al Qauda visits Guantonemo Bay, Cuba
> or Mecca. But we've withdrawn all of their
> Visas for New York, or anyplace in the US
> that has non-government jobs.

Checked my memberships and suggestions that I joined that
organisation are baseless.

As for paying $100 dollars for a visa to visit your country, I
don't think so. Cuba sounds more interesting, but not
the concentration camp.

http://www.iberianews.com/cgi-bin/news.cgi?rm=display&articleID=1060011869&search=&category=1&order=&page=1


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[vince]

Jim Watt > wrote in message >...
> On 4 Aug 2003 19:32:23 -0700, (vince) wrote:
>
> >"William Black" > wrote in message >...
> >> "Jim" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Why occupy someone elses
> >> > > country against the wishes of its inhabitants ?
> >> >
> >> > Like IRELAND?
> >>
> >> And which bit of the island of Ireland is occupied against the wishes of a
> >> majority of its inhabitants?
> >
> >oooooo how clever
> >
> >if you kill the inhabitants and bring in your own folks its never
> >
> >"occupied against the wishes of a majority of its inhabitants?"
> >
> >Vince
>
> Like Indians, I have reservations.
>
> People who are born in Ireland are Irish, people who pretend
> they are Irish because their ancestors fled the potato famine
> or the police, and settled in another land displacing its
> indigenous people are more correctly called Americans
>
> - when being polite.

nonsense. nations are characterized both by cultural descent and by
attachment to a place. Inhabiting the place is neither necessary nor
suffiient to constitute "attachment" Diasporas do not change the fact
of who is a member of the national community In the case of any
country occupied by force this is especially important.

Vince

[Jim]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:23:47 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
>
> >What is unsatisfactory in your View might I ask..
>
> The fact that your government is detaining British citizens
> illegally. and that they are facing a kangaroo court.
>
>
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com


Oh I see... Now I get it... you disagree with our (the US) Kangroo Kourt
and you agree with the (EU- Brussles ) Kangroo Kourt?
It guess it just depends if you control the Kangroos (judges) very
intresting.

Jim

[Jim]

>
> Like Indians, I have reservations.
>
> People who are born in Ireland are Irish, people who pretend
> they are Irish because their ancestors fled the potato famine
> or the police, and settled in another land displacing its
> indigenous people are more correctly called Americans
>
> - when being polite.
>
>
> --
> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

No we screwed Native Americans no about that, (as did the French and British
and Spanish before us)
I am honest enough to admit that. However , Indians are Americans by your
definition...

I wounder is a Brit born in Hong Kong then Chinese? Pounder that...

As for Americans of Irish decent, or English decent or German decent,
we may be americans as country of birth however our ancestry and etnicity.
can be English or german or dutch Irish .....

For example I am an American with English, Welsh Danish and German
ancestors.

One last observation, it must really **** the old world off that the dregs
and cast outs of your Euoroean Society have
grown up to be Stronger, faster, Richer, freer and could have if we trully
wished stepped on you like a bug.


Jim

[Jim]

> > - when being polite.
>
> nonsense. nations are characterized both by cultural descent and by
> attachment to a place. Inhabiting the place is neither necessary nor
> suffiient to constitute "attachment" Diasporas do not change the fact
> of who is a member of the national community In the case of any
> country occupied by force this is especially important.
>
> Vince


No Vince, Brits born in Honk Kong are chineese..... :)


Jim

[Jim Watt]

On 5 Aug 2003 07:42:17 -0700, (vince) wrote:

>Jim Watt > wrote in message >...
>> On 4 Aug 2003 19:32:23 -0700, (vince) wrote:
>>
>> >"William Black" > wrote in message >...
>> >> "Jim" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Why occupy someone elses
>> >> > > country against the wishes of its inhabitants ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Like IRELAND?
>> >>
>> >> And which bit of the island of Ireland is occupied against the wishes of a
>> >> majority of its inhabitants?
>> >
>> >oooooo how clever
>> >
>> >if you kill the inhabitants and bring in your own folks its never
>> >
>> >"occupied against the wishes of a majority of its inhabitants?"
>> >
>> >Vince
>>
>> Like Indians, I have reservations.
>>
>> People who are born in Ireland are Irish, people who pretend
>> they are Irish because their ancestors fled the potato famine
>> or the police, and settled in another land displacing its
>> indigenous people are more correctly called Americans
>>
>> - when being polite.
>
>nonsense. nations are characterized both by cultural descent and by
>attachment to a place. Inhabiting the place is neither necessary nor
>suffiient to constitute "attachment" Diasporas do not change the fact
>of who is a member of the national community In the case of any
>country occupied by force this is especially important.
>
>Vince

Northern Ireland is somewhat different to Palestine and Iraq.

I see the churches in Dublin are being replaced by mosques
and the nigerians now run the protection rackets. The Tinkers
get mugged by Albanians and a Europe with open frontiers
means that Ireland now has an immigration problem.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:33:58 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:

>One last observation, it must really **** the old world off that the dregs
>and cast outs of your Euoroean Society have
>grown up to be Stronger, faster, Richer, freer and could have if we trully
>wished stepped on you like a bug.

No, we just cringe at those sufficiently ignorant as to believe their
own propaganda.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:05:22 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:

>
>"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:23:47 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
>>
>> >What is unsatisfactory in your View might I ask..
>>
>> The fact that your government is detaining British citizens
>> illegally. and that they are facing a kangaroo court.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
>
>
>Oh I see... Now I get it... you disagree with our (the US) Kangroo Kourt
>and you agree with the (EU- Brussles ) Kangroo Kourt?
>It guess it just depends if you control the Kangroos (judges) very
>intresting.
>
>Jim

One has an independent judicary which nobody controls and the
other takes orders from the military, compare and contrast.




>

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[William Black]

"vince" > wrote in message
om...
> "William Black" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jim" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Why occupy someone elses
> > > > country against the wishes of its inhabitants ?
> > >
> > > Like IRELAND?
> >
> > And which bit of the island of Ireland is occupied against the wishes of
a
> > majority of its inhabitants?
>
> oooooo how clever
>
> if you kill the inhabitnats nd bring inyour own folks its never
>
> "occupied against the wishes of a majority of its inhabitants?"

Come off it Vince, it's all from well before anyone but Indians were a
majority where you live.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Jim]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > On my Visit to Ireland I came to the understanding from talking to
> Irishmen
> > that the majority of "Irish" would perfer the British left...
> > The Irish I talked with made it clear there was 1 Ireland and the only
> > reason there is a notheren is a minority of Irishmen (ulsters??) wish
the
>
> I imagine something similar gets said in Iraq as well.

However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or there abouts the
south release in the 1920's

I guess you will have a valid argument if we are still occupying IRAQ in say
800 years.

jim

[gblack]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Jim Watt" > wrote in message
: ...
: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:23:47 -0500, "Jim" >
wrote:
: >
: > >What is unsatisfactory in your View might I ask..
: >
: > The fact that your government is detaining British citizens
: > illegally. and that they are facing a kangaroo court.
: >
:
So who's paying the Aussies for all this kangaroo export traffic....

[vince]

"William Black" > wrote in message >...
> "vince" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "William Black" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Jim" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Why occupy someone elses
> > > > > country against the wishes of its inhabitants ?
> > > >
> > > > Like IRELAND?
> > >
> > > And which bit of the island of Ireland is occupied against the wishes of
> a
> > > majority of its inhabitants?
> >
> > oooooo how clever
> >
> > if you kill the inhabitnats nd bring inyour own folks its never
> >
> > "occupied against the wishes of a majority of its inhabitants?"
>
> Come off it Vince, it's all from well before anyone but Indians were a
> majority where you live.

Indians are "native americans" we respect that and do our best to
admit to historical oppression.

Vince

[Jim Watt]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:35:53 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:

>
>"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Jim" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > On my Visit to Ireland I came to the understanding from talking to
>> Irishmen
>> > that the majority of "Irish" would perfer the British left...
>> > The Irish I talked with made it clear there was 1 Ireland and the only
>> > reason there is a notheren is a minority of Irishmen (ulsters??) wish
>the
>>
>> I imagine something similar gets said in Iraq as well.
>
>However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or there abouts the
>south release in the 1920's
>
>I guess you will have a valid argument if we are still occupying IRAQ in say
>800 years.

Yawn.

The discussion was about the treatment of the people kidnapped and
illegally taken and held on a US base in Cuba.

In the ending of 'Animal farm' the pigs and the farmers sit down to a
meal together and its hard to tell them apart. Your Government is
getting more like a bunch of terrorists all the time , its just that
they have better bombs and more assets.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Jim Watt]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:23:07 +1200, "gblack" > wrote:

>
>"Jim" > wrote in message
...
>:
>: "Jim Watt" > wrote in message
>: ...
>: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:23:47 -0500, "Jim" >
>wrote:
>: >
>: > >What is unsatisfactory in your View might I ask..
>: >
>: > The fact that your government is detaining British citizens
>: > illegally. and that they are facing a kangaroo court.
>: >
>:
>So who's paying the Aussies for all this kangaroo export traffic....

dunno, not the yanks for sure, they even billed the aussies for the
bombs dropped on Iraq.

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[Fred J. McCall]

"Jim" > wrote:

:
:"William Black" > wrote in message
...
:>
:> "Jim" > wrote in message
:> ...
:>
:> > On my Visit to Ireland I came to the understanding from talking to
:> Irishmen
:> > that the majority of "Irish" would perfer the British left...
:> > The Irish I talked with made it clear there was 1 Ireland and the only
:> > reason there is a notheren is a minority of Irishmen (ulsters??) wish
:the
:>
:> I imagine something similar gets said in Iraq as well.
:
:However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or there abouts the
:south release in the 1920's

I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took over Ireland
until Liz I.

--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

[Jim Watt]

On 5 Aug 2003 17:33:08 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote:

>Jim Watt > wrote in message >...
>> On 4 Aug 2003 18:08:45 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote:
>>
>> > The original lease was a hundred years.
>> > Since then, it's been extended. Since Cuba is desparately
>> > in need of US tourism money far more than it's
>> > need of Gitmo or UN money.
>>
>> I thought it was illegal for US citizens to go there at present.
>
>It's hardly illegal,

CNN report otherwise:

"On President George W. Bush's orders, the Treasury
Department has begun an energetic campaign to track down
and punish Americans who defy U.S. travel restrictions to the
communist-run island, the only country in the world off-limits
to most Americans."

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/08/23/cuba.us.travelban/

>> Checked my memberships and suggestions that I joined that
>> organisation are baseless.

Unless they are affilliated to the IARU or you are bombing
the British Legion I'm safe.

> But of us don't care if they're baseless, since they're
> obviously not Cruise-Bomb less, or Reinforced-Cement less.
>
>
>> As for paying $100 dollars for a visa to visit your country, I
>> don't think so. Cuba sounds more interesting, but not
>> the concentration camp.
>
> That's good to know. Since we have to keep reminding
> you British that we don't *have* a country.

Perhaps thats why you are illegally occupying other people's
although the CIA do list the USA as a country:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

> We have 50 States. Britian has a country, but
> it doesn't have bears, lobsters, or bear rifles.

I still believe that the reason America invaded was an
acute shortage of baths. Many of your bathrooms are
without and Dubya missunderstood the word ba'ath.

PS: its spelt Britain and its in a better state.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[vince]

Fred J. McCall > wrote in message n
> :
> :However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or there abouts the
> :south release in the 1920's
>
> I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took over Ireland
> until Liz I.
>

The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow and Henry II
The Treaty of Windsor in 1175 recognized the military conquest.


http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0711.html

vince

[Ben Full]

"ZZBunker" > wrote in message
om...
> That's good to know. Since we have to keep reminding
> you British that we don't *have* a country.
> We have 50 States. Britian has a country, but
> it doesn't have bears, lobsters, or bear rifles.

No, Britain *is* a country (note spelling). It does have lobsters and why
would we need Bear Rifles if we dont have any bears?

HTH

BMFull

[vince]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "vince" > wrote:
> | Fred J. McCall > wrote in message n
> | > :
> | > :However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or there
> abouts the
> | > :south release in the 1920's
> | >
> | > I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took over
> Ireland
> | > until Liz I.
> | >
> |
> | The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow and Henry II
> | The Treaty of Windsor in 1175 recognized the military conquest.
> |
> |
> | http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0711.html
>
> From your link: "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had
> little influence over Ireland. Henry feared that foreign or domestic
> enemies would use Ireland as a base for attacking him."

Apples and oranges. Henry VII was worried that the Anglo-norman
military occupiers of Ireland would use it as a base. Not the native
Irish.

Ireland was essentially a proprietary colony. Large land grant were
awarded in Ireland to anglo norman soldier adventurers who coudl then
go and fight to take the land from the locals.

vince

[vince]

"Ben Full" > wrote in message >...
> "ZZBunker" > wrote in message
> om...
> > That's good to know. Since we have to keep reminding
> > you British that we don't *have* a country.
> > We have 50 States. Britian has a country, but
> > it doesn't have bears, lobsters, or bear rifles.
>
> No, Britain *is* a country (note spelling). It does have lobsters and why
> would we need Bear Rifles if we dont have any bears?

Great Britain is an Island. Teh united kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland is a country. Arguably Scotland is some kind of
"country" But I dont think "britain" qualifies as a country. It is
accepted that citizens of the UK are described as "British"

vince

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 6 Aug 2003 08:45:07 -0700, (vince) wrote:

>> | The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow

Yeah, like the military occupation of England began under William, the
military occupation of Italy under Roger Giscard or of Palestine under
Geoffrey Boullion.

>Apples and oranges. Henry VII was worried that the Anglo-norman
>military occupiers of Ireland would use it as a base.

As was Henry II.

>Ireland was essentially a proprietary colony. Large land grant were
>awarded ... to anglo norman soldier adventurers who coudl then
>go and fight to take the land from the locals.

Much like the United States then. When do you intend to end the
military occupation of Nebraska? I mean, really: it's not as if you
have a use for the place.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[Brett]

"vince" > wrote:
| "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
| > "vince" > wrote:
| > | Fred J. McCall > wrote in message n
| > | > :
| > | > :However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or there
| > abouts the
| > | > :south release in the 1920's
| > | >
| > | > I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took over
| > Ireland
| > | > until Liz I.
| > | >
| > |
| > | The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow and Henry
II
| > | The Treaty of Windsor in 1175 recognized the military conquest.
| > |
| > |
| > | http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0711.html
| >
| > From your link: "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English
had
| > little influence over Ireland. Henry feared that foreign or domestic
| > enemies would use Ireland as a base for attacking him."
|
| Apples and oranges.

No, your comment implied total control since the 12th Century, your
reference says otherwise.

[Robert A. Fowler]

"ZZBunker" > wrote in message
om...
> Jim Watt > wrote in message
>...
> > On 4 Aug 2003 18:08:45 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote:
> >
> > > The original lease was a hundred years.
> > > Since then, it's been extended. Since Cuba is desparately
> > > in need of US tourism money far more than it's
> > > need of Gitmo or UN money.
> >
> > I thought it was illegal for US citizens to go there at present.
>
> It's hardly illegal, since the Navy has a base there.
> And the CIA is known to frequent many places in the Carribean.
> And the State Department, who are US Citizens hopefully,
> can do pretty much whatever they want to, with foreign relations.
> And the International Olympics Officials are there constantly.
>

It's not illigal to travel to Cuba, it's illigal to do buisniss with Cuba or
Cuban companies.
- You can travel there, but while you're there you can't spend any money.
So it's effectivly illigal for turist travel.

Note there is a procedure to get exceptions to the rule and food and medice
can be sold to Cuba.
Plus you can send a small $500(?) amount of money to your relatives in cuba
each year.

> > Fidel does not bank the rent cheque for your occupied territory
> >
> > (or so he said on television, I have no personal knowledge of his
> > finances)
>
> I don't bank US Government Checks either. That's
> sorta like investing in Money Markets. Which
> is even sillier than investing in an
> Ivy League Education.

You missed the English/American transaltion there. "Bank check" = "Cash
check"

Money is sitting in an escrow account some where.

[trim]

[Robert A. Fowler]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On 5 Aug 2003 17:33:08 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote:
>
> >Jim Watt > wrote in message
>...
> >> On 4 Aug 2003 18:08:45 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote:
> >>
> >> > The original lease was a hundred years.
> >> > Since then, it's been extended. Since Cuba is desparately
> >> > in need of US tourism money far more than it's
> >> > need of Gitmo or UN money.
> >>
> >> I thought it was illegal for US citizens to go there at present.
> >
> >It's hardly illegal,
>
> CNN report otherwise:
>
> "On President George W. Bush's orders, the Treasury
> Department has begun an energetic campaign to track down
> and punish Americans who defy U.S. travel restrictions to the
> communist-run island, the only country in the world off-limits
> to most Americans."
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/08/23/cuba.us.travelban/
>

You missed the important paragraph from that article:

"Since May, hundreds of Americans who didn't even have their passports
stamped have received these notices, with fines that can go as high as
$50,000.
The law forbids unauthorized Americans from spending money there,
effectively preventing them from traveling. Critics say that's a violation
of the First and Fifth amendments, which guarantee freedom of expression and
other individual rights. "

[trim]

So now it's an "individual right" to defy economic sanctions?

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Jim > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> Hey, Britain is still in the grip of William's invaders of 1066, and
>> there are plenty of Viking occupiers still lording it over their serfs.
>>
>> And don't even get me _started_ about those Roman carpetbaggers.
>>
>>
>> How many generations of resident family do you need, before you can call
>> where you were born "home"?
>
>So long as they are held against their will by force of arms...

Can I ask for a donation for the Iceni Liberation Front, then?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[vince]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "vince" > wrote:
> | "Brett" > wrote in message
> >...
> | > "vince" > wrote:
> | > | Fred J. McCall > wrote in message n
> | > | > :
> | > | > :However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or there
> abouts the
> | > | > :south release in the 1920's
> | > | >
> | > | > I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took over
> Ireland
> | > | > until Liz I.
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > | The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow and Henry
> II
> | > | The Treaty of Windsor in 1175 recognized the military conquest.
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0711.html
> | >
> | > From your link: "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English
> had
> | > little influence over Ireland. Henry feared that foreign or domestic
> | > enemies would use Ireland as a base for attacking him."
> |
> | Apples and oranges.
>
> No, your comment implied total control since the 12th Century, your
> reference says otherwise.

My coomment was "The Military occupation of Ireland began under
Strongbow and Henry II" Tehat is undoubtedly correct. As ain the
war of the roses in England, the central power (the king) had to deal
with regional powers ( the barons) htis truggle was a fact of British
hsitory throughout the plantagenate era. Ireland, lke amny other
areas was caught up in htis game among competing anglo norman
warlords.

Vince

[ZZBunker]

Jim Watt > wrote in message >...
> On 5 Aug 2003 17:33:08 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote:
>
> >Jim Watt > wrote in message >...
> >> On 4 Aug 2003 18:08:45 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote:
> >>
> >> > The original lease was a hundred years.
> >> > Since then, it's been extended. Since Cuba is desparately
> >> > in need of US tourism money far more than it's
> >> > need of Gitmo or UN money.
> >>
> >> I thought it was illegal for US citizens to go there at present.
> >
> >It's hardly illegal,
>
> CNN report otherwise:
>
> "On President George W. Bush's orders, the Treasury
> Department has begun an energetic campaign to track down
> and punish Americans who defy U.S. travel restrictions to the
> communist-run island, the only country in the world off-limits
> to most Americans."

That's nice. But if CNN or BBC actually had an employee with
IQ > 80, it would be better.

>
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/08/23/cuba.us.travelban/
>
> >> Checked my memberships and suggestions that I joined that
> >> organisation are baseless.
>
> Unless they are affilliated to the IARU or you are bombing
> the British Legion I'm safe.
>

We've ceased bombing everywhere for the moment,
until we can find a really neato target like Bin Laden to bomb.


> > But of us don't care if they're baseless, since they're
> > obviously not Cruise-Bomb less, or Reinforced-Cement less.
> >
> >
> >> As for paying $100 dollars for a visa to visit your country, I
> >> don't think so. Cuba sounds more interesting, but not
> >> the concentration camp.
> >
> > That's good to know. Since we have to keep reminding
> > you British that we don't *have* a country.
>
> Perhaps thats why you are illegally occupying other people's
> although the CIA do list the USA as a country:

The *CIA* would have to list it as a country,
since the CIA is run by the *Pentagon*, not the US.


> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
>
> > We have 50 States. Britian has a country, but
> > it doesn't have bears, lobsters, or bear rifles.
>
> I still believe that the reason America invaded was an
> acute shortage of baths. Many of your bathrooms are
> without and Dubya missunderstood the word ba'ath.

Of course our bathrooms are without.
Since we got bathrooms on the *Moon*,
and Britain's only got bathrooms in France,
and some other political wastelands
like Stalingrad, Berln, and Baghdad.


> PS: its spelt Britain and its in a better state.

[Mary Shafer]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 15:59:56 GMT, (The
Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

> On 6 Aug 2003 08:45:07 -0700, (vince) wrote:

> >Ireland was essentially a proprietary colony. Large land grant were
> >awarded ... to anglo norman soldier adventurers who coudl then
> >go and fight to take the land from the locals.
>
> Much like the United States then. When do you intend to end the
> military occupation of Nebraska? I mean, really: it's not as if you
> have a use for the place.

The plans for the colonization of America were directly taken from the
contemporaneous plans for colonizing Ireland. Same layout for
colonies, same lists of supplies for colonists, etc. Read "Martin's
Hundred" by Ivor Noel Hume for more detail and references.

The colonists were, by then, English, not Anglo-Norman. There were
probably some Welsh and Scots colonists, too, of course, but the real
flood of Scots followed Culloden and the Enclosure Acts. A lot of
those Scots ended up in North Carolina, by the way. Gabaldon did her
research well on that one.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Jim Watt]

On 6 Aug 2003 18:17:30 -0700, (ZZBunker) wrote:

>But if CNN or BBC actually had an employee with
> IQ > 80, it would be better.

CNN keep it that way so as not to confuse the president.

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[vince]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "vince" > wrote:
> | "Brett" > wrote in message
> >...
> | > "vince" > wrote:
> | > | "Brett" > wrote in message
> >...
> | > | > "vince" > wrote:
> | > | > | Fred J. McCall > wrote in message n
> | > | > | > :
> | > | > | > :However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or
> there
> abouts the
> | > | > | > :south release in the 1920's
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took
> over
> Ireland
> | > | > | > until Liz I.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow and
> Henry
> II
> | > | > | The Treaty of Windsor in 1175 recognized the military
> conquest.
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > | http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0711.html
> | > | >
> | > | > From your link: "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the
> English
> had
> | > | > little influence over Ireland. Henry feared that foreign or
> domestic
> | > | > enemies would use Ireland as a base for attacking him."
> | > |
> | > | Apples and oranges.
> | >
> | > No, your comment implied total control since the 12th Century, your
> | > reference says otherwise.
> |
> | My coomment was "The Military occupation of Ireland began under
> | Strongbow and Henry II" Tehat is undoubtedly correct.
>
> What part of "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had
> LITTLE INFLUENCE over Ireland" do you find difficult to understand. A
> military occupation in the 12th Century does not imply that the control
> was absolute or that the occupation was continuous for three centuries.
> If you had bothered reading the rest of the history you presented as
> evidence you would have found that a good number of the Irish appeared
> to enjoy being part of the struggle for power in the British Isles and a
> occupation British Army didn't spend three centuries putting down the
> natives.

you clearl do not understand either the statement or Irish History.
In the 12th- 15c century "England" had relatively little influence.
That is becasue the military occupation was by anglo normans, but only
nominally in favor of England as opposed to themselves. it was
occupation by "English" but only nominally by England.

As teh BBC puts it

This is when the trouble became big trouble. For Diarmait promptly
went shopping for mercenaries among the nastiest and greediest
possible bunch of knights. These were the Anglo-Normans who, around
the 1160s, seemed to be on the losing end of the war against the Welsh
princes of Gwynedd. They had lost castles, land and peasants. They
were in an ugly mood and they were looking for somewhere to recoup
their losses. Enter Diarmait. Spread the word, the likes of Robert
fitzStephen and Richard fitzGilbert de Clare (known to his friends,
and especially to his many enemies, as 'Strongbow') must have said:
'Forget about Wales; forget about those unpleasantnesses in the
mountains and valleys. Come west young knights. Ireland will be a
piece of cake. It's said that the natives are primitive. But the
pastures are green. So what are you waiting for?'.

Within a year Diarmait had his throne back in Dublin. But he also now
had an army of Anglo-Normans who weren't about to go away now that the
job was done. In fact, from the beginning, Diarmait had known this. He
not only expected but wanted the likes of Strongbow to stick around,
lest his old enemies get ideas of booting him out again. Robert
fitzStephen was quite right when he told his followers that Diarmait
'loves our race; he is encouraging our race to come here and has
decided to settle them in this island and give them permanent
roots...'. And Diarmait even went to the trouble of marrying his
daughter to Strongbow to make sure that the alliance had staying
power.

Their agreement spelled out that if none of Diarmait's sons survived
(and one had been blinded, another been taken hostage, another was
illegitimate), then Strongbow could even inherit the throne of
Leinster himself! 'The Irish kings did homage to Henry as they would
to any High King...' At which point Henry II suddenly sat up and took
notice of what was going on in the west. He had meant to use
Diarmait's appeal to get a foothold in Ireland. What he had
inadvertently created was a monster: a colony of Anglo-Normans, who
answered to exactly the kind of jumped-up superbaron Henry was busy
sitting on in every other part of his enormous empire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/nations/ireland_invasion_03.shtml

"The English identity which the settlers voiced with growing stridency
in the fourteenth century had older roots. The initial incursions into
Ireland had been by marcher knights and other freelances from south
Wales hired by Diarmait MacMurchadha, the King of Leinster. However,
the rapid intervention of Henry II ensured that from 1171, the main
beneficiaries of the conquests were men associated with the royal
court and military household, some of whom retained estates in England
and Wales. However unruly they might be in the Irish regions, they
held their lands from the crown and saw themselves as the king's
subjects. Royal power was sufficient to prevent the conquests from
developing into an unregulated scramble and to ensure that Ireland
remained politically tied to England."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/nations/medieval_ireland_03.shtml

So the bottom line was that it was a military occupation, not a
poltical fusion until much later. As a resutl "england" had little
influence but the occupiers were unquestionably Anglo Normans

Vince

[Brett]

"vince" > wrote:
| "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
| > "vince" > wrote:
| > | "Brett" > wrote in message
| > >...
| > | > "vince" > wrote:
| > | > | "Brett" > wrote in message
| > >...
| > | > | > "vince" > wrote:
| > | > | > | Fred J. McCall > wrote in message n
| > | > | > | > :
| > | > | > | > :However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172
or
| > there
| > abouts the
| > | > | > | > :south release in the 1920's
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took
| > over
| > Ireland
| > | > | > | > until Liz I.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow
and
| > Henry
| > II
| > | > | > | The Treaty of Windsor in 1175 recognized the military
| > conquest.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0711.html
| > | > | >
| > | > | > From your link: "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the
| > English
| > had
| > | > | > little influence over Ireland. Henry feared that foreign or
| > domestic
| > | > | > enemies would use Ireland as a base for attacking him."
| > | > |
| > | > | Apples and oranges.
| > | >
| > | > No, your comment implied total control since the 12th Century,
your
| > | > reference says otherwise.
| > |
| > | My coomment was "The Military occupation of Ireland began under
| > | Strongbow and Henry II" Tehat is undoubtedly correct.
| >
| > What part of "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English
had
| > LITTLE INFLUENCE over Ireland" do you find difficult to understand.
A
| > military occupation in the 12th Century does not imply that the
control
| > was absolute or that the occupation was continuous for three
centuries.
| > If you had bothered reading the rest of the history you presented as
| > evidence you would have found that a good number of the Irish
appeared
| > to enjoy being part of the struggle for power in the British Isles
and a
| > occupation British Army didn't spend three centuries putting down
the
| > natives.
|
| you clearl do not understand either the statement or Irish History.
| In the 12th- 15c century "England" had relatively little influence.
| That is becasue the military occupation was by anglo normans, but only
| nominally in favor of England as opposed to themselves. it was
| occupation by "English" but only nominally by England.
|
| As teh BBC puts it

And you totally fail to understand the comment was "Before Henry VIII
came to power in 1509 the English had LITTLE INFLUENCE over Ireland",
waffling away with comments from a TV show will not change that fact.

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:45:42 -0700, Mary Shafer
> wrote:

>> Much like the United States then. When do you intend to end the
>> military occupation of Nebraska? I mean, really: it's not as if you
>> have a use for the place.
>
>The plans for the colonization of America were directly taken from the
>contemporaneous plans for colonizing Ireland.

So, much like the United States, then?

Or any of the other European colonising experiences, including the
period after colonial polities severed ties with their European
colonial governments. As it was, the relevant immediately
pre-Revolutionary US experience was of a British government limiting
further colonisation and expansion westwards, much to the chagrin of
local land speculators and their surveyors with youthful histories of
cherry-tree surgery. Colonisation continued in US history long after
1783.

>The colonists were, by then, English, not Anglo-Norman.

Not just English, I'm afraid. Nobody in their right mind could
possibly conceive of the European colonisation of America originating
with the Anglo-Normans (bar Templar fantasists): my original
reference was to the situation in 1170, and the fact that the
Anglo-Norman "colonisation" of Ireland was not uniuque, and like most
similar Norman expansion, cannot be shoe-horned into modern
prejudicial concepts of "colonialism".

> There were
>probably some Welsh and Scots colonists, too, of course,

There were, alongside all manner of other nationalities. Paul Revere
was not descended from what might not be popularly regarded as common
English stock.

>but the real
>flood of Scots followed Culloden and the Enclosure Acts. A lot of
>those Scots ended up in North Carolina, by the way.

Like Flora MacDonald, perhaps. Remind me of which way they and the
immigrant Irish jumped when the local slave-owning fatcat bigwigs
started to object to central government taxation actually being
actively collected for once.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:46:25 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Seems my last name was shared by a fairly large number of folks in the
>county, from the Sheriff on down, and that they had something of a
>reputation for standing together against pretty much everyone else.

Pretty much standard North American Scotch-mist jockaramic mythology.
Strange how nobody celebrates the mass of Scottish immigration to
North America, which consisted of economic migrants with little or no
Robin Hoodised retrospective anti-authoritarian posturing. But then
it's not quite as entertaining to discover the single Scots ancestor
(amongst the millions of less romantic ancestors, such as English,
German, Lithuanian or second-generation American) was a teenage
indentured servant and not Rob Roy.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[Fred J. McCall]

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

:On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:46:25 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Seems my last name was shared by a fairly large number of folks in the
:>county, from the Sheriff on down, and that they had something of a
:>reputation for standing together against pretty much everyone else.
:
:Pretty much standard North American Scotch-mist jockaramic mythology.

What the hell is that supposed to mean in English?

:Strange how nobody celebrates the mass of Scottish immigration to
:North America, which consisted of economic migrants with little or no
:Robin Hoodised retrospective anti-authoritarian posturing. But then
:it's not quite as entertaining to discover the single Scots ancestor
:(amongst the millions of less romantic ancestors, such as English,
:German, Lithuanian or second-generation American) was a teenage
:indentured servant and not Rob Roy.

What are you smoking to get THAT out of the paragraph you quote? I
merely note the fact as it existed. The McCalls in that particular
part of North Carolina were numerous and known to be a touchy and
feuding lot if crossed. You somehow permute this into, well, I'm not
sure WHAT you permuted it into.

Note that I wasn't related to any of them, by the way. My family got
here out of Canada via upstate New York, which is a hell of a long way
from North Carolina.

Looks to me like you have a lot of your own silly prejudices you need
to learn to get around.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Jim Watt]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:10:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

(that the IRA were not an international terrorist organisation)

Just that they take holidays in Spain, Colombia, the USA,
Palestine, Libya and it seems Sri Lanka and IRAQ

+++

Real IRA boss jailed for 20 years

By Kevin Smith and Stephen Cunningham
(Additional reporting by Alex Richardson)

DUBLIN, Aug 7 (Reuters) - The leader of a renegade guerrilla group
behind the bloodiest bomb attack in Northern Ireland's violent
history was jailed for 20 years on Thursday.

Real IRA boss Michael McKevitt, 53, was earlier convicted of directing
terrorism, a charge created after the 1998 Omagh bomb blast that
killed 29 people and injured hundreds.

"We have had a small victory...but we are still sitting in the
position where not one person has been charged with murder at
Omagh," said Michael Gallagher, who lost his 21-year-old son Aidan
in the blast.

McKevitt, a former quartermaster in the Irish Republican Army who
arranged a shipment of arms from Libya in the 1980s, was the first
person in the Irish Republic to be convicted of directing terrorism.

However, the recent discovery of a suspected guerrilla training camp
in a remote mountainous region has led to renewed fears of the
threat posed by republican dissidents, who are opposed to Northern
Ireland's peace process.

Dublin's non-jury Special Criminal Court stressed that McKevitt was
being punished for offences committed after the Omagh bombing, whose
fifth anniversary falls next week.

"This court must not allow itself to be seen to seek revenge for
that atrocity, and does not seek to do so," said judge Richard
Johnson.

MCKEVITT SLAMS "POLITICAL SHOW TRIAL"

McKevitt refused to attend the latter stages of his trial after
sacking his legal team in protest at what he called a "political
show trial".

But he did put in an appearance after his sentence was read out to
seek permission to appeal his conviction. His plea was refused but
he was allowed to apply for legal aid.

McKevitt, who comes from the Irish border town of Dundalk, was also
given six years for membership in an illegal organisation, the Real
IRA, to run concurrently.

He is married to the sister of the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands
who died in 1981.

The prosecution's case rested heavily on testimony by former FBI spy
David Rupert, who infiltrated the Real IRA while posing as the
group's chief fundraiser in the United States.

British and American security agencies paid Rupert, who is now
living under the FBI witness protection programme, more than $1
million to spy on Irish republican dissidents.

McKevitt's defence had tried to portray Rupert as a serial
fantasist, drawing attention to his shady business past as well as
connections to the Mafia and smugglers.

But the court ruled that Rupert, who struggled to fit his 6ft 5in
frame into the cramped witness box while giving evidence, was a
"truthful witness".

Rupert told the court how he sat in on Real IRA "council meetings"
while McKevitt and his followers planned a new wave of violence in
Britain and Northern Ireland that would "be spectacular and
overshadow Omagh".

The group sought to forge links with the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers
rebel group and were even looking into securing help from Iraq, the
court heard during the five-week trial.

ends;

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:17:09 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>:Pretty much standard North American Scotch-mist jockaramic mythology.
>
>What the hell is that supposed to mean in English?

The customary "Scotch-Irish" psuedo-clan folk myths.

>What are you smoking to get THAT out of the paragraph you quote? I
>merely note the fact as it existed. The McCalls in that particular
>part of North Carolina were numerous and known to be a touchy and
>feuding lot if crossed.

Unlike n-thousand others in the same time and place? Or millions of
others elsewhere?

> You somehow permute this into, well, I'm not
>sure WHAT you permuted it into.

I believe you're selectively projecting your own preconceptions onto
the past.

>Looks to me like you have a lot of your own silly prejudices you need
>to learn to get around.

Undoubtedly, but they're not actually on display in this thread.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:48:02 +0200, Jim Watt >
wrote:

>>What the hell is that supposed to mean in English?
>
>perhaps you chould take classes in English as a foreign
>language.

Perhaps better to learn local adjectives for North American tourists
claiming Scottish ethnicity while on holiday in Scotland.

Gavin Bailey
--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[ZZBunker]

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:45:42 -0700, Mary Shafer
> > wrote:
>
> >> Much like the United States then. When do you intend to end the
> >> military occupation of Nebraska? I mean, really: it's not as if you
> >> have a use for the place.
> >
> >The plans for the colonization of America were directly taken from the
> >contemporaneous plans for colonizing Ireland.
>
> So, much like the United States, then?

No, nothing like the US.
Since not long after the French and got here, we had to tell
them that we had no plans whatsoever for colonizing *America*.
The British can have their Canadian and South Pole wastelands.
The Spanish can have their Andean wasteland.
The French can have Los Angelos, since only
a Frenchman would want Los Angelos.

[Fred J. McCall]

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

:On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:17:09 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>:Pretty much standard North American Scotch-mist jockaramic mythology.
:>
:>What the hell is that supposed to mean in English?
:
:The customary "Scotch-Irish" psuedo-clan folk myths.
:
:>What are you smoking to get THAT out of the paragraph you quote? I
:>merely note the fact as it existed. The McCalls in that particular
:>part of North Carolina were numerous and known to be a touchy and
:>feuding lot if crossed.
:
:Unlike n-thousand others in the same time and place? Or millions of
:others elsewhere?

Moreso, yes.

:> You somehow permute this into, well, I'm not
:>sure WHAT you permuted it into.
:
:I believe you're selectively projecting your own preconceptions onto
:the past.

And I believe you're some sort of impacted Fenian loon.

:>Looks to me like you have a lot of your own silly prejudices you need
:>to learn to get around.
:
:Undoubtedly, but they're not actually on display in this thread.

I have to differ with you. I think they're QUITE on display.

You've convinced me you're a loon of the highest order to get any of
what you claim to see out of anything I said.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[vince]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "vince" > wrote:
> | "Brett" > wrote in message
> |
> |
> | > | you clearl do not understand either the statement or Irish
> History.
> | > | In the 12th- 15c century "England" had relatively little
> influence.
> | > | That is becasue the military occupation was by anglo normans, but
> only
> | > | nominally in favor of England as opposed to themselves. it was
> | > | occupation by "English" but only nominally by England.
> | > |
> | > | As the BBC puts it
> | >
> | > And you totally fail to understand the comment was "Before Henry
> VIII
> | > came to power in 1509 the English had LITTLE INFLUENCE over
> Ireland",
> | > waffling away with comments from a TV show will not change that
> fact.
> |
> | Do you remotely understand the difference between the "English" and
> | "England"?
>
> I do and I also have a good idea what is meant by the use of "ENGLISH"
> in the section from your reference (I will give you a clue in includes
> what you want to call Anglo Normans).
>
> | The influence of "American" corporations for example has little to do
> | with the "United States of America" as a government.
> |
> | In modern times Governments monopolized armies, and government is
> | structural. In the 12th to the 15 centuries, military occupation was
> | a business, in this cas, an Anglo norman business. "Nulle terre sans
> | seigneur" expressed the maxim in law. The feudal lord (the king)
> | granted land in return for support. The king had very little
> | influence over the private activities of these feudal lords.
>
> Check your reference on how effective their "occupation" was for the
> three centuries in question.
>
> | The Feudal system persisted throughout the Plantagenet era. With teh
> | coming of the Tudors governemtn chnged its structure. This also
> | affected Ireland.
> |
> | the military occupaiton of Ireland by Anglo nroman Free booters dates
> | back to Henry II
>
> Try reading your reference again, a military occupation occurred in the
> 12th Century, your reference goes into a lot of details on what occurred
> from that time until the Tudors.

If you read the Statutes of Kilkenny you will see what the overlords
were trying to do. it is a statute for a military occupation by and
for the benefit of anglo normans, not a statute designed to provide
political control by "England" For one thing, it was written in
FRENCH, the Norman legal language.

It is perfectly correct to say that "England" had little influence.
It is nonsense to say the "English" did not.


Vince

[Brett]

"vince" > wrote:
| "Brett" > wrote in message
>...


.....

| > Try reading your reference again, a military occupation occurred in
the
| > 12th Century, your reference goes into a lot of details on what
occurred
| > from that time until the Tudors.
|
| If you read the Statutes of Kilkenny you will see what the overlords
| were trying to do. it is a statute for a military occupation by and
| for the benefit of anglo normans, not a statute designed to provide
| political control by "England" For one thing, it was written in
| FRENCH, the Norman legal language.
|
| It is perfectly correct to say that "England" had little influence.
| It is nonsense to say the "English" did not.

Your reference was the source of that exact quote, so while some Irish
wanna-be might not agree with his own reference it doesn't make the
Irish wanna-be correct.
http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0900.html

"Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had LITTLE
INFLUENCE over Ireland."

[Brett]

"vincent Brannigan" > wrote:
| Brett wrote:
|
| > "vince" > wrote:
| > | "Brett" > wrote in message
| > >...
| >
| > ....
| >
| > | > Try reading your reference again, a military occupation occurred
in
| > the
| > | > 12th Century, your reference goes into a lot of details on what
| > occurred
| > | > from that time until the Tudors.
| > |
| > | If you read the Statutes of Kilkenny you will see what the
overlords
| > | were trying to do. it is a statute for a military occupation by
and
| > | for the benefit of anglo normans, not a statute designed to
provide
| > | political control by "England" For one thing, it was written in
| > | FRENCH, the Norman legal language.
| > |
| > | It is perfectly correct to say that "England" had little
influence.
| > | It is nonsense to say the "English" did not.
| >
| > Your reference was the source of that exact quote, so while some
Irish
| > wanna-be might not agree with his own reference it doesn't make the
| > Irish wanna-be correct.
| > http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0900.html
| >
| > "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had LITTLE
| > INFLUENCE over Ireland."
|
| Itimply does not mean what you claim

It means eactly what I said it means.

| the next line is
|
| "Henry feared that foreign or domestic enemies would use Ireland as a
base
| for
| . attacking him. In the past, Yorkist pretenders, such as Lambert
Simnel
| and
| .Perkin Warbeck, spent time in Ireland and got support from the Irish
| lords. Politically,
| . Henry needed to have the country under his control. "
|
| This is completely consistent with a lack of royal control over the
english
| miliatry occupation.
|
| the reference also says in the prior section
|
| "It was vital for the English settlers to have an efficient law code
and
| government if
| . they were to maintain control over the newly conquered country."
|
| To recapitulate . there was a military occupatiion of Ireland by
Anglo
| Norman free booters, who could justify their military conquests by a
| nominal allegiance to the King of England as a personal feudal lord.
This
| put the English invadeers in control of large sections of the country
as
| local miliatry warlords.

Try again by the time Henry VIII came to power those large sections were
small.

| For what its worth I ma descended form one of the key warlords , the
Butler
| family, dukes of Ormonde

So what - it just confirms my comment - you are just an Irish wanna-be.

[vincent Brannigan]

Brett wrote:

> "vince" > wrote:
> | "Brett" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> ....
>
> | > Try reading your reference again, a military occupation occurred in
> the
> | > 12th Century, your reference goes into a lot of details on what
> occurred
> | > from that time until the Tudors.
> |
> | If you read the Statutes of Kilkenny you will see what the overlords
> | were trying to do. it is a statute for a military occupation by and
> | for the benefit of anglo normans, not a statute designed to provide
> | political control by "England" For one thing, it was written in
> | FRENCH, the Norman legal language.
> |
> | It is perfectly correct to say that "England" had little influence.
> | It is nonsense to say the "English" did not.
>
> Your reference was the source of that exact quote, so while some Irish
> wanna-be might not agree with his own reference it doesn't make the
> Irish wanna-be correct.
> http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0900.html
>
> "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had LITTLE
> INFLUENCE over Ireland."

Itimply does not mean what you claim

the next line is

"Henry feared that foreign or domestic enemies would use Ireland as a base
for
.. attacking him. In the past, Yorkist pretenders, such as Lambert Simnel
and
..Perkin Warbeck, spent time in Ireland and got support from the Irish
lords. Politically,
.. Henry needed to have the country under his control. "

This is completely consistent with a lack of royal control over the english
miliatry occupation.

the reference also says in the prior section

"It was vital for the English settlers to have an efficient law code and
government if
.. they were to maintain control over the newly conquered country."

To recapitulate . there was a military occupatiion of Ireland by Anglo
Norman free booters, who could justify their military conquests by a
nominal allegiance to the King of England as a personal feudal lord. This
put the English invadeers in control of large sections of the country as
local miliatry warlords.

For what its worth I ma descended form one of the key warlords , the Butler
family, dukes of Ormonde

The Fitzgeralds as in John Fitzgerald Kennedy, are another of these norman
freebooters.

Vince

[William Black]

"vince" > wrote in message
m...

>. The feudal lord (the king)
> granted land in return for support. The king had very little
> influence over the private activities of these feudal lords.
>
> The Feudal system persisted throughout the Plantagenet era.

Well on another news group I'd ask you to define feudal. :o)

However here I merely ask you to tell me in what way any English king was
burdened by 'overmighty subjects' for any long period of time after about
1300. A couple of them were, but they tended to get murdered and replaced
by someone who wasn't in reasonably short order.

The only obvious exception I can think of is Henry VI and he isn't a really
good example as the kingdom was far too riven by chaos and war to give over
too much time to repress Ireland.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[vincent Brannigan]

Brett wrote:

> "
>
> So what - it just confirms my comment - you are just an Irish wanna-be.

no, I am an Irish citizen

Vince Brannigan

[vincent Brannigan]

Brett wrote:

> "vincent Brannigan" > wrote:
> |
> |
> | Brett wrote:
> |
> | > "
> | >
> | > So what - it just confirms my comment - you are just an Irish
> wanna-be.
> |
> | no, I am an Irish citizen
>
> No you are an Irish wanna-be.

The Brannigans are listed in records back to the first English
occupation. We are a branch of the O'niall
My mothers family are Butlers from Wexford

I know what I am. 15/16ths Irish

Vince

[vincent Brannigan]

William Black wrote:

> "vince" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> >. The feudal lord (the king)
> > granted land in return for support. The king had very little
> > influence over the private activities of these feudal lords.
> >
> > The Feudal system persisted throughout the Plantagenet era.
>
> Well on another news group I'd ask you to define feudal. :o)

Fair enough, but whatever definion you prefer, the anglo norman system was
feudal.

>
> However here I merely ask you to tell me in what way any English king was
> burdened by 'overmighty subjects' for any long period of time after about
> 1300. A couple of them were, but they tended to get murdered and replaced
> by someone who wasn't in reasonably short order.
>
> The only obvious exception I can think of is Henry VI and he isn't a really
> good example as the kingdom was far too riven by chaos and war to give over
> too much time to repress Ireland.

Ireland was a special case. There was little Royal control , and certainly the
island was rife with disloyalty to various kings.
however the anglo Normans had most, though not all of the country well in hand.

Vince



Vince

[Brett]

"vincent Brannigan" > wrote:
| Brett wrote:
|
| > "vincent Brannigan" > wrote:
| > |
| > |
| > | Brett wrote:
| > |
| > | > "
| > | >
| > | > So what - it just confirms my comment - you are just an Irish
| > wanna-be.
| > |
| > | no, I am an Irish citizen
| >
| > No you are an Irish wanna-be.
|
| The Brannigans are listed in records back to the first English
| occupation.

So what, there are probably a good number of them mentioned in the
records for Newgate Prison as well.

| We are a branch of the O'niall
| My mothers family are Butlers from Wexford

Butler has Norman heritage - I thought your claim was that you were
Irish.

| I know what I am. 15/16ths Irish

Where were your parents born?
Where were you born?
If the answer to either question includes someplace other than Ireland,
you are Irish wanna-be.

[Jim Watt]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 16:35:00 GMT, "Brett" >
wrote:

>"vincent Brannigan" > wrote:
>|
>|
>| Brett wrote:
>|
>| > "
>| >
>| > So what - it just confirms my comment - you are just an Irish
>wanna-be.
>|
>| no, I am an Irish citizen
>
>No you are an Irish wanna-be.

I think you have to concede if Vince holds Irish citizenship
then he can reasonably claim to be Irish

My claim is somewhat more tenuous:

"Fifty years before William the Conqueror landed in England an Irish
mercenary named Anselan O'Kyan landed in Argyll. For his services in
fighting against the vikings King Malcolm of Scotland awarded him
lands on the eastern shore of Loch Lomond in 1016.

Anselan was the son of the King of Ulster and had in his retinue his
seneschal (steward or major-domo) who was named McWattie. Thus the
first known Watt was the son of an Irish Wattie from Ulster. "

But I can content myself by being English, British and Gibraltarian
and thats QUITE enough.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[vincent Brannigan]

Brett wrote:

>
> Where were your parents born?
> Where were you born?
> If the answer to either question includes someplace other than Ireland,
> you are Irish wanna-be.

The heir to the British throne is a British wanna be? since his daddy is
ole phil the Greek?

Or De Valera was irish wanna be?

the Irish know who they are

Vince

[Brett]

"vincent Brannigan" > wrote:
| Brett wrote:
|
| >
| > Where were your parents born?
| > Where were you born?
| > If the answer to either question includes someplace other than
Ireland,
| > you are Irish wanna-be.
|
| The heir to the British throne is a British wanna be? since his daddy
is
| ole phil the Greek?

Ol Phil served in the Royal Navy before he renounced his Greek
citizenship and became a naturalized British citizen.

| Or De Valera was irish wanna be?

Yes.

| the Irish know who they are

And a large number, like you are just Irish wanna-be's, your answer
confirmed that you and your parents were not born there.

[Brett]

"Jim Watt" > wrote:
| On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 16:35:00 GMT, "Brett" >
| wrote:
|
| >"vincent Brannigan" > wrote:
| >|
| >|
| >| Brett wrote:
| >|
| >| > "
| >| >
| >| > So what - it just confirms my comment - you are just an Irish
| >wanna-be.
| >|
| >| no, I am an Irish citizen
| >
| >No you are an Irish wanna-be.
|
| I think you have to concede if Vince holds Irish citizenship
| then he can reasonably claim to be Irish

As I said Irish wanna-be.

[Jim Watt]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 19:57:35 GMT, "Brett" >
wrote:

>"Jim Watt" > wrote:
>| On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 16:35:00 GMT, "Brett" >
>| wrote:
>|
>| >"vincent Brannigan" > wrote:
>| >|
>| >|
>| >| Brett wrote:
>| >|
>| >| > "
>| >| >
>| >| > So what - it just confirms my comment - you are just an Irish
>| >wanna-be.
>| >|
>| >| no, I am an Irish citizen
>| >
>| >No you are an Irish wanna-be.
>|
>| I think you have to concede if Vince holds Irish citizenship
>| then he can reasonably claim to be Irish
>
>As I said Irish wanna-be.

I prefer the term 'Plastic Paddies' when appropriate.

Having met a few who have not been there for six
generations who knew more about the place than me
who had the week before.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

[vince]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "vincent Brannigan" > wrote:
> | Brett wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > Where were your parents born?
> | > Where were you born?
> | > If the answer to either question includes someplace other than
> Ireland,
> | > you are Irish wanna-be.
> |
> | The heir to the British throne is a British wanna be? since his daddy
> is
> | ole phil the Greek?
>
> Ol Phil served in the Royal Navy before he renounced his Greek
> citizenship and became a naturalized British citizen.

Im an Irish citizen from Birth. Ole Nick the Greek needed a job so he
joined the royalnavy. Married money and changed his name, jsut like
lots of immigrants to the USA. I have more ancestors who were British
subjects then he does.

He had so many german relatives they couldnt invite them to the
wedding

I guess the will elt anyone be british

Talk about a Wanna-Be



>
> | Or De Valera was irish wanna be?
>
> Yes.

Res ispa loquitur.

Vincent Brannigan

[Brett]

"vince" > wrote:
| "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
| > "vincent Brannigan" > wrote:
| > | Brett wrote:
| > |
| > | >
| > | > Where were your parents born?
| > | > Where were you born?
| > | > If the answer to either question includes someplace other than
| > Ireland,
| > | > you are Irish wanna-be.
| > |
| > | The heir to the British throne is a British wanna be? since his
daddy
| > is
| > | ole phil the Greek?
| >
| > Ol Phil served in the Royal Navy before he renounced his Greek
| > citizenship and became a naturalized British citizen.
|
| Im an Irish citizen from Birth.

So why don't you do the US a favor and go live there

[William Black]

"vince" > wrote in message
...

> I guess the will elt anyone be british

The ones that didn't invade us run here anyway.

It makes life entertaining.

It also means you don't have to eat domestic cooking with decent ethnic food
shops and restaurants on every street corner.

Having once been the home of the greatest empire the world has ever seen has
its compensations, unless you actually like food boiled to death.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[David Henderson]

In article >, Jim wrote:
>> And which bit of the island of Ireland is occupied against the wishes of a
>> majority of its inhabitants?
> William
> Maybe I am mistaken, however I beleive there is only one island called
> Ireland and one people called Irish.

Which contains two states, one a republic, one a constitutional monarchy and
two nationalities, one Irish Rebublican, one British.

> From the history I have read, Tails I have been told when visiting, I am
> lead to beleive the Irish would have prefered
> the British had left a few hundred years ago and the British stayed by force
> or arms.

Probably analogous "tales" can be told when visiting Indian reservations in
Yankland. **** happens, though, and lines have to be drawn. What the present
inhabitants think is more important than what those a few hundred years ago
thought.

> Currently the Island is split into notheran Ireland (British) and Sotheran
> Ireland (the country).

No, it's divided into Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, and
the Republic of Ireland.

> On my Visit to Ireland I came to the understanding from talking to Irishmen
> that the majority of "Irish" would perfer the British left...

The "Irish" as a whole aren't relevent, just as the "British" as a whole
aren't. The majority of both don't live in Northern Ireland. The residents
of Northern Ireland are the only people whose voices are relevent in
the debate over whether Northern Ireland should leave the Union. I say
"leave" the union, as they may choose to apply to join the Republic, but,
of course, the Republic could refuse. At that stage, and only at that
stage, do the opinions of the residents of the Republic matter.

> The Irish I talked with made it clear there was 1 Ireland and the only
> reason there is a notheren is a minority of Irishmen (ulsters??) wish the
> Brits
> to remain.

There is only one Ireland, but it's a geographical term, in the same way
there is only one Great Britain. There are, however, two Irish states,
in the same way there are three states in Great Britain.

A majority of the residents of Northern Ireland presently wish to remain
in the Union. Please note that whilst all of Northern Ireland is in Ulster,
the two are not interchangable, as there exist three counties in Ulster
that are part of the Republic, since they were majority Nationalist.

--
I give confidential press briefings.
You leak.
He's been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets act.
-- Irregular verbs, Yes Prime Minister.

[ZZBunker]

David Henderson > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Jim wrote:
> >> And which bit of the island of Ireland is occupied against the wishes of a
> >> majority of its inhabitants?
> > William
> > Maybe I am mistaken, however I beleive there is only one island called
> > Ireland and one people called Irish.
>
> Which contains two states, one a republic, one a constitutional monarchy and
> two nationalities, one Irish Rebublican, one British.

It contains *three* nationalities. The Irish Republic,
the English, and the Scottish. The difference
between the English and the Scottish, is that
the Scottish have military training, they seem to actually know
something about the military, winning Battles, and Submarines.
Whereas the English are really only good for a French
joke or two every now and then.