If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ??? | suckthis.com | Naval Aviation | 12 | August 7th 03 06:56 AM |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS | TMOliver | Naval Aviation | 19 | July 24th 03 06:59 PM |