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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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.

(Brian Allardice) wrote in message .ca...

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

"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
m...
(TinCanMan) wrote in message
. com...
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.

"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

"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

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