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

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

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

"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?

"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?????????

"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

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

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

"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

"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 Watt" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:39:38 -0500, "Jim" wrote:


"David Evans" wrote in message
news
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