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

"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

(Brian Allardice) wrote:

:"4.A.3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government
r 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

(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

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

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
rotecting? 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

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

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

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

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
rotecting? 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

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)