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

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
erspective is based on.
:
:Mind you he might make a better president than the one
:you have at present.
:
:http://www.runjerryrun.com/

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

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

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.

"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?

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
f 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

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

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

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
f 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

(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.


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