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

:The US government has shown the same
:respect for the principles of international law most of the past
:century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all.


International Law is a concept not a reality. Law implies someone
enforces behavior and punishes misbehavior as directed by the law.
There is no international enforcement, nor international legislative
or adjudication bodies. The UN is a meeting of ambassadors who can
purpose treaties which member nations can accept or reject. Imagine a
community with a written set of suggestions for proper behavior, but
no courts, police or judges....... Thats 'international law'.

"Jim Watt" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:07:50 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:


"Jim Watt" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:

They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's

In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
purports to support it says:

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

You can find the rest at
http://www.gibnet.com/texts/udhr.htm


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Oh, my! Perhaps in your zeal to find some justification, any
justification
for your belief, you've skipped over the operative word. That word is
arbitrary. Did you miss that or did that part not suit your preconceived
agenda? You see, they are detained within the laws of war and are
detained
in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The reason is because they are
combatants or supported combatants. Nothing arbitrary about it at all.
Very
objective. Get caught under arms, get locked up for the duration.

Duration of what? the Bush dynasty?

There is nothing in the UDHR that says it only applies to civilians
and there is no war in progress.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Did you forget about the arbitrary part? Your observation there is no war
iss irrelevant and carries no weight. That a state of war exists would be up
to the combatants to decide. The UDHR fails at the word arbitrary.

Jim Watt wrote:

:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:29:06 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Jim Watt wrote:
:
::On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote:
::
::We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those
::who gave them aid and comfort.
::
::I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed
::their country and buildings.
:
:Yeah, they do. Most of 'em still don't like Saddam and the Baathists.
:
:I have not seen the Disney version yet.

Apparently you're too busy with the Goebbels version. That's the one
where the US comes in, levels the country, and murders everyone but
the bad guys.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

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

I'm not thrilled with it either, but it seems to be what the GC's say.
Either there has been this loophole since the GC's were written or I'm
misreading it.

It does look a bit like a loophole to me. I don't imagine anyone really
expected someone to say "Of course there is *no doubt* ... they are obviously
*not* POW's"

Yep. Of course, I seem to recall that the Chinese in Korea tried to do
something similiar with their forced confessions from pilots that they
had been dropping biological weapons on the rice fields and then try
them for war crimes. Fortunately we got most everyone back after that
unpleasantness so there wasn't a big deal out of it, but the GC's seem
to have more loopholes then one would like.

I never claimed everyone else scrupulously observed the GC's... Mind you, the
VietNamese claimed with McCain there was "no doubt" that he was not a POW, he
was obviously an Air Pirate... You can see why that loophole in Art.5 troubles
me.

Indeed. But I'm not sure that if the US abstained from taking
advantage of it, everyone else would (and technically the US is not
taking advantage of it, having declared that they aren't even part of
the POW-Civilian-Other process).

Depends on their chain of command and uniform. In pictures (stock
footage?) I saw on the news and in papers I saw no mark that
distinighished them, but I don't know, which was why I tried to be
vague about it. No mark, no protection, but they might have done
something about that.

I might be reading it wrong here, but 4.A.1 (applying to the forces and
associated militias &c) contains none of the conditions of 4.A.2 (applying to
"other" militias &c). I was a bit surprised when I noticed that... I wonder
where Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys would fit in....

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.

Even although written in 49, there is still a vague *19th C* feel to the whole
document, isn't there....

Agreed. There seems to have been concious effort to make the language
similar to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

The 1977 protocols were supposed to fix it all up and make it more
modern, but the US passed on ratifying it because they felt it was too
protective of resistance groups that they would have to deal with in
the future.

The problem that I see with it is Article 44 section 3-
"3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from
the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish
themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an
attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack.
Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts
where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant
cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a
combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is
engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack
in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be
considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1
(c)."

In other words, you can shoot all you want when you have the advantage
of surprise, and then melt back into the civillian population without
loss of PoW status when captured. You need not have any sort of c-o-c,
distinguishing mark, or anything like that, as long as you carry arms
openly WHILE FIGHTING you are protected; put down the gun and hide
back in the general population all you wish.

Chris Manteuffel

Jim Watt wrote:

:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:08 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Jim Watt wrote:
:
::On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:
::
::They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's
::
::In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
:urports to support it says:
::
::Article 9
::No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
:
:And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next?
:
:I appreciate you may not find the word in the McDonalds dictionary
given away free with large fries) or on American television where
:words of more than six letters are avoided to prevent confusion.
:
:ar·bi·trary (adjective)
:
:1. Depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)
: and not fixed by law.

They're getting treatment (and not getting treatment) as prescribed by
both treaty and law.

:2.1 Not restrained or limited in the exercise of
: power : ruling by absolute authority

Restrained by the rules already put in place for the holding of these
folks and the conduct of their hearings.

:2.2 Marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often
: tyrannical exercise of power

This would appear to have been the property of the folks being held,
not the folks holding them.

:2.3 Using unlimited personal power without considering
: other people's wishes:

See? Like I said. Not arbitrary.

You've proved two things he

1) You can read.

2) Your comprehension isn't up to your reading.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"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

"David Evans" wrote in message
...

A fine example of this is the US spy planes which persistently defile
Chinese air space. 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.

Pedants note: the 10 and 20 mile limits are from memory, and actual
distances may be different. The concept of this post is true.


I'm working from memory as well, but I believe the distances are 12 and 200
miles. Territorial waters and national airspace use the same limit, 12
miles. The 200 mile distance is an exclusive economic zone. Other nations
have the freedom of navigation in this area, air and sea, but only the
nation concerned has the right to fish in this area and to minerals on the
floor.

"Jim" wrote in message ...
"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

But, just like Al Qauda. They who supported the IRA after
about 1960, aren't even Americans. After the IRA went
commie in the 30's, their Ameican support went
from close to 100% to close to 0%, just about overnight.
You probably have to ask The New York Yankees who
supporting them now, since they're probably the
only people who know.

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

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:57:44 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Jim Watt wrote:

:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:08 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Jim Watt wrote:
:
::On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:
::
::They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's
::
::In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US
:urports to support it says:
::
::Article 9
::No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
:
:And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next?
:
:I appreciate you may not find the word in the McDonalds dictionary
given away free with large fries) or on American television where
:words of more than six letters are avoided to prevent confusion.
:
:ar·bi·trary (adjective)
:
:1. Depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)
: and not fixed by law.

They're getting treatment (and not getting treatment) as prescribed by
both treaty and law.

I believe the GC prohibits torturing prisioners to extract
information.

See? Like I said. Not arbitrary.

Strange it seems arbitary to me, indeed the reason they
are in Cuba is because your Government is anxious about the
legal basis of its grubby little operation.

--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com