On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:08:42 +0000 (UTC) Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:13:41 -0400, Celejar wrote in > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [snip] > > [0] http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1169078731.shtml > > ..neocon propaganda show, ignores the fact that the Taliban was the > Afghan government on 9/11 2001 when W declared war and invoked NATO > treaty Article 5 and by implication the full 4 Geneva Conventions > under their Articles 2 and 3 in all 4 Conventions since some of the > other NATO Member States (Norway, the UK etc) had fully signed, ratified > or acceeded into them. What are you talking about? Prof. Ramsey writes: > Let’s assume there is a category of people who take active part in combat but > are not covered by the Third Geneva Convention (because they fail the test of > its Article 4) or by Common Article 3 (because the conflict is “of an > international character”). It seems fairly inescapable that there is such a > category (whether or not Taliban or al-Qaeda fighters are in it). He's specifically avoiding the question of whether the Taliban / al-Qaeda are covered by Geneva. How is this "neocon propaganda"? Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
