On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:55:57 -0700, zfh wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > --- Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:33:28 -0700, zfh wrote in >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: >> >> >> > Sorry to break into your offtopic rants, but I >> can't resist this one. >> > Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants >> that wear no uniforms and >> >> ..like the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11? >> >> > commit acts of murder and sabotage are considered >> to be spies and may be >> >> ..you speak of murderers, saboteurs and spies, who may only be shot >> after >> having received a verdict so ordering in a trial for the murderer, and >> in >> an Article 90 hearing _and_ a trial for the saboteur and the spy. The >> latter 2 generally need to commit some war crime to earn a verdict, but >> can still be held as POW for the duration of the war without committing >> any war crimes, read especially the commentary to Article 46 for >> background: >> > http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750056?OpenDocument >> > http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750056?OpenDocument >> >> >> > leagaly shot on sight. >> >> ..this applies only to mercenaries, who first needs to be identified as >> such under Article 47: >> > http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750057?OpenDocument >> > http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750057?OpenDocument >> >> > During the cold war, the understanding developed >> that everyone has >> > spies and that if you don't kill mine I won't kill >> yours. >> >> ..true, and irrelevant, as the high contracting powers instead agreed >> to >> go after mercenaries. >> >> > Are you old enough to remember that famous antiwar >> photo from >> > the Tet offensive in Vietnam of an ARVN soldier >> shooting a captured >> > vietcong agent in the head? Under the geneva >> convention, that was >> > legal. >> >> ..citation? ;o) >> >> > Al Queda and the Taliban don't care about anyones >> rights or >> > freedoms. We need to follow the rules because we >> are who we are and >> > need to stay that way if free nations are to >> survive. Though there have >> > been some abuses, military tribunals and Gitmo are >> not necessarily >> > outside the rules when dealing with an organized >> terrorist threat. >> >> ..really? ;o) They are. On one line: >> > http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ihl-article-300906? >> opendocument >> >> ..a good starting point for further reading: >> > http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_in_brief? >> OpenDocument >>
... > Its too bad that you never read the documents you site. Look at the > document on treatment of prisoners of war. The terrorists you seem in > sympathy with (see the first line you wrote in the previous response) ..are you referring to the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11??? On "Let's roll!" these civilians _became_ lawful combattants under Arnticle 4A(6) in the 3'rd Convention: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570017?OpenDocument http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007?OpenDocument ..more: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750054?OpenDocument http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750054?OpenDocument > make not atempt to qualify under aritcle 4. Under the terms of the > convention it doesn't apply to them. ..no? http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5KZJAV http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590005?OpenDocument http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590005?OpenDocument > In the present circumstances, the > US is being extremely civil with the terrorist, better treatment than > americans and British get around the world even though our armed forces > do quaify under article 4 and our civilians are clearly civilians. ..do you qualify as a civilian, or a war criminal, on arguing against the facts on what these Conventions _actually_ cover? http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750064?OpenDocument http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750064?OpenDocument http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600166?OpenDocument http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600166?OpenDocument ..arguing how you would like things to be, is completely different to arguing how things really are, I for one would like to see mercenaries legalized so they can earn money by stopping war crimes. > Where do kidnapings, hostage taking, and beheading figure into the > conventions? ..as war crimes. > International terrorism is not solvable in the short term, > but granting legal protections to to terrorist that under existing teaty > don't deserve them is the worst possible strategy. ..uhuh. So, you want history repeating itself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv47iWKUv5A -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
