On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:13:41 -0400, Celejar wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:58:56 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> On 18 Mar, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 02:04:42AM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote: >> >> >> >> ..peace. First we need to hang all our war criminals, then they >> >> have to hang theirs, all under the strictest combination of Sharia, >> >> the full 4 Geneva Conventions, the US War Crimes Act, the Norw. >> >> Military >> >> >> penal code etc. >> > >> > Sorry. Geneva conventions applies to lawful combatants. Now, if any >> > coalition troops have committed crimes in violation of the Geneva >> > conventions, then yes they need to prosecuted. Now, the terrorists >> > are afforded no such protection under the Geneva Conventions. In >> > fact, they don't even have to be taken prisoner. They can simply be >> > shot on sight. It is the grace of the US government that efforts are >> > made to capture and detain rather than just kill outright. ... >> >> Acutually, it is the 3rd Geneva convention that only applies to >> lawful combatants. The 4th convention, which the US is also a >> signatory of, applies to unlawful combatants, and non-combatants. And >> it provides > > It is not at all obvious that the fourth convention applies to 'unlawful > combatants'. The (current US) administration has claimed that it does > not. Can you prove that it does [0]?
..diversional slant, # 4 protects Civilians and by implication most non- combattants. >> protections against, among other things, being tortured and being held >> indefinitely without trial. > >> And 3rd convention protections are to be given to all captives >> until >> their combatant status is determined by a "competent tribunal", which, >> IIRC, is interpreted in international law to be a body of the judicial >> branch, not the executive. > > International law to which the US is a signatory? I violently reject the > notion that we're bound by international law to which we aren't. ..in that case you become a war criminal. As a civilian and non- combattant, you are entitled to vehemently voice your _opinion_ even if it promotes war crime, because you as a civilian are entitled to your ignorance and religious etc belief in these matters. ..now, as soon as you go _beyond_ _voicing_ your opinion, you must comply with the full 4 Conventions. > > Celejar > > [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. -- ..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]
