Re: CDR: Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention
On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 04:27 AM, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya? Nonsense. No reasonable definition of criminal conduct would put the US government and al-Quaeda in the same category. How about Criminal Conduct meaning Actions violate the laws. The USG *HAS* done that from time to time you know. Maybe not as baldly as al-Quaeda, but it has done so. -- Those without creative minds and agile fingers are of course welcome to hurry up with my fries. And they'll probably use a GUI to take my order, too. - Tom Christiansen
Re: CDR: Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention
Petro wrote: On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 04:27 AM, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya? Nonsense. No reasonable definition of criminal conduct would put the US government and al-Quaeda in the same category. How about Criminal Conduct meaning Actions violate the laws. The USG *HAS* done that from time to time you know. Maybe not as baldly as al-Quaeda, but it has done so. Okay, let's try a concrete example: A commits the offense of blocking another's driveway with his automobile. B commits murder. Is A in the same category as B? If yes, then I have to concede the argument, because as you say the US government is not Simon-pure. I do, however, make a distinction. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention
On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 07:53 PM, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: Petro wrote: On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 04:27 AM, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya? Nonsense. No reasonable definition of criminal conduct would put the US government and al-Quaeda in the same category. How about Criminal Conduct meaning Actions violate the laws. The USG *HAS* done that from time to time you know. Maybe not as baldly as al-Quaeda, but it has done so. Okay, let's try a concrete example: A commits the offense of blocking another's driveway with his automobile. B commits murder. Is A in the same category as B? If yes, then I have to concede the argument, because as you say the US government is not Simon-pure. I do, however, make a distinction. If A is actually a crime (instead of an infraction), then yes, both are in the set called criminal. It is a large set and includes most of the people in this country. What is the difference between murdering 50 people and murdering 3000? -- Crypto is about a helluva lot more than just PGP and RSA...it's about building the I-beams and sheetrock that will allow robust structures to be built, it's about the railroad lines and power lines that will connect the structures, and it's about creating Galt's Gulch in cyberspace, where it belongs.--Tim May
Re: CDR: Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention
mattd wrote: US violates the Geneva Convention The US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, which specifies the conditions under which such prisoners are to be treated. The Convention covers irregular forces such as al-Qaeda as well as regular armed forces, Al-Quaeda is not a military force by any reasonable reckoning; it is a criminal association whose victims are defenseless and innocent of any involvement (pro or anti) in the cause that the criminal association claims to espouse. and a quick skim suggests that the US are violating it in several ways. Interrogation: the US has publicly stated they will interrogate the prisoners; however this is specificly forbidden by the convention. Interrogation is certainly NOT prohibited by the Convention. Where are you getting this nonsense? Every army of every signatory power has interrogators trained and ready to process prisoners of war. Every infantry leader is trained to rapidly elicit information of immediate tactical value from the enemy soldiers whom he captures. No prisoner is bound to give anything more than the infamnous name, rank and serial number (or equivalent); coercion to gain more information is expressly forbidden No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. (Article 17) Right. Coercion and torture forbidden. Asking questions is not. Use of trickery is not. Many other means of obtaining information are not. Housing: the US are housing the POWs in wire-mesh cages. Unless US troops are quartered in similar conditions, this is a violation: Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The Convention certainly did not envision eliminating security precautions against the escape of prisoners! Trial and punishment: POWs are considered to be subject to the same laws and regulations as soldiers of the detaining power; they may be tried only by military courts (except where jurisdiction would normally belong to civil courts), and sentances must be the same as for soldiers of the detaining power commiting similar acts. POWs tried for acts commited prior to capture retain the benefits of the Convention even if convicted. I'll say it again - these are not prisoners of war! If US prisoners were treated in this manner, the US would be kicking and screaming. Is this another case of US moral exceptionalism? If the US prisoners in question had engineered, or were suspected of having engineered, the deaths of thousands of innocent people, I suspect that even LESS sympathy or consideration would be shown them. They certainly would not get any from me. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: mattd wrote: US violates the Geneva Convention The US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, which specifies the conditions under which such prisoners are to be treated. The Convention covers irregular forces such as al-Qaeda as well as regular armed forces, Al-Quaeda is not a military force by any reasonable reckoning; I don't know what your definition of military force is Marc, but any *group* of persons who are armed and engaged in common cause qualify as a military force in my book. According to dictionary.com, military is defined as: military (ml-tr) adj. Of, relating to, or characteristic of members of the armed forces: a military bearing; military attire. Performed or supported by the armed forces: military service. Of or relating to war: military operations. Of or relating to land forces. You may not approve of calling groups you disagree with military, yet it does not change the facts. it is a criminal association whose victims are defenseless and innocent of any involvement (pro or anti) in the cause that the criminal association claims to espouse. I assume you are referring to the WTC victims here. Sorry, but they were not innocent. They, as participants in the selection of the rulers of this country, are 100% guilty of the many crimes perpetrated by the United States against other peoples. As for AQ being a criminal association: how do you arrive at this? I suspect you get there by considering their acts to be outside of accepted behaviour (of any lawful society). If so, then I agree that they qualify as a criminal association, however, this definition also qualifies the USA as a criminal association. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya? and a quick skim suggests that the US are violating it in several ways. Interrogation: the US has publicly stated they will interrogate the prisoners; however this is specificly forbidden by the convention. Interrogation is certainly NOT prohibited by the Convention. Where are you getting this nonsense? He hallicinates a lot when he runs out of Thorazine. Trial and punishment: POWs are considered to be subject to the same laws and regulations as soldiers of the detaining power; they may be tried only by military courts (except where jurisdiction would normally belong to civil courts), and sentances must be the same as for soldiers of the detaining power commiting similar acts. POWs tried for acts commited prior to capture retain the benefits of the Convention even if convicted. I'll say it again - these are not prisoners of war! Really? Fuhrer Bush disagrees with you. Our Maximum Leader has declared a war on terrorism (conveniently leaving out our own terrorist tendencies and acts). It was this war which led to the detention of these prisoners. Sorry Marc, these are indeed prisoners of war. Or maybe you consider that all the military force we just used over in Afghanistan was something other than an act of war? Terrorism maybe? If US prisoners were treated in this manner, the US would be kicking and screaming. Is this another case of US moral exceptionalism? I just *hate* to agree with mattd, but he's right on target here. If the US prisoners in question had engineered, or were suspected of having engineered, the deaths of thousands of innocent people, You can't *possibly* be this naive. I suspect that even LESS sympathy or consideration would be shown them. They certainly would not get any from me. Talk the talk, but do you walk the walk? Marc de Piolenc -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
