|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
John Doe wrote: Rand Simberg wrote: No, they wouldn't. They're unlawful combatants. And they are being treated according to Geneva despite that. This from a citizen of the USA whose constitution grants the right to all citizens to bear arms to defend their country. Remember how the NRA always talks about how dictators always disarm their populace as their first evil act? In Saddam's Iraq, every household had the right to own one firearm for self defense; the weapon of choice was a full-auto AK-47, a weapon which would require a background check and license from the BATF to own in the U.S. So there appears to be something wrong with the NRA's argument in this matter. Sorry folks, there are no "unlawful combattants". No matter how justified the military intervention in Afghanistan was, Afghans had full rights to defend their country against an invading military force. The big problem with Afghanistan is that you didn't have any real central government but numerous tribal warlords each with their own forces and in a constant state of flux in regards to their allegiances to each other. Hell, from the British point of view the American revolutionary forces were all unlawful combatants, as were all the Confederate forces during the Civil War as seen from the Northern point of view. The Bush regime just invented thsi phrase and trying to justify their war crimes. Oh, and by the way, the USA constitution also grants legal rights/due legal process to PEOPLE, not citizens. The people at gantanamo, while being treated like animals, should have been given due legal process by the USA, charged with a crime, provided with a proper court (not some judicial military kangoroo court) and tried within reasonable time. That's what really gets me- they aren't considered to be POW's so they don't get their Geneva Convention rights, but they also aren't considered to be civilian criminals, so they don't get the rights that a criminal defendants has either. Pat |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Lowther wrote:
JazzMan wrote: But making the world a more dangerous place, especially for US interests, isn't a crime? Perhaps it should be... Then the Left would have rather a lot to answer for, wouldn't they. Funny, last I looked the so-called "left" hasn't been in power for half a decade, and isn't even remotely in any kind of power now. Yet the world is becoming a more dangerous and unstable place every day, today, tomorrow. So, if the left hasn't been in a position to actually affect policy one way or the other, why point to them in blame for what's going on right now? That's just plain hee-lar-ious! JazzMan -- ************************************************** ******** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ************************************************** ******** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ************************************************** ******** |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:51:09 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Scott Lowther wrote: Indeed. If Bush gives in to the bleating retards who want the US to abandon the war, then not only will he doom his presidency, but also the future of America. "Giving aid and comfort to the enemy" used to be a crime. It is...in wartime...we haven't legally declared war on anyone yet; if we had, then all those poor shmucks down at Guantanamo Bay would be POWs and subject to their rights under the Geneva Conventions. No, they wouldn't. They're unlawful combatants. And they are being treated according to Geneva despite that. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
John Doe wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote: No, they wouldn't. They're unlawful combatants. And they are being treated according to Geneva despite that. This from a citizen of the USA whose constitution grants the right to all citizens to bear arms to defend their country. That statement shows a real lack of understanding of what the US Constitution is about, John. It "grants" nothing to the people. Indeed, the amendment you're alluding to is *restricting* the powers of the *government* to abridge the rights already owned by the people. Sorry folks, there are no "unlawful combattants"... So do you want the Geneva Convention to apply or not? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
John Doe wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote: No, they wouldn't. They're unlawful combatants. And they are being treated according to Geneva despite that. This from a citizen of the USA whose constitution grants the right to all citizens to bear arms to defend their country. Sorry folks, there are no "unlawful combattants". Unfortunately, this is a naive and ignorant viewpoint. Spies and Saboteurs have always been excluded from the prisoner of war treaties. No matter how justified the military intervention in Afghanistan was, Afghans had full rights to defend their country against an invading military force. Of course. And a number of reasonable people have held that the Taliban should be treated as prisoners of war. And in general they have been. It's a defensible argument that the Afghan civil war isn't over and that the Taliban prisoners should still be held for a while longer, but they should be treated as POWs. Al Qaeda are not lawful combatants: they are not a national or territorial organization, they don't bear arms or uniforms as required under the Geneva convention, their method of waging warfare is to sabotage rather than fight openly. True members of Al Qaeda are clearly not lawful combatants. They are saboteurs. There are some people whose allegiance, some mixture of Taliban and Al Qaeda, is somewhat debatable. Some of those have been held in Guantanamo. I don't entirely agree with the classifications in use and the lack of clarity of the grey Taliban lawful / Al Qaeda unlawful dividing line. But there clearly is a line, and there clearly are a number of people who are on the unlawful side of it, under any of the treaty regimes or any state's interpretation of international law. Fundamentally, this is the international lawyers and diplomats fault for not looking ahead enough. The whole international law regime wasn't meant to deal with transnational or independent terrorist organizations. It was clear decades ago that there were such organizations that existed and that applying the existing international law to them was problematic. All the diplomats basically turned their back on the problem. How the current regime of international law is being bent to deal with it, rather than have some new international law regime put in place, is an ugly sight. And the Bush administration certainly hasn't been nearly as open about defining what they're doing as they should, nor have they done a near enough good job on separating Taliban from Al Qaeda. But they're operating in a functional area of legal ambiguity that exists because the diplomats in the 70s and 80s chose to leave it ambiguous. None of the diplomats *now* want to touch it, because in general nobody has put forwards credible alternative ideas on how to deal with the problems. The lack of progressive intellectual analysis and debate on practical better regimes has been a loudly heard vaccum in the debates. So do you have any actual ideas for how to improve the international law to deal with these issues? Or are you just blowing anti-American smoke around out of frustration? -george william herbert |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:29:30 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
M. Kozel" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Indeed. If Bush gives in to the bleating retards who want the US to abandon the war, then not only will he doom his presidency, but also the future of America. "Giving aid and comfort to the enemy" used to be a crime. It is...in wartime...we haven't legally declared war on anyone yet; if we had, then all those poor shmucks down at Guantanamo Bay would be POWs and subject to their rights under the Geneva Conventions. No, they wouldn't. They're unlawful combatants. And they are being treated according to Geneva despite that. They are not being hanged as would have been customary in previous conflicts. Or shot. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:10:56 -0400, in a place far, far away, John Doe
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: No, they wouldn't. They're unlawful combatants. And they are being treated according to Geneva despite that. This from a citizen of the USA whose constitution grants the right to all citizens to bear arms to defend their country. Sorry folks, there are no "unlawful combattants". In terms of Geneva, there are. rest of ignorance snipped |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... Hell, from the British point of view the American revolutionary forces were all unlawful combatants, as were all the Confederate forces during the Civil War as seen from the Northern point of view. Exactly so- the flaw in your analogy, Pat, is that the unlawful combatant forces you mentioned were rebelling against their government, not defending against a foreign one. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:10:56 -0400, John Doe wrote:
Sorry folks, there are no "unlawful combattants". No matter how justified the military intervention in Afghanistan was, Afghans had full rights to defend their country against an invading military force. The Bush regime just invented thsi phrase and trying to justify their war crimes. Um, no. "Unlawful combatants" was a phrase used in Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) training for US military personnel long before Bush 43 took office. Brian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NOMINATION: digest, volume 2453397 | Ross | Astronomy Misc | 233 | October 23rd 05 04:24 AM |
VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, March 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 108 | May 16th 05 02:55 AM |
President Reagan honored from space | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | June 11th 04 03:48 PM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |