..reposting, last try was lost in gmane's auth queue. On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:21:58 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:08:42PM +0000, Arnt Karlsen wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:13:41 -0400, Celejar wrote in >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: >> >> > 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. >> > You are missing what he said. Civilians and non-combatants are not the > same as unlawful combatants. ..correct this far. > Unlawful combatants are basically just ..the mercenaries, even spies and war criminals have a right to a trial. > civilians or non-combatants who have given up their protected status by > engaging combat operations. ..."by taking up arms against the invading enemy" like aboard flight UA93, is perfectly legal. > Of course, combat operations are distinct from self-defense, ..BS, you are at any time and in any circumstance required to fully comply to the full 4 Conventions. > including protecting other protected persons or places, ...or object of value to mankind, churches, mosques, corn fields, even tortured POW's on Gitmo are entitled to this protection. > IIRC. ..not good enough, I as a civilian, am entitled to be wrong and proven wrong and to learn about this, _if_ you _are_ a GI or an officer, your _obligation_ is To Know[TM], the idea is deny war criminals like Adolf and W. "Ignorance" as a Court Martial or Art 90 Hearing Defense. >> > 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. >> > Only if you act as an agent of your government. You can go and do > whatever you want on your own. ..wrong and wrong. And wrong too if you are trying to seize power in a coup d'etat or civil war. > You just won't be entitled to the protections of the GCs. ..this applies only to Mercenaries. > >> > 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. >> > Sorry, but you argument is null: [0] ..non-neocon source? (As in credible pre-9/11 2001 dead tree etc issue, even Wikipedia pages get 0\/\/|\|3|} by neocons.) > On September 27, 1996, the ruling members of the Afghan Government > were displaced by members of the Islamic Taliban movement. The > Taliban declared themselves the legitimate government of Afghanistan; > however, the UN continued to recognize the government of Burhanuddin > Rabbani. > > The Organization of the Islamic Conference left the Afghan seat > vacant until the question of legitimacy could be resolved through > negotiations among the warring factions. > > By the time of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the > September 11 terrorist attacks only Pakistan recognized the Taliban > government, though Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had in > the past. ..which non-regonised military power was recognized as Government by W's ultimatium on "Hand Over Osama Or Else!!!"? > The Taliban occupied 95% of the territory, called the Islamic Emirate > of Afghanistan. The remaining 5% belonged to the rebel forces > constituting the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which the United > Nations had recognized as the official government in exile. > > So, the Taliban was only the legitimate government in the sense that > they declared themselves to be so. Nobody, outside of Pakistan and at > at some point SA and UAE, recognized them as the legitimate government. > So tell me again, how are insurgents lawful combatants? ..tell me how this theory differ on Adolf Hitler's theory on Norwegian "insurgents" in Milorg. ;o) > Regards, > > -Roberto > > [0] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Politics_of_Afghanistan#The_Former_Taliban_Regime > -- ..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]
