From: Bill Graham on

"DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:gaSdndFLGuUoe1nXnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au...
> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
> news:CMKdncFx--3FeFnXnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com
>
> [...]
>
>> The Geneva Convention does not, as far as I know, offer any protection
>> whatever to combatants who are not part of any recognized military
>> force. If you think it does, show me where.
>>
>> Combatants captured not in proper uniform are not POWs and have no
>> rights at all -- they can be and have been just executed on the spot.
>> That's been the rule for at least a few hundred years.
>
> Every person has rights. Many of the detainees at Guananemo have been
> shown to have not been involved in terrorist activities and were captured
> by mistake. That is why civilised countries insist on the rule of law,
> where no person may be detained without due process, something the Bush
> administration fought every step of the way. It is not acceptable to
> merely deem someone a terrorist or a criminal by fiat. It must be
> established by evidence.

In wartime, anyone who is a citizen of the other side that is caught out of
uniform in your territory is a spy, and can be shot unceremoniously. So, the
argument comes down to things like: Are we really in "wartime"? Who is a
citizen of, "The other side"? - Is there an, "other side"? What is the other
sides, "Uniform"? IOW, things are a lot more complicated that they at first
seem. And there certainly is lots of room for argument over what is
acceptable and what is not.

From: Bill Graham on

"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:louP8iQosOxKFAND(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <gaSdndFLGuUoe1nXnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au>, DRS
> <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> writes
>>"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>news:CMKdncFx--3FeFnXnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> The Geneva Convention does not, as far as I know, offer any protection
>>> whatever to combatants who are not part of any recognized military
>>> force. If you think it does, show me where.
>>>
>>> Combatants captured not in proper uniform are not POWs and have no
>>> rights at all -- they can be and have been just executed on the spot.
>>> That's been the rule for at least a few hundred years.
>>
>>Every person has rights. Many of the detainees at Guananemo have been
>>shown
>>to have not been involved in terrorist activities and were captured by
>>mistake.
>
> However the experience of several years illegal detention and torture
> turned most of them and their families into at least sympathisers of Al-
> Qeada.
>
>> That is why civilised countries insist on the rule of law, where
>>no person may be detained without due process, something the Bush
>>administration fought every step of the way.
>
> And why the US is seen as a rouge stage by most of the world.
>
>> It is not acceptable to merely
>>deem someone a terrorist or a criminal by fiat. It must be established by
>>evidence.
>
> Afghanistan offered to give OBL to the US is the USA had any credible
> evidence.... the USA could not produce any evidence and the Afghans did
> not turn him over. SO the USA illegally invaded.
>
>>> Now I think any reasonable person would admit that a little
>>> waterboarding is kinder and more generous treatment than being
>>> summarily executed.
>>
>>There is no such thing as "a little waterboarding". It is torture and
>>under
>>the terms of the international agreement signed by Ronald Reagan and
>>ratified by the US Senate America has no lawful option but to prosecute
>>those who engaged in it.
>
> Agreed. The right wing in the USA sound just like the N.Koreans, Chinese
> and the Israelis.
>
Torture is not black and white. It exists in nearly infinite degrees, just
like most other things. You can be slightly uncomfortable, like when you are
waiting in line for your welfare check. Or, you can be slowly burned to
death. So, torture has to be carefully defined, or any laws made about it
are meaningless. As a result, the argument that you guys are carrying on can
have no resolution, because the terms have not been carefully defined. IOW,
you are wasting your time.

From: Walter Banks on


Bill Graham wrote:

> Yes. the problem is we are accustomed to more conventional wars where armies
> had a home country, and wore uniforms, and assembled together and took up
> arms against other similar armies. In a terrorist action, or series of
> terrorist actions such as we are now experiencing, few of the conventional
> rules apply. In some ways, it is similar to our civil war.....No uniforms,
> isolated bands of people shooting at other ununiformed isolated bands of
> people......And, in the same way, it is hard to establish rules of conduct
> that are cut and dried.

Actually it goes right back to 19 April 1775 Americans won that one but
200 years later have not learned the lessons it taught. History before that brought
the assassins, ninja and many other unconventional warriors.

w..



From: Walter Banks on


Bill Graham wrote:

> "Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message
>
> > This is a slippery slope, what separates a leader who killed a million
> > from one who killed 900,000. Is 100,000 enough? What about
> > 3,000?
> >
> > Using this measure to justify invading and deposing a leader can
> > have un-intended consequenses.
>
> This is true, but what other measure is there? Were we justified in
> supporting England in her war against Hitler? And, if not, then at what
> point should we have done so in order to protect ourselves?

Looking at the very narrow case of attacking a country to dispose
a leader and apply the same rules to attacks on the US. I am not
justifying either one just thinking through the logic of your statement.

w..


From: Bill Graham on

"Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message
news:4AC4F93B.AA6C9985(a)bytecraft.com...
>
>
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> Yes. the problem is we are accustomed to more conventional wars where
>> armies
>> had a home country, and wore uniforms, and assembled together and took up
>> arms against other similar armies. In a terrorist action, or series of
>> terrorist actions such as we are now experiencing, few of the
>> conventional
>> rules apply. In some ways, it is similar to our civil war.....No
>> uniforms,
>> isolated bands of people shooting at other ununiformed isolated bands of
>> people......And, in the same way, it is hard to establish rules of
>> conduct
>> that are cut and dried.
>
> Actually it goes right back to 19 April 1775 Americans won that one but
> 200 years later have not learned the lessons it taught. History before
> that brought
> the assassins, ninja and many other unconventional warriors.
>
> w.
..
So we need new rules of acceptable conduct. And my question is, are the UN
rules, and the Geneva Convention rules, applicable to fighting off these
kinds of terrorist actions? And, if not, then what are we to do before new
rules are established, and who will establish them? Personally, I don't see
any way out right now, but for us to establish our own rules as we go. And
this means attacking other rogue countries such as Iran and North Korea as
necessary to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons and selling/giving
them to terrorists. If there is some other way to prevent this, I am all
ears.....