If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
:The US government has shown the same
:respect for the principles of international law most of the past :century's two bit dictators and terrorists have, which is none at all. International Law is a concept not a reality. Law implies someone enforces behavior and punishes misbehavior as directed by the law. There is no international enforcement, nor international legislative or adjudication bodies. The UN is a meeting of ambassadors who can purpose treaties which member nations can accept or reject. Imagine a community with a written set of suggestions for proper behavior, but no courts, police or judges....... Thats 'international law'. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Watt" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:07:50 -0700, "TinCanMan" wrote: "Jim Watt" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan" wrote: They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US purports to support it says: Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. You can find the rest at http://www.gibnet.com/texts/udhr.htm -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com Oh, my! Perhaps in your zeal to find some justification, any justification for your belief, you've skipped over the operative word. That word is arbitrary. Did you miss that or did that part not suit your preconceived agenda? You see, they are detained within the laws of war and are detained in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The reason is because they are combatants or supported combatants. Nothing arbitrary about it at all. Very objective. Get caught under arms, get locked up for the duration. Duration of what? the Bush dynasty? There is nothing in the UDHR that says it only applies to civilians and there is no war in progress. -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com Did you forget about the arbitrary part? Your observation there is no war iss irrelevant and carries no weight. That a state of war exists would be up to the combatants to decide. The UDHR fails at the word arbitrary. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Watt wrote:
:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:29:06 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :Jim Watt wrote: : ::On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote: :: ::We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those ::who gave them aid and comfort. :: ::I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed ::their country and buildings. : :Yeah, they do. Most of 'em still don't like Saddam and the Baathists. : :I have not seen the Disney version yet. Apparently you're too busy with the Goebbels version. That's the one where the US comes in, levels the country, and murders everyone but the bad guys. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Watt wrote:
:On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:08 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :Jim Watt wrote: : ::On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan" wrote: :: ::They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's :: ::In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US :urports to support it says: :: ::Article 9 ::No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. : :And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next? : :I appreciate you may not find the word in the McDonalds dictionary given away free with large fries) or on American television where :words of more than six letters are avoided to prevent confusion. : :ar·bi·trary (adjective) : :1. Depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) : and not fixed by law. They're getting treatment (and not getting treatment) as prescribed by both treaty and law. :2.1 Not restrained or limited in the exercise of : power : ruling by absolute authority Restrained by the rules already put in place for the holding of these folks and the conduct of their hearings. :2.2 Marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often : tyrannical exercise of power This would appear to have been the property of the folks being held, not the folks holding them. :2.3 Using unlimited personal power without considering : other people's wishes: See? Like I said. Not arbitrary. You've proved two things he 1) You can read. 2) Your comprehension isn't up to your reading. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Watt" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:11:05 -0700, "TinCanMan" wrote: I find it interesting they, as did the U.S. choose to disregard them. Had they believed it important to their "culture" to legitimize sniping at an armed force and hiding among the populace while claiming protection as POW's, they would have signed. Yet the Americans continued to sponsor terrorism by the IRA who did exactly that, demanded POW status if caught and have now been released. Some Americans Yes, America no, and by the way they who supported the IRA should be brough to justice in my opinion Jim |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"David Evans" wrote in message ... A fine example of this is the US spy planes which persistently defile Chinese air space. The Chinese claim their air space extends 20 miles from its coast, like its territorial waters. The US claim that airspace extends just 10 miles from shore under international law - a law the Chinese have never accepted. Pedants note: the 10 and 20 mile limits are from memory, and actual distances may be different. The concept of this post is true. I'm working from memory as well, but I believe the distances are 12 and 200 miles. Territorial waters and national airspace use the same limit, 12 miles. The 200 mile distance is an exclusive economic zone. Other nations have the freedom of navigation in this area, air and sea, but only the nation concerned has the right to fish in this area and to minerals on the floor. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim" wrote in message ...
"Jim Watt" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:11:05 -0700, "TinCanMan" wrote: I find it interesting they, as did the U.S. choose to disregard them. Had they believed it important to their "culture" to legitimize sniping at an armed force and hiding among the populace while claiming protection as POW's, they would have signed. Yet the Americans continued to sponsor terrorism by the IRA who did exactly that, demanded POW status if caught and have now been released. Some Americans Yes, America no, and by the way they who supported the IRA should be brough to justice in my opinion But, just like Al Qauda. They who supported the IRA after about 1960, aren't even Americans. After the IRA went commie in the 30's, their Ameican support went from close to 100% to close to 0%, just about overnight. You probably have to ask The New York Yankees who supporting them now, since they're probably the only people who know. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:39:38 -0500, "Jim" wrote:
"David Evans" wrote in message news Fred J. McCall wrote: :Even the 911 attacks are no excuse for genocide. True. It's no excuse for Brazilian wax jobs, either. So what? The US isn't having a Brazilian wax job. It is committing genocide. -- David David, Pull you head from where ever it is. 9-11 is provacation for war. War isn't neat clean or pretty. or legally declared. Nor was Iraq in any way linked. -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:57:44 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote: Jim Watt wrote: :On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:08 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :Jim Watt wrote: : ::On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan" wrote: :: ::They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's :: ::In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US :urports to support it says: :: ::Article 9 ::No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. : :And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next? : :I appreciate you may not find the word in the McDonalds dictionary given away free with large fries) or on American television where :words of more than six letters are avoided to prevent confusion. : :ar·bi·trary (adjective) : :1. Depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) : and not fixed by law. They're getting treatment (and not getting treatment) as prescribed by both treaty and law. I believe the GC prohibits torturing prisioners to extract information. See? Like I said. Not arbitrary. Strange it seems arbitary to me, indeed the reason they are in Cuba is because your Government is anxious about the legal basis of its grubby little operation. -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ??? | suckthis.com | Naval Aviation | 12 | August 7th 03 06:56 AM |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS | TMOliver | Naval Aviation | 19 | July 24th 03 06:59 PM |