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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Simon Robbins Wrote:
Should it simply be down to a rule of law that prevents us from doing those kinds of things to people? If we claim to be the civilised, respectful peoples that we do, should our morals be so easily cast aside with a "well they started it" attitude? The Law of reciprocity does not mandate those actions, simply allows them. I'm not arguing for or against it. Personally, I'm in line with U.S. policy and that is; regardless of illegal actions used against us, we will follow the Geneva Convention. In other words, we'll never take advantage of the Law of Reciprocity and as someone who may be called upon to execute a combat mission, this comforts me. I'd hate to get shot down, wounded or killed bombing a school for reprisal purposes. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Actually, you may be able to answer a question for me, considering you seem
well versed in the GC: Now the war is "over", i.e. the Iraqi regime was defeated, and we're fighting insurgents and "terrorists", why are GC rights accorded when those captured in Afghanistan were deemed Unlawful Combatants? Regards, Si |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott MacEachern" wrote in message ... On 12 May 2004 20:32:54 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote: Not 100% accurate. The convention contains the "Law of Reciprocity" (did I spell that right?) which says if one party violates part of the articles, the opposing side is free to violate that article as well. Kind of an "eye for an eye" rule. 'Eye for an eye' (that is, reprisal) is prohibited by Article 33 of Convention IV: " No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited." BUFDRVR's Law of Reciprocity is not necessarily in contravention of that, if it holds that by initiating violation of article (insert whatever article/section you so choose), that violation results in your own personnel giving up that protected status themselves. Brooks It's even more explicitly codified in Protocol I Additional (and yes, I know America's relationship to that protocol). Scott |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Reprisals are prohibited unless *explicitly* authorised.
I believe the Law of Reciprocity does this. It's a damn sight easier to hold the high moral ground, than it is to fight in the foggy valleys. I agree. It's much easier and more convincing to simply say "we do not torture detainees" than to argue "shoving Cyalumes up a prisoner's arse isn't *technically* torture so we're just interrogating with extreme prejudice, what are you complaining about?". Uhh, I'm not making *any* kind of argument to support or defend the prisoner abuses. I already said, if it were up to me, those guards would serve as infantry in the hottest spots in Iraq until their court martial. What I'm arguing (and how we even got on the subject I'll never know) is that there are provisions in the Geneva Convention that permit the lawful violation of the articles. I think this was brought up because someone said that under *no* circumstances could a signatory violate any of the articles. Meanwhile, *unauthorised* reprisals are war crimes pure and simple. Absolutely. Under what circumstance can an individual soldier / sailor / airman decide that the GCs are no longer relevant? None that I know of and I'm not arguing that individuals have that right. If "any servicebeing" can't make that call, what's the minimum rank for the decision to be made? You'll have to quote where I said that "any servicebeing" can decide to envoke the Law of Reciprocity. There are many bad and misguided reasons to be brutal in pursuing the current scandal up the ranks as possible. Uhh, where did I say otherwise? BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Simon Robbins wrote:
Now the war is "over", i.e. the Iraqi regime was defeated, and we're fighting insurgents and "terrorists", why are GC rights accorded when those captured in Afghanistan were deemed Unlawful Combatants? Not all those captured in Afghanistan were considered unlawful combatants. If you were an Afghani with no ties to Al Queda you were not considered an unlawful combatant. If you were an Afghani with ties to Al Queda, or a foreign national (Saudi, Brit, American) you were an unlawful combatant. Same is true in Iraq. Any Saudi national found conducting combat operations in Iraq is an unlawful combatant. We've captured dozens of Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, Jordons (is that right?) and they are all being held as unlawful combatants...however, they are all *supposed* to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message ... Simon Robbins wrote: Now the war is "over", i.e. the Iraqi regime was defeated, and we're fighting insurgents and "terrorists", why are GC rights accorded when those captured in Afghanistan were deemed Unlawful Combatants? Not all those captured in Afghanistan were considered unlawful combatants. If you were an Afghani with no ties to Al Queda you were not considered an unlawful combatant. If you were an Afghani with ties to Al Queda, or a foreign national (Saudi, Brit, American) you were an unlawful combatant. Same is true in Iraq. Any Saudi national found conducting combat operations in Iraq is an unlawful combatant. We've captured dozens of Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, Jordons (is that right?) and they are all being held as unlawful combatants...however, they are all *supposed* to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. "Jordanians" is the word you were looking for. Brooks BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Jordanians" is the word you were looking for.
Thanks. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
It doesn't say Which GOD. Wise up. God is god is god. Religion has not
part of any of our anti-terrorist plans. Rid the world of all terrorists and let "GOD" sort them all out according to his justice. I always say if I don't punish you or punish you injustly that god will take care of it or me. "George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... "John Harris" wrote in message ... Of course this means that ONLY the United States should observe the rules. It is OK for the Terrorists (who by the way are not signators to the Geneva Convention) to demand the one-sided protection of that Treaty while disallowing it to those they murder, take hostage, torture, etc. Actually, the Convention itself says that those who do not subscribe to the Convention are3 not entitled to seek protection under it. .....Under such circumstances the Geneva Convention is NOT applicable.. Actually, the Convention is applicable to those who subscribed to it. Nowhere does it say that if one party to the armed conflict or whatever you want to call it fails to subscribe to the terms of the Convention that the other party is excused from complying with its terms. .....only the word of God as given to Christians is. Islam requires the death of all infidels without mercy, pity, or second thoughts. It is their Satanic Religion given by the Angel of the Devil...Mohammed..that has so distorted the minds and thinking of the Arabs. I'd prefer to leave the word of God out of the discussion, since the Convention applies to all of its signatories, including even those who worship other Gods or those who worship none. .....The Convention requires BOTH parties to observe the terms. Besides, the war in IRAQ is only being carried to terrorists...not the law abiding Iraqi people who loath the terrorists as much as we do. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
BUFDRVR's Law of Reciprocity is not necessarily in contravention of that, if it holds that by initiating violation of article (insert whatever article/section you so choose), that violation results in your own personnel giving up that protected status themselves. I was thinking of his high school example when I wrote. That article does ban such reprisal against non-combatants, but probably not against combatants. Scott |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Soaring Society of America National Convention, Feb 10-12 Ontario,CA | Jim Skydell | Home Built | 1 | January 31st 05 04:33 AM |
GW Bu$h's Torture Chambers and Rape rooms ...! | Curtis CCR | Military Aviation | 148 | May 19th 04 01:13 AM |
Command Responsibility and Bush Failures | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 56 | May 14th 04 01:31 PM |
EU as joke (modified) | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 241 | November 17th 03 04:55 PM |
Speech: Air Force Convention | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 17th 03 03:33 AM |