Rob offers his apologies.

Page 3 of 11  
Doug Miller wrote:

Citation?
Citation?
Please forgive me if I do not accept dialog from a B-movie as authoritative.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

The Geneva Conventions. You don't seem to have read them very carefully.
I refer you to Tim Daneliuk's posts in this thread, in which he has already pointed out your errors in detail, with greater eloquence than I am capable of.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

You do not cite anything in the GCs themselves to support your assertion.
"Changes everything", and "changes nothing" are both incorrect. What does not change, and the GCs address this directly is that a captive is a protected person regardless of the accusation against him.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal.moderated/browse_thread/thread/ac690012dddce9da/ef9fd31cb197fd79?lnk=st&q=fredfighter&rnum=2&hl=en#ef9fd31cb197fd79 or http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal.moderated/msg/ef9fd31cb197fd79?dmode=source&hl=en
I do not consider name-calling and using made-up words to be eloquence.
I repeat the statement by the ICRC, from near the end of their discussion of the definition of "protected persons."
"There is no ' intermediate status'; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. "
I agree with them.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

If you had read it, you wouldn't need the cite. Again, I refer you to Daneliuk's post, in which he details your error.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote: <SNIP>

Sorry Sparky, the 4th Protocol is specifically authored for *civilians*. A person engaging in combat while dressed in civilian garb - i.e., No distinguishable uniform is NO LONGER A CIVILIAN, and thus not protected by this Geneva agreement. That's why we can legally hang spies, incarcerate them without normal due process, and generally do (almost) anything we want to them. The Geneva conventions (last I read them - perhaps Barbara Streisand or Rosie O'Donnell have updated them with their considerable intellectual abilities) make a clear distinction between combatants/non-combatants/civilians. Too bad all the Lefties today can't do the same thing ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:12:37 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

"...The Plataeans had surrendered on the promise that the guilty would be punished, but only after trial. The "trial" consisted simply in asking them one by one what they had done for the Spartan side in the war. It seems that one of Thucydides' purposes in this part of the history is to illustrate the moral effects of the war by describing some of the atrocities and injustices committed by both sides."
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y6701.html
"Athenian atrocities such as those against Melos (whose men were massacred and women and children sold into slavery, after they had resisted Athenian demands to join their League in 416/15) should rather be ascribed to the evil effects that war has upon the character of man. In this respect human behaviour has not changed (174), it causes distinct discomfort to be told that the Athenian disposition of the Mytilenaean problem cannot be considered excessively harsh (140; only one thousand men were executed, after the Athenians had changed their minds and did not treat them as they would treat Melos);"
http://www.trentu.ca/academic/ahc/qq95mcg.htm
"Tritle equates the atrocity at My Lai with Athenian actions at Melos in 416-5BC. There, Athenian soldiers put to death all adult males, enslaved the women and children and gave over the territory to 500 Athenian settlers. Tritle sees Melos and My Lai as clear examples of actions taken by soldiers suffering from battle-induced post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The comparison is natural and euphonic. Melos and My Lai are the most infamous atrocities perpetrated by the "good guys" in the Peloponnesian and Vietnam wars. But the Melos side of the equation is problematical."
http://www.utexas.edu/research/pasp/publications/articles/16feb01.html
Of course, "This is not another Vietnam" (op cit - various).
Neither is it another Peloponnesian War.
Neither is it a Fifth Century BCE internecine engagement.
It is what it is and is as it was ever thus:
Res Ipsa Loquitur.
If you can downshift for a moment from your argumentative mode and see the table as it has been set before you, you will find that, once we are engaged - and "grim visaged war" holds sway, we revert - and that "we" is actually "WE", as the state is man writ large and we are held accountable, if not by our gods, then certainly by our historians.
I took Rob's initial point to be a cautionary note that we not become the next "good Germans", who choose to ignore the horrors inflicted in our name.
It is a valid assertion and deserves to be treated with respect.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Watson wrote:

Perhaps, but it is equally true that survival comes before almost everything. If, in the act of attempting to be as enlightened as possible and as liberal in our treatment of our enemies as we can be, we commit suicide, we've lost our humanity just as surely as if we'd been roasting barbarians on the spit in front of the Pentagon. There has to be balance and oversight in this matter. Neither the ideological Left or Right want any such thing. The Right wants a blank check - which I oppose - and the Left wants to apply the niceties of our domestic social contract to foreign invaders - which I oppose even more. I do not want to see our culture be further diminished and eroded so that Michael Moore can continue to stuff donuts in his chubby little face and lecture the rest of us about "restraint".

Not when he falsely claims the authority of a document that has no standing in this particular case. If he (or you) want to make the case that we ought to tread carefully even when dealing with spies or other non-uniformed combatants, that's a fair debate. But performing textual prestidigitation to give an argument the appearance of authority when the source claims specifically does *not* apply, is cheap political theater. It is a time-honored canon of war that nonuniformed combatants enjoy essentially no protection other than the good will of their captors. This is Reality ... as opposed to the Lefthink that opposes it...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:31:51 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
(References to Mr. Moore having the dietary habits of a housefly regretfully snipped.)

"The 1979 First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (Protocol 1) seeks, among other things, to effectively bring legal combatant status to forces not adhering to the uniform and certain other regulations of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, which arguably can include terrorists. The definition of an "international armed conflict" would include "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien [foreign] occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." (From article 1[4])"
Is it about the canons, or the cannons?
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Watson wrote:

Ah yes, the sleight-of-hand continues. You conveniently forgot to mention that the US - indeed a great many nations - are not signatories to this convention (Nor should any sane society be.). When the best arguments you propose are based on partial and/or misleading authority, you truly are in a lost end game. There *is* a good argument (or two) to be made for the position you and the rest of the ideological Left want to get to, but I'm not going to teach you how to make it. The homework will be good for you.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:17:12 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You have an excellent command of language, and you express your opinions well. But you presume too much if you think I want you as my teacher in these matters. I expect a teacher to lead me to my own conclusions, something I cannot depend upon you to do any more than I can a politician.
--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art Greenberg wrote:

If you will not my "excellent command of the language" you will see that I specifically do NOT wish to be your (or anyone else's) teacher. I was merely pointing out that a much more coherent argument for the position espoused by "Tom Watson" existed than the one he was trying to use. Are you and "Watson" one and the same, BTW?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:09:17 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

No, you put on an air of superiority -- you knew the "good argument (or two)", and you were going to reserve dispensing them for those who want you as their teacher. If you -really- wanted to compare your arguments with Tom's, you'd have stated them. Something you have otherwise done with abundance.

No. Tom has more poet and storyteller in his pinky than I have in my entire body.
--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You give me more than I deserve Art, but I thank you for the kind words.
Mr. D has come to the point of Nol Pros that all neo-con others do when arguing about the lack of signatory to the 1979 agreements.
It is a fact that we are outside of the world community on several levels.
There are global emissions standards that we do not participate in.
There is a lack of signatory responsibility regarding the Geneva Conventions.
Mr. D likes to make hay about our currency with the 1949 agreements but says very little about Article One of 1979.
If he would use the whip of 1949, I would also use the chain of 1979.
There is a facticity here which is immensurable - are we a global neighbor in the correct sense?
Mr. D seems to be Wilsonian in his claims to independence.
History has proven them both the fool.
I thought to let this thread die.
Now, I think that I will let it die - because I will no longer argue with a fool.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Watson wrote:

He certainly does.

Because there is no clear demonstration of their merit and the subject remains in considerable debate between and among the actual experts. Your naughty feelings about the matter notwithstanding, I'd rather wait until there is a more rigorous and tenable model of the subject involved instead of depending on models and claims that - to date - have been entirely wrong or vastly overstated. This does have the downside of preferring the authority of science to your warm droolings on the matter. This is not unlike the fringes of the religious movement whose warm droolings about the age of the earth are also subordinated to scientific investigation. Perhaps you and your fellow earth-worshiping pantheists should just get it over with already, declare yourself a religion, as, in fact, you are, and at least get some tax breaks.

Because we are sovereign nation and morally obligated to first act in our own enlightened self-interest. We have no moral obligation to satisfy global statists of your ilk so you can feel warm and gooey about how nicely we play with despots, kooks, and monsters around the world.

It would be an imaginary chain. The additional protocols came into being in 1977. It may also come a surprise to you that, while the US signed the documents in question, they have never been ratified - a necessary step, as I understand it, for them to be binding upon us. So you would have be "chained" by a protocol to which we are not yet party. What a shocker.

"Correct" according to whom? You? Your membership in the "I Know What's Good For Everyone Else" Society is showing. I do *not* know what is good for everyone else. I do, however, want what is proper and good for my nation, and by extension, me. There is a legitimate debate to be had there about just what that entails. But "being good global neighbors" is an irrelevancyy except to the extent that it good for ... us.

Wilson was an isolationist. I am not. I believe we should have rich commercial, cultural, and scientific trade with the rest of the world. I do not, however, believe that we owe the rest of the world an explanation for every single thing we do, nor do we have to play Mother-May-I prior to doing so.

History hasn't been around to demonstrate me a fool or otherwise. You also attribute far more importance to me than I do. I'd say the foolishness is on your part.

No, you just waited until it settled down and got simplified sufficiently.

Game, set, and match ... as usual.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:55:49 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

Arrogant bullshit, as usual.
You have Adams without Jefferson. Read "History Will Absolve Me". You have Washington without Lafayette. Read Pushkin. You are Wilsonian without attribution. Read Thoreau. Read Emerson. Read Whitman. Become a real citizen. Read Jefferson. Read Franklin. Read Lee. Read Grant. Listen to Dylan. You are tribal. Listen to Bach. Pay particular attention to the Constitution. Tell me why the Articles of Confederation did not work and apply the concept globally. Stop using language as a defense against intelligence. Read Plato's "Republic". You are a well spoken idiot - I would like to see you a well read idiot.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Watson wrote: <SNIP>

Game-Set-Match ^2
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:17:12 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

You suffer from delusions of competence.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Note crossposting.
Mr Daneliuk seems to have me confused with another author. Regardless:
OP stated that 'terrorists' are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. I pointed out that _prisoners_ of a nation other than their own, are always protected persons, though that status does not preclude trial and punishment for crimes comitted prior to their capture, such as fighting in civilian disguise.
I cited the fourth article of the Fourth protocol of the 1949 Conventions and said that in the quoted text "the convention" refers to the 1949 Convention in its entirety, not to any specific protocol thereof. Mr Daneliuk disagreed as indicated below. Upon review, I am less than certain as to whether the terms "convention" and "protocol" are used synonymously. But I remain convinced that the applicablity of the 1949 GCs is not predjudiced by calling a prisoner a 'terrorist' even if the appelation is justified by fact.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Mr Daneliuk is encouraged to cite the artilces in the GCs where he read the "clear distinction between combatants/non-combatants/civilians. Regardless, there is no place in the GCs where a statement, let alone a clear one, is made that any of the three are not protected persons, by virtue of being one or more of the three.
While it is also true that the title of the Fourth Protocol refers specifically to civlilians, many clauses within the Fourth protocol refer to members
of the armed forces. So the notion that the "any person" as used in the Fourth protocol excludes persons who fail to conform to Mr Daneliuk's definition of civlian, is because of that reference in the title, is without merit.
While terms of art such as "spy" and "sabotuer" may seem quaint to our Attorney General the modern term 'terrorist' was not in vogue in 1949. The defintions, however do not differ substantively. They are all persons, who engage in hostilities while not in uniform. There appears no reasonable basis to claim that the Fourth Protocol provisions for spies and sabotuers are not as applicable to 'terrorists'.
The ICRC discusses these issues and others, concluding:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument
In short, all the particular cases we have just been considering confirm a general principle which is embodied in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no ' intermediate status'; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that that is a satisfactory solution -- not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.
Regarding
That's why we can legally hang spies, incarcerate them without normal due process, and generally do (almost) anything we want to them.
My first criticism is with the fundamental illogic of the notion. It is the contrapositive of a circular argument.
Unless a person receives due process it can never be known whether or not that person was entitled to due process in the first place. Thus due process can never be denied without the attendent risk that it is being denied to one who is entitled to it.
Regarding the specific atrocities advocated above, execution of spies without due process has been contrary to the laws of war since at least the Hague Conventions early in the 20th Century, and prohibitted in the United States by implication of an Act of the Contintental Congress since the 18th Century. "Almost anything else" Mr Daneliuk might wish to advocate is prohibitted by criminal statues that do not include as a defense, a belief that the victim was a spy, 'terrorist' or whomever.
The United States does not permit outlawry, even for convicted crimnals.
Finally, the 1949 Geneva Conventions are not the only treaties to which the US is signatory. The Convention against Torture etc, permits no exceptions.
In summary, my argument that all prisoners captured in the course or armed conflict or occupation by the United States and who are not US citizens are from the moment of their capture forward, protected persons according to the 1949 Geneva Conventions is supported by a plain reading of the Conventions themselves and by the interpretations by the ICRC and USSC.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

???
I don't think anyone claimed that the word "terrorist" somehow changes the law. I think the claim was (and is) that a person making war in civilian clothing loses their status as a civilian (aka non-combatant) and thus the protections that go with it. They also have no status as a "soldier" because they are not wearing an identifiable uniform. They thus have little or no standing under the GC because they are not named as one of specific classes of those protected.

Let's take the simplest possible path here. The *title* of the GC in question:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of *Civilian* Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. (Emphasis mine).
Please explain to the class how one can take up arms and still be a "civilian"?
You want to presume the convention affirmatively - that by default, anyone not named explicitly is covered. I presume it negatively - you don't have standing unless named in a specific class.

It is clearly impossible to treat someone as a "spy" until we know they are one. Some "process" is obviously required to do so. But you and yours want the "due" part of that to extend well beyond even the language of the GC.
Notwithstanding that, you go through all kinds of mental contortion to demand that a person who is not: a) A uniformed combatant, b) A non-combatant civilian, c) A diplomat, or d) A non-participating member of another nation (all subjects of the GCs *by name*) should also be covered. Don't you suppose that if the writers of the GCs - who took the time to name these particular classes of individuals - had wanted to provide specific protection for saboteurs, spies, terrorists, et al they would have managed to also make *specific* reference to them as well?

You are inventing an argument I did not make. I never said there should be no "due process". Indeed I think there should be - it's called a military tribunal. But I see no reason legally or morally to extend the protections of our domestic legal/social contract nor the protections of the GCs (wherein such people are not named, but every other class of protected individual is) to such individuals.

Ah, the Dancing Left is back. Every sane and reasonable person should be opposed to "torture". But the debate at hand is whether scaring people, intimidating them, making them uncomfortable, depriving them of sleep constitutes "torture". You know this is the debate but insist in writing as if your debating opponents just blindly support any and all forms of torture ignoring that there are degrees of coercion, not all of which are widely accepted as being "torture". You also conveniently ignore that the subjects of said intimidation are not party to our legal/social contract and have no standing to make claims against it.

I don't see it that way. But if, in fact, you're right then you and your fellow Left travelers have an excellent case to make for bringing war crimes charges against this administration. For all the whining on the Left (and all the stupidities on the Right), I somehow don't think this is going to happen. Why? Because, rhetoric aside, you know there is no such case to be made. You know that the disposition of non-uniformed combatants is not as cut and dried as you'd like to paint it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 07:21:03 -0400, Tim Daneliuk
The only country the US has ever fought in a war that actually followed the GC in respect to POWs were the Germans and we ended up hanging most of their leaders as war criminals. The Japaneese got off a lot better after the war and they were horrible to POWs Where is the message there?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.