Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[steef]

Liam O'Toole wrote:

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:14:44 +
steef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  

Michelle Konzack wrote:



[...]

  

So you think, the kidnaping of 17 german and 8 french cizizen and
threeting as terrorists (7 of them are in Guantanamo) without any
judgement since over 3 years is "extremely civil" ???

The actions of the USA ARE TERRORISM to demoraliser the arabic
comunity and specialy the islamic one.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


  
  
i could not agree more than i do with michelle on this point. the 
us-government has become a lawless corporate steered oligarchy.

ethical criteria, the basis of all law, have in this police-state
been replaced by the white house with ad-hoc cynism.



Much as I agree with both of you, I had hoped that this thread had
finally died. No such luck.

  
mmm you are right. i just answered roberto. so now i stop helping to 
continue this thread. yep: let it die out.


steef


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[steef]

Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:14:44PM +, steef wrote:
  
 
  
i could not agree more than i do with michelle on this point. the 
us-government has become a lawless corporate steered oligarchy. ethical 
criteria, the basis of all law, have in this police-state been replaced 
by the white house with ad-hoc cynism.




Right, but what does what Clinton and Gore did have to do with what the
US is doing now? 
preparing it: clinton was allready processing what became evident the 
last 6 years.



 I thought everyone was busy blaming W.

no


  Now you come
along dredge up this old stuff?
  

i wish that were true.

regards,

steef


Regards,

-Roberto

  



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:14:44PM +, steef wrote:
> >  
> i could not agree more than i do with michelle on this point. the 
> us-government has become a lawless corporate steered oligarchy. ethical 
> criteria, the basis of all law, have in this police-state been replaced 
> by the white house with ad-hoc cynism.
> 
Right, but what does what Clinton and Gore did have to do with what the
US is doing now?  I thought everyone was busy blaming W.  Now you come
along dredge up this old stuff?

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Andrew Sackville-West]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 03:23:01PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> 
> It had a mass SMTP drive-by at the hands of Michelle Konzack.

ROFLOL!!

A


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Greg Folkert]

On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 19:43 +0100, Liam O'Toole wrote:
> I had hoped that this thread had finally died. No such luck.

It had a mass SMTP drive-by at the hands of Michelle Konzack.

It is truly amazing how well Michelle keeps the old things a goin'. Just
when they run out of water and fire for the steam... Michelle goes a
fillin' water tank and a stokin' the coal fire.

Not that Michelle is doing anything wrong, just making a point!
-- 
greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's
Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive
product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at
the playfield. -- Thane Walkup


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Liam O'Toole]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:14:44 +
steef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Michelle Konzack wrote:

[...]

> > So you think, the kidnaping of 17 german and 8 french cizizen and
> > threeting as terrorists (7 of them are in Guantanamo) without any
> > judgement since over 3 years is "extremely civil" ???
> >
> > The actions of the USA ARE TERRORISM to demoraliser the arabic
> > comunity and specialy the islamic one.
> >
> > Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
> > Michelle Konzack
> > Systemadministrator
> > Tamay Dogan Network
> > Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
> >
> >
> >   
> i could not agree more than i do with michelle on this point. the 
> us-government has become a lawless corporate steered oligarchy.
> ethical criteria, the basis of all law, have in this police-state
> been replaced by the white house with ad-hoc cynism.

Much as I agree with both of you, I had hoped that this thread had
finally died. No such luck.

-- 

Liam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[steef]

Michelle Konzack wrote:

Am 2007-04-05 16:55:57, schrieb zfh:
  

Its too bad that you never read the documents you
site.  Look at the document on treatment of prisoners
of war.  The terrorists you seem in sympathy with (see
the first line you wrote in the previous response)
make not atempt to qualify under aritcle 4.  Under the
terms of the convention it doesn't apply to them.  In
the present circumstances, the US is being extremely
civil with the terrorist, better treatment than
americans and British get around the world even though
our armed forces do quaify under article 4 and our
civilians are clearly civilians.  Where do kidnapings,
hostage taking, and beheading figure into the
conventions?  International terrorism is not solvable
in the short term, but granting legal protections to
to terrorist that under existing teaty don't deserve
them is the worst possible strategy.



So you think, the kidnaping of 17 german and 8 french cizizen and
threeting as terrorists (7 of them are in Guantanamo) without any
judgement since over 3 years is "extremely civil" ???

The actions of the USA ARE TERRORISM to demoraliser the arabic
comunity and specialy the islamic one.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


  
i could not agree more than i do with michelle on this point. the 
us-government has become a lawless corporate steered oligarchy. ethical 
criteria, the basis of all law, have in this police-state been replaced 
by the white house with ad-hoc cynism.


steef




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-04-05 16:55:57, schrieb zfh:
> Its too bad that you never read the documents you
> site.  Look at the document on treatment of prisoners
> of war.  The terrorists you seem in sympathy with (see
> the first line you wrote in the previous response)
> make not atempt to qualify under aritcle 4.  Under the
> terms of the convention it doesn't apply to them.  In
> the present circumstances, the US is being extremely
> civil with the terrorist, better treatment than
> americans and British get around the world even though
> our armed forces do quaify under article 4 and our
> civilians are clearly civilians.  Where do kidnapings,
> hostage taking, and beheading figure into the
> conventions?  International terrorism is not solvable
> in the short term, but granting legal protections to
> to terrorist that under existing teaty don't deserve
> them is the worst possible strategy.

So you think, the kidnaping of 17 german and 8 french cizizen and
threeting as terrorists (7 of them are in Guantanamo) without any
judgement since over 3 years is "extremely civil" ???

The actions of the USA ARE TERRORISM to demoraliser the arabic
comunity and specialy the islamic one.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:33:39 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> ..I have seen web stuff pointing to Ariel Sharon being unhappy joining
>> W's war on terror on NATO's side because of the full 4 Geneva
>> Conventions, instead lobbying these Wannsee language games, this is why
>> it took them so long (November 2001) to join in.
> 
> You really are that ignorant and pathetic, aren't you?  Let's see, a
> month to "join" in is a long time? 

..over 2 months, actually, NATO joined in on September 12'th 2001, 
Ariel 'n W's Wannsee'ing took them all the way to November 23'rd 2001, 
whether or not that warrants your "Pft" ofcourse depends on your POV.

..Ariel Sharon I understand did not like the full 4 Conventions because 
of Sabra and Shatilla.  Etc. 

> Pft.  Secondly according to your arguments

..eh, _not_ mine.  I'm just the messenger telling you about them.

> Isreal wouldn't have any concerns because Isreal goes further on its
> provisions on how torture is handled, something that John McCain
> apparently was unaware of when he held up Isreal as a no-torture model
> for the US to follow.

..that I can believe.  ;o)

-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:26:44 -0700, zfh wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> --- Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:55:57 -0700, zfh wrote in
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>  
>> ..are you referring to the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11???
>> On "Let's roll!" these civilians _became_ lawful combattants under
>> Arnticle 4A(6) in the 3'rd Convention:
>>
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570017?OpenDocument
>> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007?
>
> With the statements above you clearly demonstrate your irrational
> sympathy with terrorists.  

..huh?

> Every legal system recognizes the right of
> the individual to defend against mortal threat. 

..correct, and this includes the full 4 Geneva Convention and the NATO 
treaty.

> The terrorist boarded
> flight 93 with the intent of committing mass murder. The passengers were
> in the wrong place at the wrong time and decided to attempt to defend
> their lives. They ended up dying, but saving he lives of unknown others
> in the processs.  

..correct, and they did so in _full_ compliance to the full 4 Conventions.
The Conventions have rules against dum-dum bullets, and not against nukes 
nor against fists.

> Do not soil their act by equating them with the
> terrorists.  

..I arguing the passengers belong on Arlington, is "equating them with 
the terrorists" how?  

> The United states ignored international terrorist for
> twenty years including all of the Clinton Administration.  This failure
> to engage a clear enemy bent on killing americans, and enemy bent on
> escalating their acts of terror, brought us to September 11, 2001.  
> The way to prevent history from repeating itself is to engage and defeat
> this enemy.  

..find and read my posts here on on "root cause", had the Jews been as 
smart as the Muslims are now, they would all have fled Europe in 1933, or 
killed Adolf Hitler in 1923.

> The terorist are illegal combatants under article 4 and
> tribunals 

..here you confuse war criminals, terrorists and mercenaries with lawful 
combattants, a war criminal may remain a lawful combattant except of 
course when he does commit a war crime, if all a terrorist does is scare 
people, he will disqualify as a war criminal because scaring people is 
legal in war, and a mercenary is a war criminal under Article 47 in 
Protocol Additional I, _regardless_ of what he does, and is indeed an 
unlawful combattant. 

> and Gitmo are the all justice they deserve.  

..death by hanging etc are acceptable verdicts under the Conventions, 
Gitmo or Abu Ghraib style torture however is not, not even to mercenaries.

> War is a dirty business, 

..I disagree.  And, you confuse lawful warfare with war crime, and 
endorse it.

> expecially a war like this.  Many innocents have died and many
> more will die.  If the tribunals do their job, the guilty will be
> puinshed beffiting their crimes.  You need to think about what type of
> world might come into being if surrender to the terrorists become a
> reality.  

..surrender?  I'm neutral, I step aside.  ;o)

> With that, I sign off from this thread and commit it to the
> spam filter.
> 
> ZFH

..aye, this thread provides ample info on how (and how not) to apply the 
Conventions, which are amply discussed here too (urls on one line each):
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ihl-article-300906?
opendocument
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_in_brief?
OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView



-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Steve Lamb]

Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> ..I have seen web stuff pointing to Ariel Sharon being unhappy joining 
> W's war on terror on NATO's side because of the full 4 Geneva 
> Conventions, instead lobbying these Wannsee language games, this is why 
> it took them so long (November 2001) to join in.

You really are that ignorant and pathetic, aren't you?  Let's see, a month
to "join" in is a long time?  Pft.  Secondly according to your arguments
Isreal wouldn't have any concerns because Isreal goes further on its
provisions on how torture is handled, something that John McCain apparently
was unaware of when he held up Isreal as a no-torture model for the US to 
follow.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[zfh]

--- Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:55:57 -0700, zfh wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>  
> ..are you referring to the passengers onboard flight
> UA93 on 9/11???
> On "Let's roll!" these civilians _became_ lawful
> combattants under 
> Arnticle 4A(6) in the 3'rd Convention:
>
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570017?OpenDocument
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007?
With the statements above you clearly demonstrate your
irrational sympathy with terrorists.  Every legal
system recognizes the right of the individual to
defend against mortal threat.  The terrorist boarded
flight 93 with the intent of committing mass murder. 
The passengers were in the wrong place at the wrong
time and decided to attempt to defend their lives. 
They ended up dying, but saving he lives of unknown
others in the processs.  Do not soil their act by
equating them with the terrorists.  The United states
ignored international terrorist for twenty years
including all of the Clinton Administration.  This
failure to engage a clear enemy bent on killing
americans, and enemy bent on escalating their acts of
terror, brought us to September 11, 2001.  The way to
prevent history from repeating itself is to engage and
defeat this enemy.  The terorist are illegal
combatants under article 4 and tribunals and Gitmo are
the all justice they deserve.  War is a dirty
business, expecially a war like this.  Many innocents
have died and many more will die.  If the tribunals do
their job, the guilty will be puinshed beffiting their
crimes.  You need to think about what type of world
might come into being if surrender to the terrorists
become a reality.  With that, I sign off from this
thread and commit it to the spam filter.

ZFH


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 02:13:50PM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> 
> ..for further court martial litigation advice, hire me or a lawyer.
> 
The only thing for which I would hire you would be to prosecute me.
Your complete divorcement from reality would certainly guarantee that
the jury would acquit :-)

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:39:47 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:33:39PM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:20:21 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> 
>> > No, the media has suspect motives.  The Red Cross generally has OK
>> > motives, though they are a bit left-leaning in their official views.
>> 
>> ..the red cross is left-leaning.  Uh-uh.  And I thought red was the
>> religious righteous republican color.  Now, the Nazis might agree with
>> you here, I'm only aware of Danish Jews getting Red Cross visits in the
>> concentration camps.
>> 
> I was thinking that their decision to eschew moral absolutes (i.e., by
> not condemning the terrorists) is quite leftist.
> 
>> > I did not mean professional as in career volunteer soldiers.  I was
>> > referring to their comportment while POWs.
>> 
>> ..for those germans holding norwegians or airmen or officers POW in
>> WWII, I agree, for those holding Tuskegee airmen or GI's, I know too
>> little, for those holding Jews, Polish, Russian etc "untermänchen" I
>> disagree, these people were treated to neocon standards.
>> 
> Holy cow, man!  Do you not read?  I was talking about German soldiers
> who were held as POWs by the allies.

..aye.  I only talk about stuff I know about.  
They met Nazi standards?

>> >> > My perspective is this.  We start off treating them nice and
>> >> > professionally.
>> >> 
>> >> ..where?  Sissy Boy George started these war crimes by policy,
>> >> before invading Afghanistan.
>> >> 
>> > Cite?
>> 
>> ..chk 9/12-2001 thru 11/23-2001 EO's and White House lawyer tap
>> dancing, if your lawyer pays me, I might do shill dance details here. 
>> ;o)
>> 
> Nov. 20 Executive Order: Delegation of Certain Authorities and
> Assignment of Certain Functions Under the Trade Act of 2002 Nov. 15 
>Executive Order Regarding Undocumented Aliens in the Caribbean Region
> Oct. 7  Executive Order: Creating a Board of Inquiry to Report
> on Certain Labor Disputes Affecting the Maritime Industry of the United
> States
> Sept. 18Executive Order: Environmental Stewardship and
> Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews
> 
> Where?

..you have convinced me W's Regime play Wannsee language games, under 
which Nazis may successfully argue Adolf Hitler never authorized the 
gassing of the Jews, and in any US court.  Yeehaw.

..I have seen web stuff pointing to Ariel Sharon being unhappy joining 
W's war on terror on NATO's side because of the full 4 Geneva 
Conventions, instead lobbying these Wannsee language games, this is why 
it took them so long (November 2001) to join in.

>> > I don't get it.  Why should the US be hed responsible for the actions
>> > of the Iranian media?
>> 
>> ..nice try on diversion.  All you need is a common interest in killing
>> off the (moderate) Iranian middle class people.
>> 
> Except that you have a problem with the US condemning Iran for parading
> around captives on TV for propaganda.  

..aaaooouuuldeee propaganda trick, such condemnations.  ;o)

..we agree this is a war crime?  

> I am simply asking why the US should be held responsible for that? 

..because it too is a war crime, and probably treason too.

> That is an action of the Iranian state-run television media.  

.."and no higher-up's?"  Correct.

> How does your (obviously false) hyperbole about the US wanting to kill
> the Iranian middle class have anything to do with that?

..not "the US", W's neocon regime, which has exhausted all military 
assets except for the nukes.  The purpose is the same as e.g. neocon Fox, 
raise up hatred on the "enemy race" or "terrorist religion" so nobody 
questions the "necessity" of nuclear strikes.

>> > However, it is a show of goodwill and civility.
>> 
>> ..then you should _try_ beat Adolf Hitler on military ethics.
>> 
> Again, saying that Hitler had any sort of military ethics is nothing
> more than a demonstration of your complete divorcement from reality. If
> a serial killer is a "good family" man, does that make him a role model
> for anybody on anything?  No!

..so, you're not even going to _try_ have a military ethic of your own.
That way you will hide well below Adolf Hitler's toe nails, on ethics.

..even for _purely_ racist reasons, he ordered Geneva style protection 
from WWII for Norwegians and Danes.  And Delivered.  And you?

..and _even_ draft dodgers have a military ethic, "I will not fight!"

-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:27:32 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:53:31PM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:33:28 -0700, zfh wrote in
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> 
>> 
>> > Sorry to break into your offtopic rants, but I can't resist this one.
>> > Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants that wear no uniforms
>> > and
>> 
>> ..like the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11?
>> 
> ...who were civilians acting in self-defense?
> 
>> > commit acts of murder and sabotage are considered to be spies and may
>> > be
>> 
>> ..you speak of murderers, saboteurs and spies, who may only be shot
>> after having received a verdict so ordering in a trial for the
>> murderer, and in an Article 90 hearing _and_ a trial for the saboteur
>> and the spy.  The latter 2 generally need to commit some war crime to
>> earn a verdict, but can still be held as POW for the duration of the
>> war without committing any war crimes, read especially the commentary
>> to Article 46 for background:
>> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750056?OpenDocument
>> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750056?OpenDocument
>> 
>> 
> They can be held as POWs, but the right of communication can be witheld
> (GC IV, Art 5):
>
>   Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
>   satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected
>   of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such
>   individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and
>   privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the
>   favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of
>   such State.
> 
>   Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained
>   as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of
>   activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person
>   shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be
>   regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present
>   Convention.
> 
>   In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity
>   and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and
>   regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be
>   granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the
>   present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security
>   of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

..interesting, here you use Art. 5 to argue Hezbollah's case against the 
2 captured IDF officers, and against Israeli corporal Ghilad and in favor 
of whoever holds him.  I would have checked the commentary to verify 
whether such an interesting angle can be taken as valid:  ;o)
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-68?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-68?OpenDocument

> It seems, like the prisoners at Gitmo *are* being held in accordance
> with the GC (less the isolated cases of guards acting in contravention
> to the other GC protections).

..you 'n "Toby" do similar bible reading? ;o)
Generally, when in doubt of your understanding and interpretation of a 
Geneva Convention article, consult its commentary and whatever the 
commentary cites, such as the Protocol Additional I articles and their 
commentaries, there _has_ been changes to the original 1949 Conventions, 
such as banning mercenarism and adding to the commanders responsibilities.

..for further court martial litigation advice, hire me or a lawyer.

>> > Al Queda and the Taliban don't care about anyones rights or freedoms.
>> >  We need to follow the rules because we are who we are and need to
>> > stay that way if free nations are to survive.  Though there have been
>> > some abuses, military tribunals and Gitmo are not necessarily outside
>> > the rules when dealing with an organized terrorist threat.
>> 
>> ..really?  ;o)  They are.  On one line:
>> http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ihl-article-300906?
>> opendocument
>> 
> Umm.  That document is an article about International Humanitarian Law.
> It mentions nothing of tribunals.

..correct, it concerns their _relevancy_, and the relevancy of proper 
treatment of POW's and Article 90 tribunal procedings is just one part of 
this.  Read it, instead of just pasting stuff blindly. 
Also read:

>> ..a good starting point for further reading:
>> http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_in_brief?
>> OpenDocument
>> 


-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:55:57 -0700, zfh wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> --- Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:33:28 -0700, zfh wrote in
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> 
>> 
>> > Sorry to break into your offtopic rants, but I
>> can't resist this one.
>> > Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants
>> that wear no uniforms and
>> 
>> ..like the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11?
>> 
>> > commit acts of murder and sabotage are considered
>> to be spies and may be
>> 
>> ..you speak of murderers, saboteurs and spies, who may only be shot
>> after
>> having received a verdict so ordering in a trial for the murderer, and
>> in
>> an Article 90 hearing _and_ a trial for the saboteur and the spy.  The
>> latter 2 generally need to commit some war crime to earn a verdict, but
>> can still be held as POW for the duration of the war without committing
>> any war crimes, read especially the commentary to Article 46 for
>> background:
>>
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750056?OpenDocument
>>
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750056?OpenDocument
>> 
>> 
>> > leagaly shot on sight.
>> 
>> ..this applies only to mercenaries, who first needs to be identified as
>> such under Article 47:
>>
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750057?OpenDocument
>>
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750057?OpenDocument
>> 
>> > During the cold war, the understanding developed
>> that everyone has
>> > spies and that if you don't kill mine I won't kill
>> yours.
>> 
>> ..true, and irrelevant, as the high contracting powers instead agreed
>> to
>> go after mercenaries.
>> 
>> > Are you old enough to remember that famous antiwar
>> photo from
>> > the Tet offensive in Vietnam of an ARVN soldier
>> shooting a captured
>> > vietcong agent in the head?  Under the geneva
>> convention, that was
>> > legal.
>> 
>> ..citation?  ;o)
>> 
>> > Al Queda and the Taliban don't care about anyones
>> rights or
>> > freedoms.  We need to follow the rules because we
>> are who we are and
>> > need to stay that way if free nations are to
>> survive.  Though there have
>> > been some abuses, military tribunals and Gitmo are
>> not necessarily
>> > outside the rules when dealing with an organized
>> terrorist threat.
>> 
>> ..really?  ;o)  They are.  On one line:
>>
> http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ihl-article-300906?
>> opendocument
>> 
>> ..a good starting point for further reading:
>>
> http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_in_brief?
>> OpenDocument
>> 

...
 
> Its too bad that you never read the documents you site.  Look at the
> document on treatment of prisoners of war.  The terrorists you seem in
> sympathy with (see the first line you wrote in the previous response)

..are you referring to the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11???
On "Let's roll!" these civilians _became_ lawful combattants under 
Arnticle 4A(6) in the 3'rd Convention:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570017?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007?OpenDocument

..more:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750054?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750054?OpenDocument

> make not atempt to qualify under aritcle 4.  Under the terms of the
> convention it doesn't apply to them.  

..no?
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5KZJAV
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590005?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590005?OpenDocument


> In the present circumstances, the
> US is being extremely civil with the terrorist, better treatment than
> americans and British get around the world even though our armed forces
> do quaify under article 4 and our civilians are clearly civilians. 

..do you qualify as a civilian, or a war criminal, on arguing against the 
facts on what these Conventions _actually_ cover?
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750064?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750064?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600166?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600166?OpenDocument


..arguing how you would like things to be, is completely different to 
arguing how things really are, I for one would like to see mercenaries 
legalized so they can earn money by stopping war crimes.  


> Where do kidnapings, hostage taking, and beheading figure into the
> conventions?  

..as war crimes.

> International terrorism is not solvable in the short term,
> but granting legal protections to to terrorist that under existing teaty
> don't deserve them is the worst possible strategy.

..uhuh.  So, you want history repeating itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv47iWKUv5A



-- 
..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]

Re: [OT] a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:06:27 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> Daniel B. wrote:
>> That's an unrealistic case that distracts from the rest of the cases.
>> It's rare the you _really_ know.  (Remember that "24" is fiction.)
> 
> Oh, I am quite aware it is fiction.  The problem isn't that I have
> forgotten that 24 is fiction the problem is that you, and others, do not
> believe reality isn't fiction.  You do not believe Ahmadinejad when he
> says he wants to wipe Isreal off the map.  You do not believe when
> clerics for Syria talk about how many rockets they have given to Hamas. 

..I believe them.  Resorting to war is what people to when everything 
else such as negotiations, fail so completely you convince them they are 
going to be treated like the Jews were.

..Adolf Hitler ran a much more clever operation, he had a _lot_ of Jews 
actually believe they were going to get rid of bugs in those "shower" 
chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau.  

> You have forgotten that the ticking time bomb situation happens every
> day in Iraq which is amazing since the media reports every single
> bombing and every single death.  How is that not a ticking time bomb
> situation when *you*, personally, know that there will be violence often
> in the form of bombs!  What kind of disconnect do you have to have
> to harp on Bush for the violence when it doesn't suit your needs!

..and I don't see your "24" methods working, except to kill Muslims and 
GI's.  _Because_ your and W's methods match so closely to Adolf Hitler's 
the "gas chamber" nukes looks _so_ real.
 
>> No.  Most of the judging is of those who are using torture in much less
>> definite situations.
> 
> Really?  The instances that I have heard of were immediately after
> 9-11,
> immediately after the crushing victory of the Iraq war (news flash, we
> won, 

..really?  ;o)

> the stat we went to war against no longer exists)

..under your theory here, Norway, France, Poland etc ceased to exist when 
Adolf Hitler occupied it. 

> when there was
> outstanding violence on a daily basis.  I have not heard of anything
> where it was months out of those situations.

..history repeating itself?  ;o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv47iWKUv5A

> Even so let's think a minute.  What was the timeline from the WTC
> bombing
> to the WTC being hit with planes?  8 years, wasn't it?  8 *years*.  What
> has happened in the 5.5 years since 9-11.  Spain, Britain (almost 3
> times), Beslan, and countless others over a freakin' *cartoon*.
> 
> Again, disconnect much?

..I enjoy good toons.  ;o)

-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:33:39PM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:20:21 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> > No, the media has suspect motives.  The Red Cross generally has OK
> > motives, though they are a bit left-leaning in their official views.
> 
> ..the red cross is left-leaning.  Uh-uh.  And I thought red was the 
> religious righteous republican color.  Now, the Nazis might agree with 
> you here, I'm only aware of Danish Jews getting Red Cross visits in the 
> concentration camps.
> 
I was thinking that their decision to eschew moral absolutes (i.e., by
not condemning the terrorists) is quite leftist.

> > I did not mean professional as in career volunteer soldiers.  I was
> > referring to their comportment while POWs.
> 
> ..for those germans holding norwegians or airmen or officers POW in WWII, 
> I agree, for those holding Tuskegee airmen or GI's, I know too little,  
> for those holding Jews, Polish, Russian etc "untermänchen" I disagree,
> these people were treated to neocon standards.
> 
Holy cow, man!  Do you not read?  I was talking about German soldiers
who were held as POWs by the allies.

> >> > My perspective is this.  We start off treating them nice and
> >> > professionally.
> >> 
> >> ..where?  Sissy Boy George started these war crimes by policy, before
> >> invading Afghanistan.
> >> 
> > Cite?
> 
> ..chk 9/12-2001 thru 11/23-2001 EO's and White House lawyer tap dancing,
> if your lawyer pays me, I might do shill dance details here.  ;o)
> 
Nov. 20 Executive Order: Delegation of Certain Authorities and
Assignment of Certain Functions Under the Trade Act of 2002
Nov. 15 Executive Order Regarding Undocumented Aliens in the
Caribbean Region
Oct. 7  Executive Order: Creating a Board of Inquiry to Report
on Certain Labor Disputes Affecting the Maritime Industry of the United
States
Sept. 18Executive Order: Environmental Stewardship and
Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews 

Where?

> > I don't get it.  Why should the US be hed responsible for the actions of
> > the Iranian media?
> 
> ..nice try on diversion.  All you need is a common interest in killing 
> off the (moderate) Iranian middle class people.
> 
Except that you have a problem with the US condemning Iran for parading
around captives on TV for propaganda.  I am simply asking why the US
should be held responsible for that?  That is an action of the Iranian
state-run television media.  How does your (obviously false) hyperbole
about the US wanting to kill the Iranian middle class have anything to
do with that?

> > However, it is a show of goodwill and civility.
> 
> ..then you should _try_ beat Adolf Hitler on military ethics.
> 
Again, saying that Hitler had any sort of military ethics is nothing
more than a demonstration of your complete divorcement from reality.
If a serial killer is a "good family" man, does that make him a role
model for anybody on anything?  No!

Regards,

-Roberto
-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:53:31PM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:33:28 -0700, zfh wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to break into your offtopic rants, but I can't resist this one. 
> > Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants that wear no uniforms and
> 
> ..like the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11?
> 
...who were civilians acting in self-defense?

> > commit acts of murder and sabotage are considered to be spies and may be
> 
> ..you speak of murderers, saboteurs and spies, who may only be shot after 
> having received a verdict so ordering in a trial for the murderer, and in 
> an Article 90 hearing _and_ a trial for the saboteur and the spy.  The 
> latter 2 generally need to commit some war crime to earn a verdict, but 
> can still be held as POW for the duration of the war without committing 
> any war crimes, read especially the commentary to Article 46 for 
> background:
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750056?OpenDocument
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750056?OpenDocument
> 

They can be held as POWs, but the right of communication can be
witheld (GC IV, Art 5):

  Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
  satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected
  of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such
  individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and
  privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the
  favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of
  such State.

  Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained
  as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of
  activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person
  shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be
  regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present
  Convention.

  In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity
  and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and
  regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be
  granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the
  present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security
  of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

It seems, like the prisoners at Gitmo *are* being held in accordance
with the GC (less the isolated cases of guards acting in contravention
to the other GC protections).

> > Al Queda and the Taliban don't care about anyones rights or
> > freedoms.  We need to follow the rules because we are who we are and
> > need to stay that way if free nations are to survive.  Though there have
> > been some abuses, military tribunals and Gitmo are not necessarily
> > outside the rules when dealing with an organized terrorist threat.
> 
> ..really?  ;o)  They are.  On one line:
> http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ihl-article-300906?
> opendocument
> 
Umm.  That document is an article about International Humanitarian Law.
It mentions nothing of tribunals.

> ..a good starting point for further reading:
> http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_in_brief?
> OpenDocument
> 

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[zfh]

--- Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:33:28 -0700, zfh wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to break into your offtopic rants, but I
> can't resist this one. 
> > Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants
> that wear no uniforms and
> 
> ..like the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11?
> 
> > commit acts of murder and sabotage are considered
> to be spies and may be
> 
> ..you speak of murderers, saboteurs and spies, who
> may only be shot after 
> having received a verdict so ordering in a trial for
> the murderer, and in 
> an Article 90 hearing _and_ a trial for the saboteur
> and the spy.  The 
> latter 2 generally need to commit some war crime to
> earn a verdict, but 
> can still be held as POW for the duration of the war
> without committing 
> any war crimes, read especially the commentary to
> Article 46 for 
> background:
>
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750056?OpenDocument
>
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750056?OpenDocument
> 
> 
> > leagaly shot on sight. 
> 
> ..this applies only to mercenaries, who first needs
> to be identified as 
> such under Article 47:
>
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750057?OpenDocument
>
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750057?OpenDocument
> 
> > During the cold war, the understanding developed
> that everyone has 
> > spies and that if you don't kill mine I won't kill
> yours.  
> 
> ..true, and irrelevant, as the high contracting
> powers instead agreed to 
> go after mercenaries.
> 
> > Are you old enough to remember that famous antiwar
> photo from
> > the Tet offensive in Vietnam of an ARVN soldier
> shooting a captured
> > vietcong agent in the head?  Under the geneva
> convention, that was
> > legal. 
> 
> ..citation?  ;o)
> 
> > Al Queda and the Taliban don't care about anyones
> rights or
> > freedoms.  We need to follow the rules because we
> are who we are and
> > need to stay that way if free nations are to
> survive.  Though there have
> > been some abuses, military tribunals and Gitmo are
> not necessarily
> > outside the rules when dealing with an organized
> terrorist threat.
> 
> ..really?  ;o)  They are.  On one line:
>
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ihl-article-300906?
> opendocument
> 
> ..a good starting point for further reading:
>
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_in_brief?
> OpenDocument
> 
> -- 
> ..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.
> 
Its too bad that you never read the documents you
site.  Look at the document on treatment of prisoners
of war.  The terrorists you seem in sympathy with (see
the first line you wrote in the previous response)
make not atempt to qualify under aritcle 4.  Under the
terms of the convention it doesn't apply to them.  In
the present circumstances, the US is being extremely
civil with the terrorist, better treatment than
americans and British get around the world even though
our armed forces do quaify under article 4 and our
civilians are clearly civilians.  Where do kidnapings,
hostage taking, and beheading figure into the
conventions?  International terrorism is not solvable
in the short term, but granting legal protections to
to terrorist that under existing teaty don't deserve
them is the worst possible strategy.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:20:21 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 05:22:30PM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:31:11 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> 
>> > I'm sorry, but who decided that the memos were of "dubious legal
>> > merit"? The media?  Please forgive me if I consider their motives
>> > suspect.
>> 
>> ..the Red Cross have suspect motives?
>> 
>> > Now, if there has been a court decision which invalidates the Justice
> 
> No, the media has suspect motives.  The Red Cross generally has OK
> motives, though they are a bit left-leaning in their official views.

..the red cross is left-leaning.  Uh-uh.  And I thought red was the 
religious righteous republican color.  Now, the Nazis might agree with 
you here, I'm only aware of Danish Jews getting Red Cross visits in the 
concentration camps.

>> > If it weren't for the fact that the prisoners often attack or
>> > otherwise harrass the guards I might be more sympathetic.  IIRC,
>> > Gereman soldiers were held in POW camps in Canada during WWII.  Now,
>> > I'm sure that some tried to escape (what POW wouldn't).  But despite
>> > how despicable the German military's actions were, my understanding
>> > based on history is that as POWs they were still professional
>> > soldiers.
>> 
>> ..actually no, the vast majority was draftees.
>> 
> I did not mean professional as in career volunteer soldiers.  I was
> referring to their comportment while POWs.

..for those germans holding norwegians or airmen or officers POW in WWII, 
I agree, for those holding Tuskegee airmen or GI's, I know too little,  
for those holding Jews, Polish, Russian etc "untermänchen" I disagree,
these people were treated to neocon standards.

>> > They did not sling feces and urine at their guards. They did not
>> > attack their guards and
>> > try to infect them with disease.
>> 
>> ..this is actually an old Christian Feudal European military strategy
>> and proved very effective against the native "Indian" American, use the
>> complete medieval Christian lack of hygiene as a biological weapon
>> against the Maya etc civilizations, one such conquistador brought 300
>> pigs across to somewhere between NOLA and Boston around 1500-1525 to
>> introduce pig borne deceases to kill off 95 to 99+% of the "redskins",
>> AFAIR what I read.  Early intruders reported "big cities" and "public
>> baths", all this was gone by 1600-1650AD and the native Americans were
>> living in the "Wild West", when the English started to arrive in
>> numbers.
>> 
>> ..and keep in mind the victors are the ones who get to spin History
>> itself, Their Way[TM], whenever you read whatever purports to be
>> History.
>> 
> What are you babbling on about?  All as I was saying was that the
> incidents of prisoners' abusive behavior towards the guards can make it
> very difficult for the guards to treat them nicely.

..then you need to hoist your file and rank discipline standards up to, 
and preferably up beyond those set by Adolf Hitler's Führerbefehl on 
Norway, he had 2 German GI's court marshalled and shot for every dead 
Norwegian civilian and POW.

>> > Just go read some of the accounts of
>> > the people who have served as guards in some of these places.  The
>> > accounts read worse than those of guards in maximum security prisons
>> > or death row.
>> > 
>> > My perspective is this.  We start off treating them nice and
>> > professionally.
>> 
>> ..where?  Sissy Boy George started these war crimes by policy, before
>> invading Afghanistan.
>> 
> Cite?

..chk 9/12-2001 thru 11/23-2001 EO's and White House lawyer tap dancing,
if your lawyer pays me, I might do shill dance details here.  ;o)

>> ..or, is "treat them nice" just your personal wannabe ambition?
>> 
> I did say "My perspective is this" to start off with.  As in, if I were
> in charge, that is the policy I would institute.

..chk my response to zfh, 

>> > When they start acting like animals, then we treat them as such.  By
>> > all accounts, the prisoners are treated quite professionally at
>> > first.  It is only when they become vicious towards the staff that
>> > incidents of retribution or what might be considered humiliating and
>> > degrading treatment happen.
>> > 
>> >>  Televising pictures of them. (funny, how we now condemn Iran
>> >>  for doing similar.  I'm not defending Iran's actions, but it's
>> >>  rather hypocritical for us to criticize them for doing things
>> >>  that we also do)
>> > 
>> > Umm, the "we" you are talking about is the news media.
>> 
>> ..you forget the Iranian media here.
>> 
> I don't get it.  Why should the US be hed responsible for the actions of
> the Iranian media?

..nice try on diversion.  All you need is a common interest in killing 
off the (moderate) Iranian middle class people.

>> > Nothing.  I am in agreement that GC protections should be accorded.
>> 
>> ..define "accorded", or tell me why you argue a

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:33:28 -0700, zfh wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:


> Sorry to break into your offtopic rants, but I can't resist this one. 
> Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants that wear no uniforms and

..like the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11?

> commit acts of murder and sabotage are considered to be spies and may be

..you speak of murderers, saboteurs and spies, who may only be shot after 
having received a verdict so ordering in a trial for the murderer, and in 
an Article 90 hearing _and_ a trial for the saboteur and the spy.  The 
latter 2 generally need to commit some war crime to earn a verdict, but 
can still be held as POW for the duration of the war without committing 
any war crimes, read especially the commentary to Article 46 for 
background:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750056?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750056?OpenDocument


> leagaly shot on sight. 

..this applies only to mercenaries, who first needs to be identified as 
such under Article 47:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750057?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750057?OpenDocument

> During the cold war, the understanding developed that everyone has 
> spies and that if you don't kill mine I won't kill yours.  

..true, and irrelevant, as the high contracting powers instead agreed to 
go after mercenaries.

> Are you old enough to remember that famous antiwar photo from
> the Tet offensive in Vietnam of an ARVN soldier shooting a captured
> vietcong agent in the head?  Under the geneva convention, that was
> legal. 

..citation?  ;o)

> Al Queda and the Taliban don't care about anyones rights or
> freedoms.  We need to follow the rules because we are who we are and
> need to stay that way if free nations are to survive.  Though there have
> been some abuses, military tribunals and Gitmo are not necessarily
> outside the rules when dealing with an organized terrorist threat.

..really?  ;o)  They are.  On one line:
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ihl-article-300906?
opendocument

..a good starting point for further reading:
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_in_brief?
OpenDocument

-- 
..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]

Re: [OT] a dumb query? pls humor me

[Steve Lamb]

Daniel B. wrote:
> That's an unrealistic case that distracts from the rest of the cases.
> It's rare the you _really_ know.  (Remember that "24" is fiction.)

Oh, I am quite aware it is fiction.  The problem isn't that I have
forgotten that 24 is fiction the problem is that you, and others, do not
believe reality isn't fiction.  You do not believe Ahmadinejad when he says he
wants to wipe Isreal off the map.  You do not believe when clerics for Syria
talk about how many rockets they have given to Hamas.  You have forgotten that
the ticking time bomb situation happens every day in Iraq which is amazing
since the media reports every single bombing and every single death.  How is
that not a ticking time bomb situation when *you*, personally, know that there
will be violence often in the form of bombs!  What kind of disconnect do
you have to have to harp on Bush for the violence when it doesn't suit your 
needs!

> No.  Most of the judging is of those who are using torture in much
> less definite situations.

Really?  The instances that I have heard of were immediately after 9-11,
immediately after the crushing victory of the Iraq war (news flash, we won,
the stat we went to war against no longer exists) when there was outstanding
violence on a daily basis.  I have not heard of anything where it was months
out of those situations.

Even so let's think a minute.  What was the timeline from the WTC bombing
to the WTC being hit with planes?  8 years, wasn't it?  8 *years*.  What has
happened in the 5.5 years since 9-11.  Spain, Britain (almost 3 times),
Beslan, and countless others over a freakin' *cartoon*.

Again, disconnect much?

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Steve Lamb]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  Show me one instance where I defended the actions of terrorists.

This thread, pretty much every message you post to it.

> or non-existent.  Show me one case where this has happened, since
> you state that is what's going on.

Well, that's a lovely standard.  Here, let me pull out my security
clearance and wave it to gain access to those records.  Whoops, forgot, I
don't have one.  Do you to prove that any case of torture is indeed happening,
and if so, that it isn't a ticking time bomb scenario?

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 05:21:06PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On  3 Apr, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:10:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> >> >  * Why does everything need to be some sort of vast conspiracy?
> >> >Remember Hanlon's Razor?  It could have just as easily been
> >> >someone overlooking something, someone going against orders,
> >> >whatever.
> >> 
> >>  I'm a scientist, we use Occam's razor, not Hanlon's. :-)  Since
> >> we were discussing a presidential order, which referenced justice 
> >> department memos (which are of dubious legal merit, anyway), I don't
> >> see how that can be "someone going against orders.
> >> 
> > I'm sorry, but who decided that the memos were of "dubious legal merit"?
> > The media?  Please forgive me if I consider their motives suspect.
> > 
> 
>  The American Bar Association
>  At least 12 former presidents of the ABA
>  Many military lawyers in the pentagon
>  The US State Department
>  Amnesty International
>  Red Cross International
>  etc, etc, etc.
> 
> One analysis of it is at http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm
> 
Well, the analysis is flawed.  Here is the key part of their argument:

They controlled a substantial geographic territory and population,
enacted and enforced laws and mandates, carried on relatively
complex military operations, appointed persons to governmental posts
and received diplomatic recognition from several nations.

The flaw is that only Pakistan recognized the Taliban as the legitimate
government.  At some point in the past Saudi Arabia and the UAE had
recognized the Taliban, but later changed their minds.  By their
argument, the Kurdish portions of Iraq and parts of Colombia would be
considered separate countries.

> > Now, if there has been a court decision which invalidates the Justice
> > Department's opinion, then you have something.
> > 
> 
>  As far as I know, it has not been tested in court, but as soon as
> it became public the White House and Justice department tried to
> distance themselves from it.
>
> > >  * In what way have the prisoners' GC protections allegedly been
> >> >withheld?
> >> > 
> >> 
> >>  Torture.
> > 
> > Forgive me if I wait for this to be proven in court.
> > 
> 
>  Charles Graner was convicted of Assault, conspiracy, maltreatment of 
> detainees, committing indecent acts and dereliction of duty.
> 
>  Some of the acts which resulted in these convictions would most
> likely qualify as a war crime under the US War Crimes Act.  IIRC,
> some other Abu Ghraib guards were also convicted on similar charges.
> 
>  As far as I know, you are correct that no one has yet been
> convicted (or even charged) with the war crime of torture. 
> 
Umm, one person convicted of wrong doing does not create a systematic
denial of human rights.  Being that he was charged with dereliction of
duty, he was doing something he should not have been doing or failed to
something he should have been.  In either case, his actions were not
keeping with established policy.

> >>  Humiliating and degrading treatment.
> > 
> 
> > 
> > My perspective is this.  We start off treating them nice and
> > professionally.  When they start acting like animals, then we treat
> > them as such.  By all accounts, the prisoners are treated quite
>  ^^^
>  Which accounts are these?
> 
The accounts of the guards.  Heck, while the Red Cross doesn't come
right out and recognize the professional conduct of the staff at Gitmo,
it is somewhat evident.  Their chief complain about the detention of
prisoners at Gitmo is that they are not allowed sufficient contact with
family members/loved one.  If that is their biggest gripe, I would say
that prisoners are being treated pretty well on the whole.

> > professionally at first.  It is only when they become vicious towards
> > the staff that incidents of retribution or what might be considered
> > humiliating and degrading treatment happen.
> > 
> 
>  Examples?
> 
I will try and track this down.  I read it in a magazine, but I forget
which one.  They had a first hand account from a sailor who worked as a
guard in the facility.

> > ...
> 
> >> And what I'd like to know, is what the US gains by not giving them at
> >> least common article III protections?
> >> 
> > Nothing.  I am in agreement that GC protections should be accorded.
> > 
> 
>At least we agree on this.

Regards,

-Roberto
-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 05:22:30PM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:31:11 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> > I'm sorry, but who decided that the memos were of "dubious legal merit"?
> > The media?  Please forgive me if I consider their motives suspect.
> 
> ..the Red Cross have suspect motives?
> 
> > Now, if there has been a court decision which invalidates the Justice

No, the media has suspect motives.  The Red Cross generally has OK
motives, though they are a bit left-leaning in their official views.

> > If it weren't for the fact that the prisoners often attack or otherwise
> > harrass the guards I might be more sympathetic.  IIRC, Gereman soldiers
> > were held in POW camps in Canada during WWII.  Now, I'm sure that some
> > tried to escape (what POW wouldn't).  But despite how despicable the
> > German military's actions were, my understanding based on history is
> > that as POWs they were still professional soldiers.  
> 
> ..actually no, the vast majority was draftees.
> 
I did not mean professional as in career volunteer soldiers.  I was
referring to their comportment while POWs.

> > They did not sling feces and urine at their guards.  
> > They did not attack their guards and
> > try to infect them with disease.  
> 
> ..this is actually an old Christian Feudal European military strategy and 
> proved very effective against the native "Indian" American, use the 
> complete medieval Christian lack of hygiene as a biological weapon 
> against the Maya etc civilizations, one such conquistador brought 300 
> pigs across to somewhere between NOLA and Boston around 1500-1525 to 
> introduce pig borne deceases to kill off 95 to 99+% of the "redskins", 
> AFAIR what I read.  Early intruders reported "big cities" and "public 
> baths", all this was gone by 1600-1650AD and the native Americans were 
> living in the "Wild West", when the English started to arrive in numbers.
> 
> ..and keep in mind the victors are the ones who get to spin History 
> itself, Their Way[TM], whenever you read whatever purports to be History.
> 
What are you babbling on about?  All as I was saying was that the
incidents of prisoners' abusive behavior towards the guards can make it
very difficult for the guards to treat them nicely.

> > Just go read some of the accounts of
> > the people who have served as guards in some of these places.  The
> > accounts read worse than those of guards in maximum security prisons or
> > death row.
> > 
> > My perspective is this.  We start off treating them nice and
> > professionally.  
> 
> ..where?  Sissy Boy George started these war crimes by policy, 
> before invading Afghanistan. 
> 
Cite?

> ..or, is "treat them nice" just your personal wannabe ambition?
> 
I did say "My perspective is this" to start off with.  As in, if I were
in charge, that is the policy I would institute.

> > When they start acting like animals, then we treat them
> > as such.  By all accounts, the prisoners are treated quite
> > professionally at first.  It is only when they become vicious towards
> > the staff that incidents of retribution or what might be considered
> > humiliating and degrading treatment happen.
> > 
> >>  Televising pictures of them. (funny, how we now condemn Iran for
> >>  doing similar.  I'm not defending Iran's actions, but it's rather
> >>  hypocritical for us to criticize them for doing things that we
> >>  also do)
> > 
> > Umm, the "we" you are talking about is the news media.
> 
> ..you forget the Iranian media here.
> 
I don't get it.  Why should the US be hed responsible for the actions of
the Iranian media?

> > Nothing.  I am in agreement that GC protections should be accorded.
> 
> ..define "accorded", or tell me why you argue against the full 4 Geneva 
> Conventions.
> 
"Accorded" means to be conferred.  As in, they should be accorded the
protections to which they *would* be entitled were they lawful
combatants.  Of course, they are not lawful combatants and so not
legally entitled.  However, it is a show of goodwill and civility.

Regards,

-Roberto
-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[zfh]

> >> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:20:04PM -0400,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Since some of the al-Qaeda and taliban
prisoner's were in fact
> >> >> denied their GC protections, by being
> tortured, mistreated, etc.,
> >> >> it's pretty obvious that the "QCs don't apply"
> provision was the
> >> >> operational part of this order, and not "taken
> out of context quite
> >> >> badly".  It's more reasonable to conclude that
> the other language
> >> >> was included as whitewash.
Sorry to break into your offtopic rants, but I can't
resist this one.  Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy
combatants that wear no uniforms and commit acts of
murder and sabotage are considered to be spies and may
be leagaly shot on sight.  During the cold war, the
understanding developed that everyone has spies and
that if you don't kill mine I won't kill yours.  Are
you old enough to remember that famous antiwar photo
from the Tet offensive in Vietnam of an ARVN soldier
shooting a captured vietcong agent in the head?  Under
the geneva convention, that was legal.  Al Queda and
the Taliban don't care about anyones rights or
freedoms.  We need to follow the rules because we are
who we are and need to stay that way if free nations
are to survive.  Though there have been some abuses,
military tribunals and Gitmo are not necessarily
outside the rules when dealing with an organized
terrorist threat.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[judd]

On  3 Apr, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:10:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...
> 
>> >  * Why does everything need to be some sort of vast conspiracy?
>> >Remember Hanlon's Razor?  It could have just as easily been
>> >someone overlooking something, someone going against orders,
>> >whatever.
>> 
>>  I'm a scientist, we use Occam's razor, not Hanlon's. :-)  Since
>> we were discussing a presidential order, which referenced justice 
>> department memos (which are of dubious legal merit, anyway), I don't
>> see how that can be "someone going against orders.
>> 
> I'm sorry, but who decided that the memos were of "dubious legal merit"?
> The media?  Please forgive me if I consider their motives suspect.
> 

 The American Bar Association
 At least 12 former presidents of the ABA
 Many military lawyers in the pentagon
 The US State Department
 Amnesty International
 Red Cross International
 etc, etc, etc.

One analysis of it is at http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm

> Now, if there has been a court decision which invalidates the Justice
> Department's opinion, then you have something.
> 

 As far as I know, it has not been tested in court, but as soon as
it became public the White House and Justice department tried to
distance themselves from it.
   
> >  * In what way have the prisoners' GC protections allegedly been
>> >withheld?
>> > 
>> 
>>  Torture.
> 
> Forgive me if I wait for this to be proven in court.
> 

 Charles Graner was convicted of Assault, conspiracy, maltreatment of 
detainees, committing indecent acts and dereliction of duty.

 Some of the acts which resulted in these convictions would most
likely qualify as a war crime under the US War Crimes Act.  IIRC,
some other Abu Ghraib guards were also convicted on similar charges.

 As far as I know, you are correct that no one has yet been
convicted (or even charged) with the war crime of torture. 

>>  Humiliating and degrading treatment.
> 

> 
> My perspective is this.  We start off treating them nice and
> professionally.  When they start acting like animals, then we treat
> them as such.  By all accounts, the prisoners are treated quite
 ^^^
 Which accounts are these?

> professionally at first.  It is only when they become vicious towards
> the staff that incidents of retribution or what might be considered
> humiliating and degrading treatment happen.
> 

 Examples?

> ...

>> And what I'd like to know, is what the US gains by not giving them at
>> least common article III protections?
>> 
> Nothing.  I am in agreement that GC protections should be accorded.
> 

   At least we agree on this.

-Chris


|   Christopher Judd, Ph. D.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-03-27 12:19:07, schrieb Celejar:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:06:43 +0200
> Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > Why thre are 38 Synagoges in Iran?
> > Why there are wide over 10 Jews in Iran?
> 
> There were in 1948. there are only several tens of thousands now,
> apparently because of the rise to power of the fundamentalist regime
> [0].

Jew-Propaganda!

> > Why do they have NO problems with Iran?
> 
> What makes you think they don't?

I have Jew-Friends there and I AM Iranien!

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:31:11 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:10:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On  2 Apr, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:20:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Since some of the al-Qaeda and taliban prisoner's were in fact
>> >> denied their GC protections, by being tortured, mistreated, etc.,
>> >> it's pretty obvious that the "QCs don't apply" provision was the
>> >> operational part of this order, and not "taken out of context quite
>> >> badly".  It's more reasonable to conclude that the other language
>> >> was included as whitewash.
>> >> 
>> > Actually, if what you described happened to *every* prisoner, *then*
>> > you
>> > *might* *maybe* have a point.  However, it isn't happening to every
>> > prisoner, if at all.  Now, what I'd like to knw:
>> 
>> The lack of logic in the above statement is self evident, so I
>> won't
>> even comment. :-)
>> 
> ???
> 
>> >  * Why does everything need to be some sort of vast conspiracy?
>> >Remember Hanlon's Razor?  It could have just as easily been
>> >someone overlooking something, someone going against orders,
>> >whatever.
>> 
>>  I'm a scientist, we use Occam's razor, not Hanlon's. :-)  Since
>> we were discussing a presidential order, which referenced justice
>> department memos (which are of dubious legal merit, anyway), I don't
>> see how that can be "someone going against orders.
>> 
> I'm sorry, but who decided that the memos were of "dubious legal merit"?
> The media?  Please forgive me if I consider their motives suspect.

..the Red Cross have suspect motives?

> Now, if there has been a court decision which invalidates the Justice
> Department's opinion, then you have something.
> 
>> >  * In what way have the prisoners' GC protections allegedly been
>> >withheld?
>> > 
>> > 
>>  Torture.
> 
> Forgive me if I wait for this to be proven in court.

.. ;o)

>>  Humiliating and degrading treatment.
> 
> If it weren't for the fact that the prisoners often attack or otherwise
> harrass the guards I might be more sympathetic.  IIRC, Gereman soldiers
> were held in POW camps in Canada during WWII.  Now, I'm sure that some
> tried to escape (what POW wouldn't).  But despite how despicable the
> German military's actions were, my understanding based on history is
> that as POWs they were still professional soldiers.  

..actually no, the vast majority was draftees.

> They did not sling feces and urine at their guards.  
> They did not attack their guards and
> try to infect them with disease.  

..this is actually an old Christian Feudal European military strategy and 
proved very effective against the native "Indian" American, use the 
complete medieval Christian lack of hygiene as a biological weapon 
against the Maya etc civilizations, one such conquistador brought 300 
pigs across to somewhere between NOLA and Boston around 1500-1525 to 
introduce pig borne deceases to kill off 95 to 99+% of the "redskins", 
AFAIR what I read.  Early intruders reported "big cities" and "public 
baths", all this was gone by 1600-1650AD and the native Americans were 
living in the "Wild West", when the English started to arrive in numbers.

..and keep in mind the victors are the ones who get to spin History 
itself, Their Way[TM], whenever you read whatever purports to be History.

> Just go read some of the accounts of
> the people who have served as guards in some of these places.  The
> accounts read worse than those of guards in maximum security prisons or
> death row.
> 
> My perspective is this.  We start off treating them nice and
> professionally.  

..where?  Sissy Boy George started these war crimes by policy, 
before invading Afghanistan. 

..or, is "treat them nice" just your personal wannabe ambition?

> When they start acting like animals, then we treat them
> as such.  By all accounts, the prisoners are treated quite
> professionally at first.  It is only when they become vicious towards
> the staff that incidents of retribution or what might be considered
> humiliating and degrading treatment happen.
> 
>>  Televising pictures of them. (funny, how we now condemn Iran for
>>  doing similar.  I'm not defending Iran's actions, but it's rather
>>  hypocritical for us to criticize them for doing things that we
>>  also do)
> 
> Umm, the "we" you are talking about is the news media.

..you forget the Iranian media here.

>  You know, the
> people who want to portray us as worse than the enemy.  It is not
> surprising that they have done that, as it gives cause to make the exact
> statement you just made.
> 
>>  Not determining their POW status by a competent tribunal.
>> 
> What is a competent tribunal?  The President and Defense Department
> wanted to have military tribunals.  Lots of people were against this,
> even though the GCs specifically allow POW who are military personnel to
> be 

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:21:11 -0400, judd wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On  3 Apr, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I find the actions of these terrorists just as abhorrent as you
>>> do.
>> 
>> I doubt that since as far as I have seen until just now you have
>> done nothing but defend them.
>>
>>
>  Show me one instance where I defended the actions of terrorists.
> 
>>> Not to mention that such actions are counterproductive.  If
>>> someone is tortured into confessing to a crime, it is always suspect.
>> 
>Yes, but that isn't exactly what is going on, is it?  What's going
>> in is called, if I recall correctly, the short time problem.  You know
>> something is going to happen, something horrible, and you know that the
>> person you have has information that will stop it.  Once that
> 
>> ...
> 
>> So how would you handle the short-time problem?  More importantly,
>> have you even thought to ask how other nations outside the US handle
>> it?  Or how about the other side?  Or are you just content to pass
>> judgment on those who have protected your right to pass judgment on
>> them?
>> 
>> 
>  The "short time problem", or "ticking time-bomb scenario" is of
> course the classic argument as a possible case where torture _may_be_
> justified, although even this is a matter of opinion.  In the strongest
> case, where you _know_ something is going to happen and you _know_ that
> the suspect in question has direct knowledge of the specifics, you may
> have a case.  

..actually no, and never.  Arguing (for) the "24 defense" is arguing for 
war crimes and that is a war crime for anyone who does or should know 
better.

> Actual cases where this has occurred are extremely rare or
> non-existent.  Show me one case where this has happened, since you state
> that is what's going on.

..it is only effective if you want to speed up enemy reorganization 
or confirm Muslim etc belief that the torturists are so bad any lie 
is warranted.  

..and you _can_ piece together information thru analysis of all those 
lies you are told, by mapping what voids you may find after you have 
verified all your torture victims stories as lies and not.  
But _not_ in 24 hours.  ;o)  Maybe 24 years? ;o)

-- 
..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]

Re: [OT] a dumb query? pls humor me

[Daniel B.]

Steve Lamb wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

...


Not to mention that such actions are counterproductive.  If someone
is tortured into confessing to a crime, it is always suspect.


Yes, but that isn't exactly what is going on, is it?  What's going in is
called, if I recall correctly, the short time problem.  You know something is
going to happen, something horrible, and you know that the person you have has
information that will stop it. Once that event passes their information is
useless.  They won't give it up.  What do you do?  Do you let hundreds of
thousands of people die or do you get the information using all means short of
those that incur long-standing harm?


That's an unrealistic case that distracts from the rest of the cases.
It's rare the you _really_ know.  (Remember that "24" is fiction.)

So, no, that probably is _not_ the case that is going on.



That's a decision that most people will never face in their lifetime and
yet they feel they are supremely qualified to judge those who are in the
unfortunate position to have to make that call.


No.  Most of the judging is of those who are using torture in much
less definite situations.


Daniel



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[judd]

On  3 Apr, Steve Lamb wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I find the actions of these terrorists just as abhorrent as you
>> do.
> 
> I doubt that since as far as I have seen until just now you have
> done nothing but defend them.
>

 Show me one instance where I defended the actions of terrorists.

>> Not to mention that such actions are counterproductive.  If
>> someone is tortured into confessing to a crime, it is always suspect.
> 
   Yes, but that isn't exactly what is going on, is it?  What's going
> in is called, if I recall correctly, the short time problem.  You know
> something is going to happen, something horrible, and you know that
> the person you have has information that will stop it.  Once that

> ...

> So how would you handle the short-time problem?  More importantly,
> have you even thought to ask how other nations outside the US handle
> it?  Or how about the other side?  Or are you just content to pass
> judgment on those who have protected your right to pass judgment on
> them?
> 

 The "short time problem", or "ticking time-bomb scenario" is of
course the classic argument as a possible case where torture _may_be_ 
justified, although even this is a matter of opinion.  In the strongest
case, where you _know_ something is going to happen and you _know_ that
the suspect in question has direct knowledge of the specifics, you may
have a case.  Actual cases where this has occurred are extremely rare
or non-existent.  Show me one case where this has happened, since
you state that is what's going on.

-Chris


|   Christopher Judd, Ph. D.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Steve Lamb]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I find the actions of these terrorists just as abhorrent as you do.

I doubt that since as far as I have seen until just now you have done
nothing but defend them.

> Not to mention that such actions are counterproductive.  If someone
> is tortured into confessing to a crime, it is always suspect.

Yes, but that isn't exactly what is going on, is it?  What's going in is
called, if I recall correctly, the short time problem.  You know something is
going to happen, something horrible, and you know that the person you have has
information that will stop it.  Once that event passes their information is
useless.  They won't give it up.  What do you do?  Do you let hundreds of
thousands of people die or do you get the information using all means short of
those that incur long-standing harm?

That's a decision that most people will never face in their lifetime and
yet they feel they are supremely qualified to judge those who are in the
unfortunate position to have to make that call.

Confession of a crime is about what they did.  We don't need torture to
figure that out.  We have all the time in the world to figure it out.  What
they know about what will happen, that's a different matter.  That information
is of limited value.  We don't have the luxury of time.

That is why matters of war and especially of this stateless conflict are
not, and never have been, a police action.

So how would you handle the short-time problem?  More importantly, have
you even thought to ask how other nations outside the US handle it?  Or how
about the other side?  Or are you just content to pass judgment on those who
have protected your right to pass judgment on them?

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:10:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On  2 Apr, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:20:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> Since some of the al-Qaeda and taliban prisoner's were in fact denied
> >> their GC protections, by being tortured, mistreated, etc., it's
> >> pretty obvious that the "QCs don't apply" provision was the
> >> operational part of this order, and not "taken out of context quite
> >> badly".  It's more reasonable to conclude that the other language was
> >> included as whitewash.
> >> 
> > Actually, if what you described happened to *every* prisoner, *then*
> > you
> > *might* *maybe* have a point.  However, it isn't happening to every
> > prisoner, if at all.  Now, what I'd like to knw:
> 
> The lack of logic in the above statement is self evident, so I won't 
> even comment. :-)
> 
???

> >  * Why does everything need to be some sort of vast conspiracy?
> >Remember Hanlon's Razor?  It could have just as easily been someone
> >overlooking something, someone going against orders, whatever.
> 
>  I'm a scientist, we use Occam's razor, not Hanlon's. :-)  Since
> we were discussing a presidential order, which referenced justice 
> department memos (which are of dubious legal merit, anyway), I don't
> see how that can be "someone going against orders.
> 
I'm sorry, but who decided that the memos were of "dubious legal merit"?
The media?  Please forgive me if I consider their motives suspect.

Now, if there has been a court decision which invalidates the Justice
Department's opinion, then you have something.

> >  * In what way have the prisoners' GC protections allegedly been
> >withheld?
> > 
> 
>  Torture.

Forgive me if I wait for this to be proven in court.

>  Humiliating and degrading treatment.

If it weren't for the fact that the prisoners often attack or otherwise
harrass the guards I might be more sympathetic.  IIRC, Gereman soldiers
were held in POW camps in Canada during WWII.  Now, I'm sure that some
tried to escape (what POW wouldn't).  But despite how despicable the
German military's actions were, my understanding based on history is
that as POWs they were still professional soldiers.  They did not sling
feces and urine at their guards.  They did not attack their guards and
try to infect them with disease.  Just go read some of the accounts of
the people who have served as guards in some of these places.  The
accounts read worse than those of guards in maximum security prisons or
death row.

My perspective is this.  We start off treating them nice and
professionally.  When they start acting like animals, then we treat them
as such.  By all accounts, the prisoners are treated quite
professionally at first.  It is only when they become vicious towards
the staff that incidents of retribution or what might be considered
humiliating and degrading treatment happen.

>  Televising pictures of them. (funny, how we now condemn Iran
>  for doing similar.  I'm not defending Iran's actions, but it's
>  rather hypocritical for us to criticize them for doing things
>  that we also do)

Umm, the "we" you are talking about is the news media.  You know, the
people who want to portray us as worse than the enemy.  It is not
surprising that they have done that, as it gives cause to make the exact
statement you just made.

>  Not determining their POW status by a competent tribunal.
> 
What is a competent tribunal?  The President and Defense Department
wanted to have military tribunals.  Lots of people were against this,
even though the GCs specifically allow POW who are military personnel to
be tried by military tribunals of the captor's.  So, if a POW murdered a
guard, he could be court martialed rather than tried in a civilian
court.  Seeing as these are enemy *combatants* we are talking about, it
makes sense that a military tribunal handle that.  It also then makes
sense that a military tribunal be the body which determines the status.

> 
> P.S.  While a pretty strong case can be made that al-Qaeda fighters do
> not qualify as POWs, it's not so clear-cut with Taliban forces.
> 
> And what I'd like to know, is what the US gains by not giving them at
> least common article III protections?
> 
Nothing.  I am in agreement that GC protections should be accorded.

Regards,

-Roberto
-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:39:02 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:53:08PM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> 
>> ...a real part of Sissy Boy George's "Text of order signed by President
>> Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, outlining treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban
>> detainees"?  And if so, Why Is It Not A War Crime?
>> 
> You apparently missed the part about the administrations policy being
> that even though the terrorists are *not* entitled to GC protections,

..and that policy is not a war crime how?

> they are still to be accorded.

..where?  Gitmo?  Abu Ghraib?

> Regards,
> 
> -Roberto
>

-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[judd]

On  2 Apr, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:20:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Since some of the al-Qaeda and taliban prisoner's were in fact denied
>> their GC protections, by being tortured, mistreated, etc., it's
>> pretty obvious that the "QCs don't apply" provision was the
>> operational part of this order, and not "taken out of context quite
>> badly".  It's more reasonable to conclude that the other language was
>> included as whitewash.
>> 
> Actually, if what you described happened to *every* prisoner, *then*
> you
> *might* *maybe* have a point.  However, it isn't happening to every
> prisoner, if at all.  Now, what I'd like to knw:

The lack of logic in the above statement is self evident, so I won't 
even comment. :-)

>  * Why does everything need to be some sort of vast conspiracy?
>Remember Hanlon's Razor?  It could have just as easily been someone
>overlooking something, someone going against orders, whatever.

 I'm a scientist, we use Occam's razor, not Hanlon's. :-)  Since
we were discussing a presidential order, which referenced justice 
department memos (which are of dubious legal merit, anyway), I don't
see how that can be "someone going against orders.

>  * In what way have the prisoners' GC protections allegedly been
>withheld?
> 

 Torture.
 Humiliating and degrading treatment.
 Televising pictures of them. (funny, how we now condemn Iran
 for doing similar.  I'm not defending Iran's actions, but it's
 rather hypocritical for us to criticize them for doing things
 that we also do)
 Not determining their POW status by a competent tribunal.

-Chris

P.S.  While a pretty strong case can be made that al-Qaeda fighters do
not qualify as POWs, it's not so clear-cut with Taliban forces.

And what I'd like to know, is what the US gains by not giving them at
least common article III protections?



|   Christopher Judd, Ph. D.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[judd]

On  2 Apr, Steve Lamb wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Since some of the al-Qaeda and taliban prisoner's were in fact denied
>> their GC protections, by being tortured, mistreated, etc., it's
>> pretty obvious that the "QCs don't apply" provision was the
>> operational part of this order, and not "taken out of context quite
>> badly".  It's more reasonable to conclude that the other language was
>> included as whitewash.
> 
> Tell you what, if you honestly believe that then how about we just
> mirror what the other side is doing.
> 
> Since we've already gone the torture route let's parade them in
> the media as denouncing how peaceful a religion it is they follow,
> explain how their homelands are festering cesspools of hatred and
> violence and then, after all of that, behead them, making sure to get
> a close-up of their faces as they drown in their own blood as it
> gushes from their jugular and down their throat.  Both of those are
> against the GC as well.
> 
>  ...

I find the actions of these terrorists just as abhorrent as you do.
I strongly reject the notion (apparently your opinion) that as long as
we're not as bad as them anything we do is okay.  Why not chop the arms
off of murderers?  After all, that's not as bad as killing them.  Of 
course the people who carry out acts of terrorism are despicable. I, for
one, don't want to lower our military and/or legal officials, to their
level.  We shouldn't torture them or lock them up (including some
who may be innocent) and throw away the key.  They should be captured
(possibly killed in the attempt if they resist), tried, convicted, and
sentenced.


> You want to call it white-washing, fine.  But before you do head
> on over to  and sit through all
> the beheading videos from beginning to end to remind yourself about
> the leagues of difference between simulated drowning (AKA
> waterboarding) and real drowning in one's own blood.  One of the two
> gets to walk away from the ordeal.  The other has his severed head
> sitting on his chest.  Only after seeing what those people have done
> might have some perspective.
> 

I have plenty of perspective.  I chose not to lower my standards, or
the standards that our government should follow, because of the actions
of others.  And I believe that a majority of Americans would agree.

Not to mention that such actions are counterproductive.  If someone
is tortured into confessing to a crime, it is always suspect.  If that
person did not commit that crime, the wrong person is convicted of
it, and the guilty party goes free.

Look at the damage that Abu Ghraib has done to the standing of the
US in the world.  And to our soldiers still fighting in Iraq.  As one
soldier wrote on learning of it (I'm paraphrasing since I don't have the
source here, it was in Newsweek),  "F**k, ... we're teaching them that
if they surrender, they'll have electrodes attached to their genitals
...

-Chris 


|   Christopher Judd, Ph. D.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:20:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Since some of the al-Qaeda and taliban prisoner's were in fact denied
> their GC protections, by being tortured, mistreated, etc., it's pretty
> obvious that the "QCs don't apply" provision was the operational part
> of this order, and not "taken out of context quite badly".  It's more
> reasonable to conclude that the other language was included as 
> whitewash.
> 
Actually, if what you described happened to *every* prisoner, *then* you
*might* *maybe* have a point.  However, it isn't happening to every
prisoner, if at all.  Now, what I'd like to knw:

 * Why does everything need to be some sort of vast conspiracy?
   Remember Hanlon's Razor?  It could have just as easily been someone
   overlooking something, someone going against orders, whatever.
 * In what way have the prisoners' GC protections allegedly been
   withheld?

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:53:08PM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> 
> ...a real part of Sissy Boy George's "Text of order signed by President 
> Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, outlining treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban 
> detainees"?  And if so, Why Is It Not A War Crime?
> 
You apparently missed the part about the administrations policy being
that even though the terrorists are *not* entitled to GC protections,
they are still to be accorded.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 04/02/07 16:26, Steve Lamb wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Since some of the al-Qaeda and taliban prisoner's were in fact denied
>> their GC protections, by being tortured, mistreated, etc., it's pretty
>> obvious that the "QCs don't apply" provision was the operational part
>> of this order, and not "taken out of context quite badly".  It's more
>> reasonable to conclude that the other language was included as 
>> whitewash.
> 
> Tell you what, if you honestly believe that then how about we just mirror
> what the other side is doing.
> 
> Since we've already gone the torture route let's parade them in the media
> as denouncing how peaceful a religion it is they follow, explain how their
> homelands are festering cesspools of hatred and violence and then, after all
> of that, behead them, making sure to get a close-up of their faces as they
> drown in their own blood as it gushes from their jugular and down their
> throat.  Both of those are against the GC as well.
> 
> I find it not at all amusing that the people who routinely and publicly
> beheaded people are in turn hiding behind conventions they are not covered by,
> are not signatories to, and obviously do not follow themselves.
> 
> The only thing worse than that are people like you who say nothing,
> absolutely nothing, about the inhumane nature their prisoners are treated and
> butchered yet squeal in their defense because of largely psychological and
> entirely non-lethal and non-crippling torture employed by this side.  At the
> end of the day they're not maimed or murdered.  They're scared (as in the case
> of waterboarding) or have their fragile sensibilities hurt (as in the case of
> the falsely reported Kuran flushing).

Reminds me a heck of a lot about the way Cold War socialists in the
First World bashed their own societies while ignoring the horrors
that went on behind the Iron Curtain and the way that the NVA and VC
treated peasants.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGEYECS9HxQb37XmcRAnkpAJ9ElGJ0/XrD+WNZrEIN1uHDotsE4wCgzEOH
TDnITE/K+tTT3q7KGKimjdA=
=ywzp
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Steve Lamb]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Since some of the al-Qaeda and taliban prisoner's were in fact denied
> their GC protections, by being tortured, mistreated, etc., it's pretty
> obvious that the "QCs don't apply" provision was the operational part
> of this order, and not "taken out of context quite badly".  It's more
> reasonable to conclude that the other language was included as 
> whitewash.

Tell you what, if you honestly believe that then how about we just mirror
what the other side is doing.

Since we've already gone the torture route let's parade them in the media
as denouncing how peaceful a religion it is they follow, explain how their
homelands are festering cesspools of hatred and violence and then, after all
of that, behead them, making sure to get a close-up of their faces as they
drown in their own blood as it gushes from their jugular and down their
throat.  Both of those are against the GC as well.

I find it not at all amusing that the people who routinely and publicly
beheaded people are in turn hiding behind conventions they are not covered by,
are not signatories to, and obviously do not follow themselves.

The only thing worse than that are people like you who say nothing,
absolutely nothing, about the inhumane nature their prisoners are treated and
butchered yet squeal in their defense because of largely psychological and
entirely non-lethal and non-crippling torture employed by this side.  At the
end of the day they're not maimed or murdered.  They're scared (as in the case
of waterboarding) or have their fragile sensibilities hurt (as in the case of
the falsely reported Kuran flushing).

It is just appalling how often people will harp on Bush directly as if he
is the only one who is capable of propaganda and lies.  The media itself is
capable of it (witness Sandy Burger
) as well as the other side (many
cases of falsified pictures and video) but do we hear about that to the extent
of the mindless criticism of one man?  Hell no!

We get it, you don't like the man.  I feel for ya, I didn't vote for him
either and *I* don't like him.  But what I will not do is become so irrational
in my dislike for him that the wrongs of all other parties, many of which are
greater than any transgression this man might be a party of, are to be ignored
or extremely downplayed.

You want to call it white-washing, fine.  But before you do head on over
to  and sit through all the beheading
videos from beginning to end to remind yourself about the leagues of
difference between simulated drowning (AKA waterboarding) and real drowning in
one's own blood.  One of the two gets to walk away from the ordeal.  The other
has his severed head sitting on his chest.  Only after seeing what those
people have done might have some perspective.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   |   And dream I do...
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[judd]

On  2 Apr, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:51:09AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 
>>  No, actually the executive order was written to obfuscate the
>> issue. It was pretty widely reported in the press that this order,
>> and the memos that it references were specifically written to provide
>> immunity to prosecution under the US War Crimes Act, after some
>> members of the administration, particularly in the CIA, expressed
>> worry that they may be so prosecuted.  I'm surprised that you seem to
>> be unaware of this.
>> 
> I'm quite aware of what the media reported.  However, I have yet to
> presented with a convincing argument of why I should ever believe
> anything reported by the news media.

> ...

 My mistake; I inferred from your response to Arnt that you truly
weren't aware of which order he was referring to.  However, in your 
last post, you stated:

>...  As a matter of policy, the United States
>Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the
>extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a
>manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
> 
> So, it is the stated policy of the US gonvernment, that even though
> the Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees are *not legally entitled* to
> protection under the GCs, they still be *accorded the protection*!  It
> seems like the "GCs don't apply" quote was taken out of context quite
> badly.
   
Since some of the al-Qaeda and taliban prisoner's were in fact denied
their GC protections, by being tortured, mistreated, etc., it's pretty
obvious that the "QCs don't apply" provision was the operational part
of this order, and not "taken out of context quite badly".  It's more
reasonable to conclude that the other language was included as 
whitewash.

-Chris




|   Christopher Judd, Ph. D.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:12:44 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:51:09AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 
>>  No, actually the executive order was written to obfuscate the
>> issue. It was pretty widely reported in the press that this order, and
>> the memos that it references were specifically written to provide
>> immunity to prosecution under the US War Crimes Act, after some members
>> of the administration, particularly in the CIA, expressed worry that
>> they may be so prosecuted.  I'm surprised that you seem to be unaware
>> of this.
>> 
> I'm quite aware of what the media reported.  However, I have yet to
> presented with a convincing argument of why I should ever believe
> anything reported by the news media.

..hear, hear.  Is this tiddly bit:
 2. Pursuant to my authority as commander in chief and chief executive of 
the United States, and relying on the opinion of the Department of 
Justice dated January 22, 2002, and on the legal opinion rendered by the 
attorney general in his letter of February 1, 2002, I hereby determine as 
follows:
a. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and 
determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict 
with al-Qaida in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, 
among other reasons, al-Qaida is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.
b. I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the 
Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to 
suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I 
decline to exercise that authority at this time. Accordingly, I determine 
that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the 
Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise the authority in this or future 
conflicts.
c. I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and 
determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al-
Qaida or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant 
conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to 
"armed conflict not of an international character."
d. Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense and the 
recommendation of the Department of Justice, I determine that the Taliban 
detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as 
prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva 
does not apply to our conflict with al-Qaida, al-Qaida detainees also do 
not qualify as prisoners of war.

...a real part of Sissy Boy George's "Text of order signed by President 
Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, outlining treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban 
detainees"?  And if so, Why Is It Not A War Crime?



-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Paul E Condon]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:38:34AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 04/02/07 08:12, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:51:09AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>  No, actually the executive order was written to obfuscate the
> >> issue. It was pretty widely reported in the press that this order, and
> >> the memos that it references were specifically written to provide
> >> immunity to prosecution under the US War Crimes Act, after some members
> >> of the administration, particularly in the CIA, expressed worry that
> >> they may be so prosecuted.  I'm surprised that you seem to be unaware
> >> of this.
> >>
> > I'm quite aware of what the media reported.  However, I have yet to
> > presented with a convincing argument of why I should ever believe
> > anything reported by the news media.
> 
> Exactly.  I've had first hand knowledge of enough things that The
> Media just terribly botched that I don't trust The Media to tell me
> the sky is blue.

And we all know, with certainty, that the Sun rises in the Northwest ;-)

-- 
Paul E Condon   
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 04/02/07 08:12, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:51:09AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>  No, actually the executive order was written to obfuscate the
>> issue. It was pretty widely reported in the press that this order, and
>> the memos that it references were specifically written to provide
>> immunity to prosecution under the US War Crimes Act, after some members
>> of the administration, particularly in the CIA, expressed worry that
>> they may be so prosecuted.  I'm surprised that you seem to be unaware
>> of this.
>>
> I'm quite aware of what the media reported.  However, I have yet to
> presented with a convincing argument of why I should ever believe
> anything reported by the news media.

Exactly.  I've had first hand knowledge of enough things that The
Media just terribly botched that I don't trust The Media to tell me
the sky is blue.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGEQdaS9HxQb37XmcRAgJCAKDIwzxg3Tq7zUdbQXVHRW16mOkHIACcDK1q
szarRSGhbVIMs17Y3sqqsbM=
=n+r+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:51:09AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
>  No, actually the executive order was written to obfuscate the
> issue. It was pretty widely reported in the press that this order, and
> the memos that it references were specifically written to provide
> immunity to prosecution under the US War Crimes Act, after some members
> of the administration, particularly in the CIA, expressed worry that
> they may be so prosecuted.  I'm surprised that you seem to be unaware
> of this.
> 
I'm quite aware of what the media reported.  However, I have yet to
presented with a convincing argument of why I should ever believe
anything reported by the news media.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[judd]

On 30 Mar, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 10:02:49AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> ...

> Interesting.  Is this where he advocates torture?:
> 
>Of course, our values as a nation, values that we share with many
>nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely,
>including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our
>nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of
>Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States
>Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the
>extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a
>manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
> 
> So, it is the stated policy of the US gonvernment, that even though
> the Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees are *not legally entitled* to
> protection under the GCs, they still be *accorded the protection*!  It
> seems like the "GCs don't apply" quote was taken out of context quite
> badly.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Roberto
> 

 No, actually the executive order was written to obfuscate the
issue. It was pretty widely reported in the press that this order, and
the memos that it references were specifically written to provide
immunity to prosecution under the US War Crimes Act, after some members
of the administration, particularly in the CIA, expressed worry that
they may be so prosecuted.  I'm surprised that you seem to be unaware
of this.

-Chris
 

|   Christopher Judd, Ph. D.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 04/01/07 17:44, s. keeling wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>  On 03/30/07 09:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>  [snip]
>>> The order in question is this:
>>>
>>>  http://www.kron.com/global/story.asp?s=1962000&ClientType=Printable
>>  Changing subject...
>>
>>  Text of Bush's Order on Treatment of Detainees
>> [schnip]
>>  (Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
>>
>>  How can the AP copyright a Presidential Order?
> 
> Presidential Orders must be under the BSD licence?  :-)
> 
> They can copyright their copy of it without affecting upstream.

Huh?

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGED1BS9HxQb37XmcRAnQdAKC8Sb5IfxgQlnwiZlqBmm443Y8Z8ACfYdgt
Cu9LLOgSJ7n60Ggz1/XbHUc=
=bIpP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[s. keeling]

Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>  On 03/30/07 09:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  [snip]
> > The order in question is this:
> > 
> >  http://www.kron.com/global/story.asp?s=1962000&ClientType=Printable
> 
>  Changing subject...
> 
>  Text of Bush's Order on Treatment of Detainees
> [schnip]
>  (Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
> 
>  How can the AP copyright a Presidential Order?

Presidential Orders must be under the BSD licence?  :-)

They can copyright their copy of it without affecting upstream.


-- 
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling  Linux Counter #80292
- -http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.htmlPlease, don't Cc: me.
   Spammers! http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling/emails.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 10:02:49AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 29 Mar, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 03:36:58PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> 
> >>  He's probably referring to the executive order signed on 7 Feb,
> >> 2002.  In it, W claims the authority to set aside the Geneva
> >> conventions for Taliban and al-Quaeda prisoners, thereby allowing
> >> them to be tortured and/or mistreated in other ways.  The legal
> >> justification for this order is somewhat dubious.
> >> 
> > Interesting.  The only executive order signed on 7 Feb 2002 is this
> > one:
> > 
> > Executive Order: Amendment to Executive Order 13227, President's
> > Commission on Excellence in Special Education
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > -Roberto
> > 
> 
> The order in question is this:
> 
>  http://www.kron.com/global/story.asp?s=1962000&ClientType=Printable
> 
> It is signed by President Bush on February 7, 2002.  Although
> described in the media as an executive order, it doesn't appear to be
> listed as one, even though it was signed by the president.
> 
Interesting.  Is this where he advocates torture?:

   Of course, our values as a nation, values that we share with many
   nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely,
   including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our
   nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva
   and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States Armed
   Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent
   appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner
   consistent with the principles of Geneva.

So, it is the stated policy of the US gonvernment, that even though the
Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees are *not legally entitled* to protection
under the GCs, they still be *accorded the protection*!  It seems like
the "GCs don't apply" quote was taken out of context quite badly.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 03/30/07 09:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> The order in question is this:
> 
>  http://www.kron.com/global/story.asp?s=1962000&ClientType=Printable

Changing subject...

Text of Bush's Order on Treatment of Detainees
Posted: June 22, 2004 at 5:35 p.m.

Text of order signed by President Bush on Feb. 7, 2002,
outlining treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban detainees:

1. Our recent extensive discussions regarding the status of
al-Qaida and Taliban detainees confirm that the application
of Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners
[snip]
manner to our allies, and other countries and international
organizations cooperating in the war against terrorism of
global reach.

(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

How can the AP copyright a Presidential Order?

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGDU4+S9HxQb37XmcRAgLuAKDoWWF1WSs8qHaBOQdKcFB54BrXeQCguQ+m
lV9H19CBXavGPprhkFay5+s=
=aODX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[judd]

On 29 Mar, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 03:36:58PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 
>>  He's probably referring to the executive order signed on 7 Feb,
>> 2002.  In it, W claims the authority to set aside the Geneva
>> conventions for Taliban and al-Quaeda prisoners, thereby allowing
>> them to be tortured and/or mistreated in other ways.  The legal
>> justification for this order is somewhat dubious.
>> 
> Interesting.  The only executive order signed on 7 Feb 2002 is this
> one:
> 
> Executive Order: Amendment to Executive Order 13227, President's
> Commission on Excellence in Special Education
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Roberto
> 

The order in question is this:

 http://www.kron.com/global/story.asp?s=1962000&ClientType=Printable

It is signed by President Bush on February 7, 2002.  Although
described in the media as an executive order, it doesn't appear to be
listed as one, even though it was signed by the president.

-Chris


|   Christopher Judd, Ph. D.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 03:36:58PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 26 Mar, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 05:10:19AM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > ...
> >> 
> >> ..anything on "international courts" or "the 4 Geneva Conventions"?
> >> 
> > Nope.  What I find interesting is that you claimed that Bush issued
> > some executive allowing him to "evade" war crimes prosecution (or some
> > such nonsense).  Then, when I present you with a list of *all* the
> > executive orders published, there is no such thing and you effectively
> > claim that they are trying to hide it.  Why don't you point us to this
> > mythical executive order?
> > 
> 
> > [SNIP]
> 
>  He's probably referring to the executive order signed on 7 Feb,
> 2002.  In it, W claims the authority to set aside the Geneva conventions
> for Taliban and al-Quaeda prisoners, thereby allowing them to be 
> tortured and/or mistreated in other ways.  The legal justification for
> this order is somewhat dubious.
> 
Interesting.  The only executive order signed on 7 Feb 2002 is this one:

Executive Order: Amendment to Executive Order 13227, President's
Commission on Excellence in Special Education

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 03/29/07 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 26 Mar, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 05:10:19AM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> ...
>>> ..anything on "international courts" or "the 4 Geneva Conventions"?
>>>
>> Nope.  What I find interesting is that you claimed that Bush issued
>> some executive allowing him to "evade" war crimes prosecution (or some
>> such nonsense).  Then, when I present you with a list of *all* the
>> executive orders published, there is no such thing and you effectively
>> claim that they are trying to hide it.  Why don't you point us to this
>> mythical executive order?
>>
> 
>> [SNIP]
> 
>  He's probably referring to the executive order signed on 7 Feb,
> 2002.  In it, W claims the authority to set aside the Geneva conventions
> for Taliban and al-Quaeda prisoners,

Because they aren't soldiers?

>  thereby allowing them to be 
> tortured and/or mistreated in other ways.  The legal justification for
> this order is somewhat dubious.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGDBq3S9HxQb37XmcRAssZAJ9k140rDAlEGili25AMbUagGomgAACdHIQo
UY/8DciA/Y6BLx+5m/Wj/EQ=
=frXT
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[judd]

On 26 Mar, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 05:10:19AM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> ...
>> 
>> ..anything on "international courts" or "the 4 Geneva Conventions"?
>> 
> Nope.  What I find interesting is that you claimed that Bush issued
> some executive allowing him to "evade" war crimes prosecution (or some
> such nonsense).  Then, when I present you with a list of *all* the
> executive orders published, there is no such thing and you effectively
> claim that they are trying to hide it.  Why don't you point us to this
> mythical executive order?
> 

> [SNIP]

 He's probably referring to the executive order signed on 7 Feb,
2002.  In it, W claims the authority to set aside the Geneva conventions
for Taliban and al-Quaeda prisoners, thereby allowing them to be 
tortured and/or mistreated in other ways.  The legal justification for
this order is somewhat dubious.

-Chris


|   Christopher Judd, Ph. D.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:36:26 -0400, Celejar wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:16:53 + (UTC) Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:06:34 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote in
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> 
>> > Am 2007-03-19 02:04:42, schrieb Arnt Karlsen:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> >> Or, you will have to _forgive_ Osama for felling the WTC.  ;o)
>> > 
>> > Do you have a proof that it was Ossi.  :-)
>> 
>> ..no, actually nothing that would hold up in a court, it's all media
>> hearsay, and I saw the WTC drop on tv and online, not IRL.
> 
>> > Mohammed Atta is alive!
>> > And if he is alive, he was definitivly not in one of the two
>> > Airplanes. AND, several of the "Terror-Pilots went seen in the
>> > public...
>> 
>> ..I _have_ heard such rumors, urls?
> 
> The sun actually rises in the Northwest; appearances to the contrary are
> based on media manipulation by the Nato Zionist Crusader regimes to
> steal oil and other resources of non-whites. Alternatively, the
> so-called 'Eastern Solar Risings' were filmed in Hollywood studios by
> Jewish controlled movie studios and Jew reporters in the media. JFK was
> killed by the CIA/Mossad for threatening to expose this sham. 

..tin foil hat time?  ;o)

> I have 3 zettabytes [0] of digital video, 

..how much video _has_ made this far?  World wide, all formats?

> signed confessions by the protagonists, and Egyptian hieroglyphics
> proving all this strongly enough to stand up in court and hang everyone 
> involved as war criminals, but I can't reveal any of it because Cheney
> is telepathically monitoring my thoughts.
> 
> There; I feel much better now.

..excellent.  ;o)

> Celejar
> 
> [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yottabyte

-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Celejar]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:16:53 + (UTC)
Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:06:34 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> > Am 2007-03-19 02:04:42, schrieb Arnt Karlsen:

[snip]

> >> Or, you will have to _forgive_ Osama for felling the WTC.  ;o)
> > 
> > Do you have a proof that it was Ossi.  :-)
> 
> ..no, actually nothing that would hold up in a court, it's all media 
> hearsay, and I saw the WTC drop on tv and online, not IRL.

> > Mohammed Atta is alive!
> > And if he is alive, he was definitivly not in one of the two Airplanes. 
> > AND, several of the "Terror-Pilots went seen in the public...
> 
> ..I _have_ heard such rumors, urls?

The sun actually rises in the Northwest; appearances to the contrary
are based on media manipulation by the Nato Zionist Crusader regimes to
steal oil and other resources of non-whites. Alternatively, the
so-called 'Eastern Solar Risings' were filmed in Hollywood studios by
Jewish controlled movie studios and Jew reporters in the media. JFK was
killed by the CIA/Mossad for threatening to expose this sham. I have 3
zettabytes [0] of digital video, signed confessions by the
protagonists, and Egyptian hieroglyphics proving all this strongly
enough to stand up in court and hang everyone involved as war
criminals, but I can't reveal any of it because Cheney is
telepathically monitoring my thoughts.

There; I feel much better now.

Celejar

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yottabyte


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:06:34 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> Am 2007-03-19 02:04:42, schrieb Arnt Karlsen:
>> ..as EU members?  The EU has its own (token) military force, but I am
>> not aware of any Swedish troops in Afghanistan.
> 
> Me too...
> 
>> ..peace.  First we need to hang all our war criminals, then they have
>> to hang theirs, all under the strictest combination of Sharia, the full
>> 4 Geneva Conventions, the US War Crimes Act, the Norw. Military penal
>> code etc.
> 
> Hang 'em high!
> 
>> Or, you will have to _forgive_ Osama for felling the WTC.  ;o)
> 
> Do you have a proof that it was Ossi.  :-)

..no, actually nothing that would hold up in a court, it's all media 
hearsay, and I saw the WTC drop on tv and online, not IRL.

> Mohammed Atta is alive!
> And if he is alive, he was definitivly not in one of the two Airplanes. 
> AND, several of the "Terror-Pilots went seen in the public...

..I _have_ heard such rumors, urls?

>> ..the root cause of this war is not that "the Jews got a home land",
>> but that we (the UN) stole it from the Filistinians and renamed it to
>> "Palestine" and let Hitler gas the Jews to scare them "home", to piiage
>> Arab oil and stall Muslim Capitalism.
> 
> Ack!
> 
>> ..we need to fix that, _if_ we want peace.  If we don't, there is
>> absolutely _no_ way you can convince me, "the Muslims does not need
>> nukes."
> 
> And we have no Nukes!
> Which is already proofen by a look into the Satelite Photos of LASAT
> which can detect all kind of radioactivity...
> 
> You can not hide Nukes by the todays technology.

..um, you forget Hezbollah gave pretty good spank to a major nuclear and 
air power, making good use of _ancient_ tunnel technology.  ;o)

..Nasrallah the Naive does however deserve a good ass chew out for not 
getting enough AAA in place to swat down the IAF.

> Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
> Michelle Konzack
> Systemadministrator
> Tamay Dogan Network
> Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
> 
>

-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Daniel B.]

Andrew Sackville-West wrote:



yeah, but Oregon still doesn't trust me to pump my own gas. Of course,
with some of the crap I see around here, that's probably a good thing.


Is it that they don't trust you to pump the gas safely, or is it
protectionism for gas-station worker as I think it was in some other
state?

Daniel






--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[dave]

on Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 07:39:37PM -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
 
> Your ability to excel at displaying ignorance is unmatched.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Roberto

Bravo.

Regards,

Dave


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 05:06:43PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> 
> Hey, your name tell me you are not a "real" US-American...
> Are you origin Mexican? - Most (percentage) US-Combatants are Mexican...
> 
> They are killing Irakies for a US-Green-Card...
> 
Your ability to excel at displaying ignorance is unmatched.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: He? She? - IT! -- The creature of an other world! [was Re: OT: a dumb query? pls humor me]

[Nyizsnyik Ferenc]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:58:26 +0200
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Am 2007-03-14 20:27:30, schrieb Joe Hart:
> > my dog, your dog, her dog, his dog, its dog, our dog, their dog.
> > That is all of the personal pronouns referring to possession of a
> > dog.
> > 
> > In Spanish you have one more.
> > 
> > It is extremely impolite to refer to people as an it, so his or her
> > are the only ones left.
> 
> It, it, it -- IT IS ME!  ;-)
> 
> A Man =>  He
> A Woman   =>  She
> A Hermaphrodit=>  It

An Object   =>  It
A Hermaphrodit  =>  either he or she, as (s)he prefers,
maybe...

In Hungarian, there is only one pronoun for both sexes: ő.
(for those who see a diamond with a question mark: an o with a " on top
of it.) And it's not used for objects.

> or I am wrong?  :-)
> 
> 
> Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
> Michelle Konzack
> Systemadministrator
> Tamay Dogan Network
> Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
> 
> 


-- 
Szia:
Nyizsa.

--
Click to consolidate debt and lower month expenses
http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJklgp8aROKBRxgrIxSlBbG6FGG/

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Celejar]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:06:43 +0200
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[snip]

> Why thre are 38 Synagoges in Iran?
> Why there are wide over 10 Jews in Iran?

There were in 1948. there are only several tens of thousands now,
apparently because of the rise to power of the fundamentalist regime
[0].

> Why do they have NO problems with Iran?

What makes you think they don't?

Celejar

[0]
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html#1
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/communities/mideast/comm_iran.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:05:43 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:45:58AM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 02:28:24 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> 
>> > You keep claiming this, but have not provided evidence.
>> 
>> ..I have provided ample pointers for anything but neocon shills and war
>> criminals, if you want further Court Martial Defense advice, get a
>> lawyer.
>> 
> You see, when I point out that you have not (and clearly cannot) provide
> evidence, you respond with an ad hominem attack.  Your position is quite
> weak.

..it's a plenty strong enough tip for any investigative branch of law 
enforcement, I however agree I haven't put together a Kimball-style 
watertight non-appealable court martial verdict yet.  ;o) 
That job belongs in the courts, of court martials. 

>> > Right.  I imagine that they would get hang you as well for constantly
>> > imaging things that are not there?
>> 
>> ..only if _I_ commit a war crime.  Or is this a threat on my life for
>> aguing against Sissy Boy George's theory?
>> 
> No. No personal threat there.  I was simply pointing that if I can be
> held liable, as you claim, then so can you.  :-)

..here we agree, if you're trying to say war criminals can and should be 
held accountable.

>> > Umm, considering that he was an Iraqi citizen, was tried by the
>> > Iraqis by a tribunal under the authority of Iraq's constitution, I'd
>> > say it was by the book.
>> 
>> ..then you're a neocon shill promoting war crime.  If you are an USAF
>> serviceman or officer, you just incriminated yourself.
>> 
> Another ad hominem attack.  Where's your real argument?  Don't have one?

..see above on argument strenght and below for hunting rationale.

>> > Really?  And what competent legal authority says that he was a POW?
>> 
>> ..Sissy Boy George himself, on the same day Saddam was dug out of that
>> hole.
> 
> Right.  I am not disputing that.  However, once the Iraqis *elected*
> their new government and instituted their new constitution, he became
> the legal responsbility of Iraq.  

.."handing over a POW" by some neocon scheme so "he became the legal 
responsbility of" a quisling type regime is illegal under the full 3'rd 
Convention, regardless of how popular or democratic that marionette 
regime is _during_ the occupation, POW's remains the Occupant's 
responsibility for the duration of the occupation itself and until the 
post war Article 90 hearing on each POW.

> Or do you deny that the Iraqis elected
> a government and instituted a constitution?

..in no way, it however remains a quisling type of regime until after the 
Occupant has handed over and left the territory, and thenafter having 
held a new election and then after that election until it hands over the 
military etc control of that formerly occupied territory to the newly 
elected administration.  

>> > Again.  Who makes the determination that he was a POW?
>> 
>> ..your Supreme Commander accepting him as POW the same day Saddam was
>> dug out of that hole.
>> 
> Ibid.
> 
>> > This was the page from the News link:
>> > http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/News?OpenDocument
>> > 
>> > Looking at news items back to the beginning of 2006, here is what I
>> > found related to Iraq and Afghanistan:
>> > 
>> >  * condemnation of sectarian violence
>> >  * appeals for respect of humanitarian law * appeals for relief of
>> >  kidnapped aid workers (these workers were
>> >kidnapped by insurgents)
>> >  * announcements of aid rendered with respect to food, water, etc
>> > 
>> > Nothing about the GCs specifically, nothing calling out the US, the
>> > UK or any other coalition partner, nothing at all really.  The only
>> > thing related to Guantanamo is how the RC is facilitating contact for
>> > family members of detainees.  So, where is the evidence of the
>> > rampant war crimes being committed?
>> 
>> ..are you trying to tell us you cannot find the 4 Geneva Conventions?
>> Try again.
>> 
> Why don't you provide an actual reference instead of making me hunt for
> something that apparently only exists in your imagination?

..then it appears my imagination has had quite an impact:  ;o)
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions?
OpenDocument

..the reason I like you to hunt is I prefer to prevent war crime by 
making you hunt and meanwhile learn to make use of these Conventions.
Having learned to make use of these Conventions will also make you both a 
better educated citizen and a potentially better soldier (even if you 
would just happen to be a wannabe).  

..if you _are_ a war criminal, knowledge of the Conventions will still 
help you both mitigate and/or cover up the damage you have done.

..had you been on the enemy side like the Serbs in the 1990'ies Balkan 
wars, I might have treated you the same way I treated them on Usenet.  
Doing that, I wound up as some kinda flame war referee, quite fun

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-03-18 21:24:23, schrieb Roberto C. Sánchez:
> Sorry.  Geneva conventions applies to lawful combatants.  Now, if any
> coalition troops have committed crimes in violation of the Geneva
> conventions, then yes they need to prosecuted.  Now, the terrorists are
> afforded no such protection under the Geneva Conventions.  In fact, they
> don't even have to be taken prisoner.  They can simply be shot on sight.
> It is the grace of the US government that efforts are made to capture
> and detain rather than just kill outright.

Which terrorists?

The USA have attacked a country and now some of there population try
to fight against the US-Terrosim and Occupation and a USA-choosen GOV.

If I get y bunch of soldiers and go to the USA, since I am fighting
against international Terrorism by the USA and you try to defeat your
country I can kill you freely since you are a terrorist...

Cool...

Hey, your name tell me you are not a "real" US-American...
Are you origin Mexican? - Most (percentage) US-Combatants are Mexican...

They are killing Irakies for a US-Green-Card...

> As far as Sharia, why should the US subject its military forces to the
> laws of Islam, when it doesn't even subject them to the laws of
> Christianity?

Do you want to force Muslims to be Christians?
Oh yes, you do it already...
Over 7800 Mosques destructed by the US-Forces in Irak.
Igmams killed by PMC's and Black Commands...

The Internet is full of them... Including videos and pictures.

(I have over 4 TByte collected of them. - Warcrime over Warcrime)

> I have, personally, forgiven OBL.  However, that does not absolve the
> government of protecting its people.

Oh yes, by killing 1.3 Million Irakien peoples not involved!

> I see, so you are an anti-Semite.  The fact is that the Jews were there
> long before the Muslims.

This is false...  Go back to school!

> Clearly, you are naive, so I will explain something to you.  The Muslims
> will not be satisfied until the Jews have been *exterminated*.  Not
> relocated, but exterminated.  The same with Christians.  Remember that

This is YOUR opinion!

Why thre are 38 Synagoges in Iran?
Why there are wide over 10 Jews in Iran?
Why do they have NO problems with Iran?

> the Muslims have three options when dealing with infidels:
> 
>  1. enslave them

This would be the best solution...
Jews have technology which can be used to reconstruct Palestine/Filistia.

>  2. convert them

They would prefer to die!

>  3. kill them

Not realy good for the international opinion...

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-03-19 02:04:42, schrieb Arnt Karlsen:
> ..as EU members?  The EU has its own (token) military force,
> but I am not aware of any Swedish troops in Afghanistan.

Me too...

> ..peace.  First we need to hang all our war criminals, then they have 
> to hang theirs, all under the strictest combination of Sharia, the full 
> 4 Geneva Conventions, the US War Crimes Act, the Norw. Military 
> penal code etc.

Hang 'em high!

> Or, you will have to _forgive_ Osama for felling the WTC.  ;o)

Do you have a proof that it was Ossi.  :-)

Mohammed Atta is alive!
And if he is alive, he was definitivly not
in one of the two Airplanes.  AND, several
of the "Terror-Pilots went seen in the public...

> ..the root cause of this war is not that "the Jews got a home land", 
> but that we (the UN) stole it from the Filistinians and renamed it 
> to "Palestine" and let Hitler gas the Jews to scare them "home", to
> piiage Arab oil and stall Muslim Capitalism.

Ack!

> ..we need to fix that, _if_ we want peace.  If we don't, there is
> absolutely _no_ way you can convince me, "the Muslims does 
> not need nukes."

And we have no Nukes!
Which is already proofen by a look into the Satelite Photos
of LASAT which can detect all kind of radioactivity...

You can not hide Nukes by the todays technology.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-03-19 01:16:16, schrieb Arnt Karlsen:
> ..you missed the boat here.  Daddy Boy George failing his command for
> the 2'nd time letting Saddam gas Kurds and massacre Shiias, thaught the

There is no proof that Sadam had gased the kurds...
I was there after (german/french UN Mission as I where in the 
French Foreign Legion) the masaker of the 10.000 kurdish peoples
and the phosgen grenades do not came from inside Irak.

> naive Muslims they are headed the same way the Jews were in 1933-1945.

But for the Shiites killed by the order of Sadam Hussein
(where he was judget for some weeks) are the only REAL proof...

Even the USA and UN can not realy proof other crimes...
...and even they where happen.

Realy crazy world! -- The USA have definitiy many proofs
destructed because they can fall back to them!

> House of Islam, the only real worry is Amadinejad's idiot yakking about
> nukes without having a proper missile defense is place.

He has... I was in february in Iran and THEY HAVE but better
protected as Sadam Husseins radar stations in 1991 where the
USA have used Anti-Radar-missiles to make the Irak blind

The Iran use a much better technologie...
Environement eauivalent to the USA and western world.

Please note, that byside ma Naster in IT, I am Dip. Ing.
for Electronic, Electrotechnik and Mechanical Engineering.

I create my own Embedded Systems using Debian GNU/Linux and
I have a heavy experience in Weapon and Survaillance Systems
since i am working sinc 1983-10-05 for the french militaries
as PMC.

Most (98%) electronics you can get in good Electronic-Shops
in the Western World...  Even Radar-Sensors!

So if a private/hobby electronics can get the stuff and build it
(I have tested many of my results in real at different military
bases, even Israel) You can imagine what you can all do if you
have the back of an GOV.

The Irak HAD super Engineers in electonic but the went permanently
disabled by the US-Forces and the Israelien have killed Iranien
Engineers in Europe (the show up as deathly accident).

Oh, I have already written for some time, that I have lost my
to (female) Co-Workers (Linux Programmers and DB-Specialistes)
in Paris and they have had in less then 3 days two independant
deathly accidents...

...and I have had mistry accidents too!

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: OT: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-03-14 07:34:36, schrieb Steve Lamb:
> Even better is that it is France, where she claims to be from, that has
> the close to 22% unemployment rate among their youth.  At least if NPR can be
> believed.

In France it is higher then 8% since the GOV hide it by "short term
continue studies" (3-6 month) and those peoples are not considered as
jobless.

I must note, that the "youth" is between 18 and 25 years where it is
realy difficult for them by the current french politic.

In germany it is wide under 1% since the "education" (3 to 3 1/2 years,
specialment trade) is assured by the enterprises which does not exist
in France with partial exceptions for the Regions Alsace and Lothringen
which have/use ancien german laws...

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: OT: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-03-15 10:19:16, schrieb Kent West:
> D'oh! That means I've created all this mess with my mis-remembrance. 
> Sorry, Michelle.

Oops!  --  Belive it, I am not angry!

For arround 11 years I was thinking I am a transsexual but then one time
I have made an Genetic-Test and...  Oops, - I am Hermaphrodite.

In 12/1999 I have gotten the judgement to change my illegal (forced by
my illegal adoptivparents) sex (male) back to female and the name to
"Michelle" but the delivery of my ID card and such are refused by the
"Prefecture of Strasbourg" which mean, I live since 01/2000 without any
legal papers!

The the Gentest was in 2000 and now I live as "hermaphrodite" and I let
this all peoples (who want) official know that I am!

Now there is a Asociation in Berlin/Germany which fight for the 3rd sex,
since there are many Hermaphrodites like me who has NO genetic defects.

So what now?

Such things are killer, since the administration is not prepared for it...
(Maybe peoples too)  --  Only for male (m, he) and female (f, she).

:-)  I am intersexuell (i, IT)


And if I have enough of ALL, I fuck myself.


Greetings and nice Day/Evening (Grrg, I hate TZ's)
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: OT: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-03-15 13:59:24, schrieb Ron Johnson:
> > What mistake do you mean? Michelle *is* a women.
>   ^^^
> Multiple personalities?

ROTFL! -- How right you are and don't know!  :-)

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: OT: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-03-14 11:42:47, schrieb Kent West:
> "his", IIRC.

Michelle/Michèle is a female name in France ;-) 
and Michel the male name.

But with me it is MUCH MORE complicate since I am NOT "he" or "she".

Maybe "it" since I am Hermaphrodite  :-))  but living as woman.

As I was in Iran last year it was more funny at the airports...
OK, Hermaphrodite is accepted as third sex but the officet had ask me

What I am now?  --  My answer was hermaphrodit!

But he was meaning HOW I present me...  --  As woman!

OK, this mean I have to use the Head-Scarf!

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

He? She? - IT! -- The creature of an other world! [was Re: OT: a dumb query? pls humor me]

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-03-14 20:27:30, schrieb Joe Hart:
> my dog, your dog, her dog, his dog, its dog, our dog, their dog. That is
> all of the personal pronouns referring to possession of a dog.
> 
> In Spanish you have one more.
> 
> It is extremely impolite to refer to people as an it, so his or her are
> the only ones left.

It, it, it -- IT IS ME!  ;-)

A Man   =>  He
A Woman =>  She
A Hermaphrodit  =>  It

or I am wrong?  :-)


Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-03-13 12:10:02, schrieb Mike McCarty:
> It is not. We just don't do things through the Gov't,
> and that's something to be proud of.
> 
> Estimates place the USA charitable giving at approx. $250 Billion USD
> total, and between $1.5 and $2.5 Billion for the tsunami
> alone.

1.2 to 2 Billion Euro?  --  Where is this money gone?

I have nothing found in "official" organizations
like the UNESCO or International Red Cross.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-03-13 12:11:35, schrieb Mike McCarty:
> This is ridiculous. Atomic fission was a known phenomenon
> before WWII even started.

This is right, but without the german knowlege the would
no have developed the Nagasaki/Hiroshima bomb so fast...

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2007-03-11 00:15:53, schrieb Steve Lamb:
> >   * US Friends are few and far between, except when the US gives
> > them money. Even then, many just take the money and funnel it
> > into anti-USAian activities.
> 
> This one is funny.  You do realize that the coalition for Iraq which
> everyone claims was not there (America goes alone!) was something like 24
> nations strong.  It was only Germany and France that weren't in on it.  Now
> they're not bit players but it is certainly disingenious to say "US Friends
> are few and far between..."

And HOW many have leaved this "friendship" frustrated because
the went fooled by the USA/GB?  Including NZ, AU and TR?

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: Problem with mouse in X [WAS: Re: a dumb query? pls humor me]

[Kent West]

William Mok wrote:
I installed X windows system under Debian 3.1.r2, I typed 'startx' but I got 
the following error:


xf86OpenSerial: Cannot open device /dev/input/mice

 No such device

Generic Mouse: cannot open input device

PreInit failed for input device "Generic Mouse"



Does anyone know how this problem can be fixed? Thanks.
  
X expects you to have an USB mouse, and to have the appropriate USB 
modules loaded. If either of those conditions is false, this explains 
the error message. (You don't say what type of mouse you have, or which 
distro you're running; if Sarge, I suggest upgrading to Etch unless you 
need to stay with Sarge for some reason.)


--
Kent


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 03/26/07 14:20, steef wrote:
> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:59:47 -0400, judd wrote in
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>>  
>>> On 23 Mar, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>> snip<.>
>> ..another way is consider the military effect, such as Norwegian gas
>> turbines emitting CO2, causing some heat up and sea level rise,
>> flooding low Pacific islands, Bangla Desh or Holland.
> 
> do not worry!!!. we heighten up our dykes in due time.

You heightened up your dykes?  

Anyway... if your dikes burst, you can always float on wooden shoes!

:P

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGCB7hS9HxQb37XmcRApqJAJwMnAAoxJkZREJVL83x+ZsymYzsKACZAfl4
+QE1I3+IgzwYgCu9g+2jJl0=
=58ve
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[steef]

Arnt Karlsen wrote:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:59:47 -0400, judd wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

  

On 23 Mar, Ron Johnson wrote:



snip<.>
..another way is consider the military effect, such as Norwegian gas 
turbines emitting CO2, causing some heat up and sea level rise, flooding 
low Pacific islands, Bangla Desh or Holland.


do not worry!!!. we heighten up our dykes in due time.

steef

(groningen, below sea-level)



snip <>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:59:47 -0400, judd wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On 23 Mar, Ron Johnson wrote:
> 
>> ...
> 
> 
>>>  I'd assume that the US wouldn't be considered a signatory to
>>> an international agreement until it's also ratified.  Perhaps I'm
>>> wrong about the terminology.
>> 
>> We (the US) are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol treaty, but have not
>> ratified it.  Thus it is not binding law.
>> 
>> 
>  It is not binding in US domestic law.  That much is clear.  I'm
> not sure of the status under international law outside the US.  Any
> lawyers on the list?
> 
>  In particular, I remember hearing that the Kyoto protocol would
> apply to activities of US companies outside of the US once the required
> number of states ratified it.  As I've said, I'm not a lawyer and can't
> attest to the accuracy of that statement.

..another way is consider the military effect, such as Norwegian gas 
turbines emitting CO2, causing some heat up and sea level rise, flooding 
low Pacific islands, Bangla Desh or Holland.  Destroying land this way is 
a war crime under the Conventions, and under the Norwegian military penal 
code, anyone causing this or harmed by this, qualifies as "being on the 
battlefield", to paraphrase the gist of the Norwegian language in there.

-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:59:00 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:56:51PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>> 
>> It's not a veto issue; the constitution (Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2)
>> states:
>> 
>> He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent
>> of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
>> present concur;
>> 
>> So the power is his, although he needs the 'advice and consent' of the
>> Senate; if he's not interested, there's no treaty. I don't think
>> there's any possibility of veto.
>> 
> OK.  I had forgotten about that.

..there's also the military command chain procedures, arresting and 
replacing etc a "clearly incompetent, disabled or war criminal (supreme 
or not) commander", AFAIK all NATO members had those in place in the 
1980ies.

-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:29:33 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:01:29AM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > [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.)
>> 
>> 
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.+Con.+Res.+336:
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.CON.RES.26.IH:
> 
> There, you can get the dead tree versions yourself if you like.
> 
> The first was under the watch of Clinton and the second pre-9/11 Bush
> adminstration, introduced by a Democrat.
> 
>> >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 same one that Clinton dealt with.  The Taliban.  What difference
> does it make?  They had him or knew where he was.  Recognized or not,
> they were in control of mufch of the territory of Afghanistan.

..precisely, and precisely why the Taliban are lawful combattants under 
the conventions, just like Norwegian Milorg in WWII.  Unless you can 
prove al-Qaida mercenaries under Article 47 in Protocol Additional, they 
too are lawful combattants under the Conventions.

..then "ofcourse" we have war criminals on both sides.  And we _should_ 
know better than prove the enemy right by allowing war crimes.

>> >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)
>>  
> Um, were the Norweigan "insurgents" agents of a recognized government?
> If so, then there is your answer.  This theory has nothing to do with
> Hitler's.

..Adolf Hitler argued the Quisling regime was the lawful regime in 
Norway, he didn't back it up with an election, but he _did_ back it up 
with a _lot_ of troops to protect the Norwegian civilians, even the Jews.
A _very_ embarrassing fact for both Norway, NATO, the US and Afghan 
president Karzai, but never the less the truth.


-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:45:58AM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 02:28:24 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> > You keep claiming this, but have not provided evidence.
> 
> ..I have provided ample pointers for anything but neocon shills and war 
> criminals, if you want further Court Martial Defense advice, get a lawyer.
> 
You see, when I point out that you have not (and clearly cannot) provide
evidence, you respond with an ad hominem attack.  Your position is quite
weak.

> > Right.  I imagine that they would get hang you as well for constantly
> > imaging things that are not there?
> 
> ..only if _I_ commit a war crime.  Or is this a threat on my life for 
> aguing against Sissy Boy George's theory? 
> 
No. No personal threat there.  I was simply pointing that if I can be
held liable, as you claim, then so can you.  :-)

> > Umm, considering that he was an Iraqi citizen, was tried by the Iraqis
> > by a tribunal under the authority of Iraq's constitution, I'd say it was
> > by the book.
> 
> ..then you're a neocon shill promoting war crime.  If you are an USAF 
> serviceman or officer, you just incriminated yourself.
> 
Another ad hominem attack.  Where's your real argument?  Don't have one?

> >> 
> > Really?  And what competent legal authority says that he was a POW?
> 
> ..Sissy Boy George himself, on the same day Saddam was dug out of that 
> hole.
> 
Right.  I am not disputing that.  However, once the Iraqis *elected*
their new government and instituted their new constitution, he became
the legal responsbility of Iraq.  Or do you deny that the Iraqis elected
a government and instituted a constitution?

> > Again.  Who makes the determination that he was a POW?
> 
> ..your Supreme Commander accepting him as POW the same day Saddam was dug 
> out of that hole.
> 
Ibid.

> > This was the page from the News link:
> > http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/News?OpenDocument
> > 
> > Looking at news items back to the beginning of 2006, here is what I
> > found related to Iraq and Afghanistan:
> > 
> >  * condemnation of sectarian violence
> >  * appeals for respect of humanitarian law * appeals for relief of
> >  kidnapped aid workers (these workers were
> >kidnapped by insurgents)
> >  * announcements of aid rendered with respect to food, water, etc
> > 
> > Nothing about the GCs specifically, nothing calling out the US, the UK
> > or any other coalition partner, nothing at all really.  The only thing
> > related to Guantanamo is how the RC is facilitating contact for family
> > members of detainees.  So, where is the evidence of the rampant war
> > crimes being committed?
> 
> ..are you trying to tell us you cannot find the 4 Geneva Conventions?
> Try again.
> 
Why don't you provide an actual reference instead of making me hunt for
something that apparently only exists in your imagination?

> > Nothing:
> > 
> > bible: Debian/BRS Release 4.18, $Date: 2005/01/23 11:29:22 $ Hit '?' for
> > help.
> > 
> > Genesis 1
> > 
> >   1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> > bible(KJV) [Gen1:1]> ??prisoner
> >   Searching for 'prisoner'... [13 refs]
> > bible(KJV) [Gen1:1]> ?and war
> >   Searching for 'war'... [220 refs]
> >   [0 refs in combined list]
> > bible(KJV) [Gen1:1]> ??prisoners
> >   Searching for 'prisoners'... [21 refs]
> > bible(KJV) [Gen1:1]> ?and war
> >   Searching for 'war'... [220 refs]
> >   [0 refs in combined list]
> > bible(KJV) [Gen1:1]>
> > 
> > Anything else?
> 
> ..try the _whole_ bible, I see only Genesis searched here.
> 
I *did*.  The way the bible-kjv package works is that it defaults to
searching the *whole* bible unless you restrict to a smaller section.

> ..I forgot to mention that ability also obliges us to stop when they have 
> been defeated, "stopping too late" is a war crime, and topping too soon 
> like Sissy Boy George's "Mission Accomplished!" probably treason.
> 
Umm, the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein.  That mission *was*
accomplished early on.  They people who want to stop before the job is
done are the *Democrats*.  You know, your liberal buddies.

> > Huh?  Let's see, you want to remove the Jews from their homeland,
> 
> ..not their, and yes, Jews too need to be welcome somewhere, both Norway 
> and the US are better places for Jews than make them steal Palestine.
> 
What part of "they were rightfully there first" don't you get?

> > Umm, because the problem I have is with islamic *extremists*? Seriously,
> > there are millions of peace-loving muslims out there.  They are content
> > to live their lives, worship as they choose, leave everyone alone and be
> > left alone themselves.
> 
> ..yeah, except that's not good enough if they have oil or live in the 
> Middle East.
> 
> > Your claiming that my sentiments make me anti-Semitic
> 
> ..yes.  "Pro Jew" is not good enough to evade it, Arabs too are Semites.
> 
Right.  Except that I don't have a problem with all Arabs, only the
extre

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Paul Johnson]

Steve Lamb wrote in Article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to
gmane.linux.debian.user:

> Sometimes calling a kook a kook and an idiot and idiot is the only
> statement you've got.  If it's accurate it's not ad hominem.

I dispute the accuracy of your assessment based on your inability to cite a
source not provided by Tony Snow.

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 02:42:14 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 03/25/07 22:39, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:41:22 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote in
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> 
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 03/25/07 17:47, Arnt Karlsen wrote: [snip]
 ..you deny the "Let's roll!"-people aboard flight UA93 their lawful
 KIA status, when they "took up arms against the invading enemy."
>>> Who says the UA93 passengers were KIA?
>> 
>> ..I do, under Art. 108 in the Norw. Military Penal Law (and its
>> equivalent in the US War Crimes Act and eq. military penal code), which
>> incorporates all full 4 Geneva Conventions and all their 3 Protocals
>> Additional, incorporating Article 4A(6) of the 3'rd Convention: "(6)
>> Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the
>> enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without
>> having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided
>> they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
>> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590007?OpenDocument
>> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007?OpenDocument
> 
> Terrorists aren't invaders, 

..the passengers made up their own mind about that, if we are to believe 
tho Official story.  The circumstances being what they were at 1000 that 
morning, I do not have many problems with the alternative stories either, 
I can see a few lawful scenarios for a lawful USAF missile hit on UA93.

> the passengers didn't have any arms to carry.

..they made use of what they had available, I understand, fists.  
Are good enough under the Conventions.  An Hollywood style dream 
would have had them succeed, instead of earn an Arlington slot.
 
>>> For one thing, those passengers weren't in the military, and another,
>> 
>> ..on take-off, correct.  On "Let's Roll!", they _became_ a lawful
>> military force.
>> 
>>> their deaths were "other than the victim of a terrorist activity".
>> 
>> ..yup, KIA, Arlington next.
> 
> Really?  You really believe that they were buried in Arlington National
> Cemetery?

..no, I know they weren't, and yes, I know they should have been.

> You've *got* to be jerking our chain.  No one who is functional is as
> crazy as you appear to be.

..uhuh.  Coming from a neocon shill, I can accept that as a compliment.

>>> http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/k/02986.html
>>> killed in action
>>> (DOD) A casualty category applicable to a hostile casualty, other
>>> than the victim of a terrorist activity, who is killed outright or
>>> who dies as a result of wounds or other injuries before reaching a
>>> medical treatment facility. Also called KIA. See also casualty
>>> category.
>> 
>> ..neocon BS snip by Sissy Boys trying to escape the US War Crimes Act.


-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 02:28:24 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 05:10:19AM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:00:39 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> 
>> > Well, let's see.  Here is a list of every executive order published
>> > in 2001 [0]:
>> > 
> 
>> > 
>> > Now, I read all the orders relating to anything military.  Nothing in
>> > there about war crimes.
>> 
>> ..interesting, both Adolf and Slobodan played similar games with words.
>> 
>> ..anything on "international courts" or "the 4 Geneva Conventions"?
>> 
> Nope.  What I find interesting is that you claimed that Bush issued some
> executive allowing him to "evade" war crimes prosecution (or some such
> nonsense).  Then, when I present you with a list of *all* the executive
> orders published, there is no such thing and you effectively claim that
> they are trying to hide it.  Why don't you point us to this mythical
> executive order?

..why the hell not?  Are _you_ sure you want to find yourself on the 
receiving end on an indictment?  And this really belongs in the courts 
and not on not D-U.

>> > Would that be the media that refuses to report any positive
>> > occurences
>> 
>> ..try my method of balancing Fox against al-Jazeera, Xinhua,
>> Kommersant, CNN etc against the full 4 Geneva Conventions.  ;o)
>> 
> Yes, well your method is "flawed" to say the least.

..as far as getting you indicted, I can agree.  I can fix that flaw.

>> > (like making neighborhoods safer, building power infrastructure,
>> > building schools, providing medical care, capturing bad guys and so
>> > on)? Because if it is the same media, I won't believe anything they
>> > say. What you fail to understand is that nearly everyone in the
>> > military takes the law *very* seriously.  Now, just as in any large
>> > organization, there are a few bad apples.  For example, just because
>> > someone at the telephone company sells a list of phone numbers to
>> > telemarketers does not mean that every single employee of the phone
>> > company is a criminal. Same with the military, as 99.9% of the people
>> > in uniform are decent, law abiding and doing their jobs in accordance
>> > with the law.
>> 
>> ..see below.
>> 
>> >> > Well, there is the whole thing about lawful combatants being
>> >> > required to wear a distinguishable uniform with distinctive
>> >> > insignia.
>> >> 
>> >> ..one of these suffices, both together are preferred, and you deny
>> >> the "Let's roll!"-people aboard flight UA93 their lawful KIA status,
>> >> when they "took up arms against the invading enemy."
>> >> 
>> > Umm, they were acting in self-defense.
>> 
>> ..yes.
>> 
>> > Big difference.
>> 
>> ..no, self defence is _no_ different to _any_ other kinda bellingerence
>> in its requirement for _full_ compliance.
>> 
> I don't get it.  Who do you think was not complying in the UA93
> situation?

..going by the Official Story[TM], the hijackers, all the way until 
"Let's Roll!".  Thenafter, both sides were either fair game as lawful 
combattants or colateral civilian casualties.  

>> > Of course, your
>> > continued ranting only serves to reinforce that you are either just
>> > intent on stirring the pot, or that you really don't get it.
>> 
>> ..I am fully aware of the fact Sissy Boy George is trying to escape the
>> US War Crimes Act and the Coventions.  Both authorize hanging.
>> 
> You keep claiming this, but have not provided evidence.

..I have provided ample pointers for anything but neocon shills and war 
criminals, if you want further Court Martial Defense advice, get a lawyer.

>> > Any civilian, military, police or other authorities, who in time
>> > of
>> > ^^^
>> > war assume responsibilities in respect of protected persons, must
>> > possess the text of the Convention and be specially instructed as
>> > to its provisions.
>> > 
>> > Yup.  Military police and lawyers receive extra training on the GCs.
>> > Having never been a police or a lawyer, however, I can't say whether
>> > they carry the text with them, but I imagine that they do.
>> 
>> ..yes they are supposed to, and you're entitled to hang anyone to
>> argues them the way you do in the face of the language of the
>> Conventions, just go by the rules in them.
>>  
> Right.  I imagine that they would get hang you as well for constantly
> imaging things that are not there?

..only if _I_ commit a war crime.  Or is this a threat on my life for 
aguing against Sissy Boy George's theory? 

>> > What do you mean would have?
>> 
>> .."going by the book" in full compliance of the full 4 Geneva
>> Conventions would have provided a firm and full legal foundation of
>> Saddam's hanging, even if he cooked laws to allow himself "Jew babies
>> for dinner" kinda war crimes.
>> 
> Umm, considering that he was an Iraqi citizen, was tried by the Iraqis
> by a tribunal under the authority of 

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 03/25/07 22:39, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:41:22 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 03/25/07 17:47, Arnt Karlsen wrote: [snip]
>>> ..you deny the "Let's roll!"-people aboard flight UA93 their lawful KIA
>>> status, when they "took up arms against the invading enemy."
>> Who says the UA93 passengers were KIA?
> 
> ..I do, under Art. 108 in the Norw. Military Penal Law (and its 
> equivalent in the US War Crimes Act and eq. military penal code), which 
> incorporates all full 4 Geneva Conventions and all their 3 Protocals 
> Additional, incorporating Article 4A(6) of the 3'rd Convention:
> "(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the 
> enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without 
> having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided 
> they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590007?OpenDocument
> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007?OpenDocument

Terrorists aren't invaders, the passengers didn't have any arms to
carry.

>> For one thing, those passengers weren't in the military, and another,
> 
> ..on take-off, correct.  On "Let's Roll!", they _became_ a lawful 
> military force.
> 
>> their deaths were "other than the victim of a terrorist activity".
> 
> ..yup, KIA, Arlington next.

Really?  You really believe that they were buried in Arlington
National Cemetery?

You've *got* to be jerking our chain.  No one who is functional is
as crazy as you appear to be.

>> http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/k/02986.html
>> killed in action
>> (DOD) A casualty category applicable to a hostile casualty, other
>> than the victim of a terrorist activity, who is killed outright or
>> who dies as a result of wounds or other injuries before reaching a
>> medical treatment facility. Also called KIA. See also casualty
>> category.
> 
> ..neocon BS snip by Sissy Boys trying to escape the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> 


- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGB3lVS9HxQb37XmcRAqIcAJwLuXgPYPBqq7kc6TZjk5Bpx2rCbgCfUlB7
rt/JTNhhFc5Q7oyHh6XIhL0=
=L4Uc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 05:10:19AM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:00:39 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> > Well, let's see.  Here is a list of every executive order published in
> > 2001 [0]:
> > 

> > 
> > Now, I read all the orders relating to anything military.  Nothing in
> > there about war crimes.
> 
> ..interesting, both Adolf and Slobodan played similar games with words.  
> 
> ..anything on "international courts" or "the 4 Geneva Conventions"?
> 
Nope.  What I find interesting is that you claimed that Bush issued some
executive allowing him to "evade" war crimes prosecution (or some such
nonsense).  Then, when I present you with a list of *all* the executive
orders published, there is no such thing and you effectively claim that
they are trying to hide it.  Why don't you point us to this mythical
executive order?

> > Would that be the media that refuses to report any positive occurences
> 
> ..try my method of balancing Fox against al-Jazeera, Xinhua, Kommersant, 
> CNN etc against the full 4 Geneva Conventions.  ;o)
> 
Yes, well your method is "flawed" to say the least.

> > (like making neighborhoods safer, building power infrastructure,
> > building schools, providing medical care, capturing bad guys and so on)?
> > Because if it is the same media, I won't believe anything they say. What
> > you fail to understand is that nearly everyone in the military takes the
> > law *very* seriously.  Now, just as in any large organization, there are
> > a few bad apples.  For example, just because someone at the telephone
> > company sells a list of phone numbers to telemarketers does not mean
> > that every single employee of the phone company is a criminal. Same with
> > the military, as 99.9% of the people in uniform are decent, law abiding
> > and doing their jobs in accordance with the law.
> 
> ..see below.
> 
> >> > Well, there is the whole thing about lawful combatants being required
> >> > to wear a distinguishable uniform with distinctive insignia.
> >> 
> >> ..one of these suffices, both together are preferred, and you deny the
> >> "Let's roll!"-people aboard flight UA93 their lawful KIA status, when
> >> they "took up arms against the invading enemy."
> >> 
> > Umm, they were acting in self-defense. 
> 
> ..yes.
> 
> > Big difference. 
> 
> ..no, self defence is _no_ different to _any_ other kinda bellingerence 
> in its requirement for _full_ compliance.
> 
I don't get it.  Who do you think was not complying in the UA93
situation?

> > Of course, your
> > continued ranting only serves to reinforce that you are either just
> > intent on stirring the pot, or that you really don't get it.
> 
> ..I am fully aware of the fact Sissy Boy George is trying to escape the 
> US War Crimes Act and the Coventions.  Both authorize hanging.
> 
You keep claiming this, but have not provided evidence.

> > Any civilian, military, police or other authorities, who in time of
> > ^^^
> > war assume responsibilities in respect of protected persons, must
> > possess the text of the Convention and be specially instructed as to
> > its provisions.
> > 
> > Yup.  Military police and lawyers receive extra training on the GCs.
> > Having never been a police or a lawyer, however, I can't say whether
> > they carry the text with them, but I imagine that they do.
> 
> ..yes they are supposed to, and you're entitled to hang anyone to argues 
> them the way you do in the face of the language of the Conventions, just 
> go by the rules in them.
>  
Right.  I imagine that they would get hang you as well for constantly
imaging things that are not there?

> > What do you mean would have?
> 
> .."going by the book" in full compliance of the full 4 Geneva Conventions 
> would have provided a firm and full legal foundation of Saddam's hanging, 
> even if he cooked laws to allow himself "Jew babies for dinner" kinda war 
> crimes.
> 
Umm, considering that he was an Iraqi citizen, was tried by the Iraqis
by a tribunal under the authority of Iraq's constitution, I'd say it was
by the book.

> >  It did? 
> 
> ..no.
> 
Yes.

> > He was hanged. 
> 
> ..yes.  Murder on a POW.
> 
Really?  And what competent legal authority says that he was a POW?  

> > Tried by the Iraqis.  
> > Remember?  There were a couple of news reports about it.
> 
> ..yes, illegally so. As a POW, he should have had an Article 90 hearing.
>  
Again.  Who makes the determination that he was a POW?

> >> Will allow a fully lawful hanging of W and his entire regime,
> > 
> > See, first you have to prove that he was involved in war crimes, which
> > you have not.
> 
> ..see below.
> 
> >> Which is precisely why Sissy Boy George tries to destroy the US War
> >> Crimes Act and the Conventions, NATO and the US.
> >> 
> > You keep making this claim, but you can't provide evidence to that
> > effect.
> 
> ..I havent?  Chk Google News for Iraq or Afghanistan

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:00:39 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 10:47:41PM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> ..reposting, last try was lost in gmane's auth queue.
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:31:03 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> 
>> > Reference?  Where has President Bush stated that war criminals should
>> > not be prosecuted?
>> 
>> 
>> ..here I should have said "US war criminals", Sissy Boy George decided
>> back in October 2001 he wanted to be able to commit war crimes legally.
>> Google for "executive orders 2001".
>> 
>> 
> Well, let's see.  Here is a list of every executive order published in
> 2001 [0]:
> 
> Dec. 29  Executive Order on Succession in the Department of
> Veterans Affairs Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession at the
> Department of State Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession at the
> Department of Labor Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession at the
> Department of Housing and Urban Development Dec. 29 Executive
> Order on Succession at the Department of Health and Human Services Dec.
> 29 Executive Order on Succession at the Department of Interior
> Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession at the Department of
> Commerce Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession at Department of
> Agriculture Dec. 29 Executive Order: Adjustments of Certain
> Rates of Pay Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession in Department
> of Treasury Dec. 28 Executive Orders on Succession in Federal
> Agencies Dec. 27 Normal Trade Relations Treatment Executive
> Order Dec. 21 Council of Europe in Respect of the Group of
> States Against Corruption Dec. 20 Executive Order Establishing
> An Emergency Board Dec. 14 Afghanistan Combat Zone Executive
> Order Dec. 6  Executive Order for Federal Government Closure on Dec 24
> Nov. 28 Executive Order: Creation of the President's Council on
> Bioethics Nov. 27 Executive Order Waiver of Dual Compensation
> Provisions of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964
> Nov. 16 National Emergency Construction Authority Executive
> Order Nov. 13 President Issues Military Order Nov. 9  Citizen
> Preparedness in War on Terrorism Executive Order Nov. 1  Presidential
> Records Act Executive Order Oct. 22 Executive Order for Dept of
> Health and Human Services Oct. 16 Executive Order on Critical
> Infrastructure Protection Oct. 12 Educational Excellence for
> Hispanic Americans Commission Oct. 8  Executive Order Establishing
> Office of Homeland Security Oct. 3  Executive Order on Excellence in
> Special Education Oct. 1  Continuance of Federal Advisory Committees
> Oct. 1  President Signs PCAST Executive Order Sept. 24Executive
> Order on Terrorist Financing Sept. 14President Orders Ready
> Reserves of Armed Forces to Active Duty Aug. 17 Executive Order
> on Export Control Regulations Jul. 31 Energy Efficient Standby
> Power Devices Jul. 2  Executive Order
> Jun. 20 President Bush Issues Executive Order Regarding 21st
> Century Workforce Initiative Jun. 19 President Bush Issues
> Executive Order Regarding Community-Based Alternatives for Individuals
> with Disabilities Jun. 6  Executive Order: Amendment To Executive Order
> 13125 Jun. 1  Executive Order
> May 29  President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our
> Nation's Veterans May 23  Executive Order: Additional Measures with
> Respect to Prohibiting the Importation of Rough Diamonds from Sierra
> Leone May 18  Executive Order: Actions Concerning Regulations That
> Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use May 18 
> Executive Order: Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects May 2  
> Executive Order: President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security
> Apr. 30 Executive Order: Establishment of the President's Task
> Force on Puerto Rico's Status Apr. 6  Executive Order: Amendment to
> Executive Order 13202 Apr. 5  Executive Order: Further Amendment to
> Executive Order 1 Apr. 4  Executive Order: Termination of Emergency
> Authority For Certain Export Controls Mar. 9  Executive Order:
> Establishing an Emergency Board Feb. 21 Executive Order on
> Preservation of Open Competition and Government Neutrality Towards
> Government Contractors' Labor Relations on Federal and Federally Funded
> Construction Projects Feb. 21 Executive Order on Notification of
> Employee Rights Concerning Payment of Union Dues or Fees Feb. 21
> Executive Order: Revocation of Executive Order on Nondisplacement of
> Qualified Workers under Certain Contracts Feb. 21 Executive
> Order and Presidential Memorandum Concerning Labor-Management
> Partnerships Feb. 12 Executive Order on the President's
> Information Technology Advisory Committee Jan. 29 Agency
> Responsibilities wi

Re: Problem with mouse in X [WAS: Re: a dumb query? pls humor me]

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:35:15AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> 
> Second, you could have at least changed the subject line.
> 
(Replying to self here)

I have now changed the subject line.

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 09:32:22PM -0700, William Mok wrote:
> 
> I installed X windows system under Debian 3.1.r2, I typed 'startx' but I 
> got the following error:
> 
> xf86OpenSerial: Cannot open device /dev/input/mice
>  No such device
> 
> Generic Mouse: cannot open input device
> PreInit failed for input device "Generic Mouse"
> 
> Does anyone know how this problem can be fixed? Thanks.
> 
First, please don't thread hijack.  This thread has been going off topic
for a long time and it is likely that many people will ignore it.

Second, you could have at least changed the subject line.

Third, you should probably be using Etch, as it will likely be released
Any Day Now (TM).

If you really need Sarge, then you can try loading the mouse driver for
your kernel.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[William Mok]

I installed X windows system under Debian 3.1.r2, I typed 'startx' but I got 
the following error:


xf86OpenSerial: Cannot open device /dev/input/mice
 No such device

Generic Mouse: cannot open input device
PreInit failed for input device "Generic Mouse"

Does anyone know how this problem can be fixed? Thanks.

William

_
http://local.live.com/?mkt=en-ca/?v=2&cid=A6D6BDB4586E357F!420


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:41:22 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 03/25/07 17:47, Arnt Karlsen wrote: [snip]
>> ..you deny the "Let's roll!"-people aboard flight UA93 their lawful KIA
>> status, when they "took up arms against the invading enemy."
> 
> Who says the UA93 passengers were KIA?

..I do, under Art. 108 in the Norw. Military Penal Law (and its 
equivalent in the US War Crimes Act and eq. military penal code), which 
incorporates all full 4 Geneva Conventions and all their 3 Protocals 
Additional, incorporating Article 4A(6) of the 3'rd Convention:
"(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the 
enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without 
having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided 
they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590007?OpenDocument
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007?OpenDocument

> For one thing, those passengers weren't in the military, and another,

..on take-off, correct.  On "Let's Roll!", they _became_ a lawful 
military force.

> their deaths were "other than the victim of a terrorist activity".

..yup, KIA, Arlington next.

> http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/k/02986.html
> killed in action
> (DOD) A casualty category applicable to a hostile casualty, other
> than the victim of a terrorist activity, who is killed outright or
> who dies as a result of wounds or other injuries before reaching a
> medical treatment facility. Also called KIA. See also casualty
> category.

..neocon BS snip by Sissy Boys trying to escape the US War Crimes Act.


-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:10:14AM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:10:22 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> > But... they weren't in uniform.  (Did the IEA even *have* an Army?)
> 
> ..define "uniform" under the Conventions.  ;o)
> 

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging 
to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

   1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as
   members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
   forces.

   2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
   including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
   Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own
   territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such
   militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance
   movements, fulfil the following conditions:

 * that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
 * that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
 * that of carrying arms openly;
 * that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws
   and customs of war.

   

It appears that the minimum criterion for a uniform is a "fixed
distinctive sign recognizable at a distance."  Either way, they probably
don't meet the other three criteria.

Regards,

-Roberto
-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:01:29AM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > [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.)
> 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.+Con.+Res.+336:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.CON.RES.26.IH:

There, you can get the dead tree versions yourself if you like.

The first was under the watch of Clinton and the second pre-9/11 Bush
adminstration, introduced by a Democrat.

> >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 same one that Clinton dealt with.  The Taliban.  What difference
does it make?  They had him or knew where he was.  Recognized or not,
they were in control of mufch of the territory of Afghanistan.

> >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)
>  
Um, were the Norweigan "insurgents" agents of a recognized government?
If so, then there is your answer.  This theory has nothing to do with
Hitler's.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:40:59 -0400, Celejar wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:59:35 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
>> On 21 Mar, Celejar wrote:
>> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:58:56 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > 
>> >> ...
>> 
>> >>  Acutually, it is the 3rd Geneva convention that only applies to
>> >> lawful combatants.  The 4th convention, which the US is also a
>> >> signatory of, applies to unlawful combatants, and non-combatants.
>> >> And it provides
>> > 
>> > 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]?
>> > 
>> > 
>>  The current US administration is about the only organization
>> making this claim.  For example, the ICRC makes a strong argument that
>> it does, http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5LPHBV, as did
>> the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  I'll concede
>> that it has not yet been tested in a US court.  The Supreme court has
>> held, however, that Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions, which
>> gives some of the same protections, does apply to "unlawful
>> combatants".
> 
> Interesting. I'm not sufficiently well versed in the matter to comment
> further.

..if you risk getting your own butt into this shit war, read up on the 
Conventions to do things right to at least cover your own butt.

>> >> protections against, among other things, being tortured and being
>> >> held indefinitely without trial.
>> >  
>> >> And 3rd convention protections are to be given to all captives
>> >> until their combatant status is determined by a "competent
>> >> tribunal", which, IIRC, is interpreted in international law to be a
>> >> body of the judicial branch, not the executive.
>> > 
>> > 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.
>> > ...
>> 
>>  I was referring to the interpretation of the this part of the
>>  third
>> convention, itself, which is of course binding on the US:
>> 
>> "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
>> belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy," belong
>> to any of the categories for POWs, "such persons shall enjoy the
>> protection of the present Convention until such time as their status
>> has been determined by a competent tribunal."
> 
> I understand, but the question is whether the 'international law
> interpretation' of 'competent tribunal' as 'a body of the judicial
> branch' is something to which the US is bound. 

..it _became_ so on W invoking Article 5 in the NATO treaty on 9/11, due 
to the language in Article 2 and 3 in all 4 Conventions, and fully so to 
the full 4 Geneva Conventions and their 2 (now 3) Protocols Additional.


> Incidentally, my 'violently' was a poor choice of words; I meant 
> 'vehemently'.

..so noted.  ;o)

-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:30:26 -0400, Celejar wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:08:42 + (UTC) Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:13:41 -0400, Celejar wrote in
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> [snip]
> 
>> > [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.
> 
> What are you talking about? Prof. Ramsey writes:
> 
>> Let’s assume there is a category of people who take active part in
>> combat but are not covered by the Third Geneva Convention (because they
>> fail the test of its Article 4) or by Common Article 3 (because the
>> conflict is “of an international character”). It seems fairly
>> inescapable that there is such a category (whether or not Taliban or
>> al-Qaeda fighters are in it).
> 
> He's specifically avoiding the question of whether the Taliban /
> al-Qaeda are covered by Geneva. How is this "neocon propaganda"?

..he _avoids_ the question instead of doing his job under Article 144 in 
the 4'th Convention.  
Referring to that question as "the Administration's theory" would have 
been acceptable, as Coup d'Etat in the US is no war crime, even if it is 
a crime in the US.

-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:10:22 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 03/21/07 20:21, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: [snip]
>> 
>>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?
> 
> 95% seems pretty much de-facto control of the country to me!

..Norway had 0% of Continental Norway from June 7'th 1940 thru 
1944, when the Soviet Union pushed the Nazis back across the Norwegian 
border, even then the Germans made a major effort to round up Norwegians 
for evacuation away from the war zone up North in Norway, before torching 
it off and retreating.

> But... they weren't in uniform.  (Did the IEA even *have* an Army?)

..define "uniform" under the Conventions.  ;o)


-- 
..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]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Arnt Karlsen]

..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 +, 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.

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 10:47:41PM +, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> ..reposting, last try was lost in gmane's auth queue.
> 
> 
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:31:03 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> > Reference?  Where has President Bush stated that war criminals should
> > not be prosecuted?  
> 
> 
> ..here I should have said "US war criminals", Sissy Boy George decided 
> back in October 2001 he wanted to be able to commit war crimes legally.
> Google for "executive orders 2001".
> 

Well, let's see.  Here is a list of every executive order published in
2001 [0]: 

Dec. 29  Executive Order on Succession in the Department of Veterans 
Affairs
Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession at the Department of State
Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession at the Department of Labor
Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession at the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development
Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession at the Department of Health and 
Human Services
Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession at the Department of Interior
Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession at the Department of Commerce
Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession at Department of Agriculture
Dec. 29 Executive Order: Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay
Dec. 29 Executive Order on Succession in Department of Treasury
Dec. 28 Executive Orders on Succession in Federal Agencies
Dec. 27 Normal Trade Relations Treatment Executive Order
Dec. 21 Council of Europe in Respect of the Group of States Against 
Corruption
Dec. 20 Executive Order Establishing An Emergency Board
Dec. 14 Afghanistan Combat Zone Executive Order
Dec. 6  Executive Order for Federal Government Closure on Dec 24
Nov. 28 Executive Order: Creation of the President's Council on 
Bioethics
Nov. 27 Executive Order Waiver of Dual Compensation Provisions of the 
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964
Nov. 16 National Emergency Construction Authority Executive Order
Nov. 13 President Issues Military Order
Nov. 9  Citizen Preparedness in War on Terrorism Executive Order
Nov. 1  Presidential Records Act Executive Order
Oct. 22 Executive Order for Dept of Health and Human Services
Oct. 16 Executive Order on Critical Infrastructure Protection
Oct. 12 Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans Commission
Oct. 8  Executive Order Establishing Office of Homeland Security
Oct. 3  Executive Order on Excellence in Special Education
Oct. 1  Continuance of Federal Advisory Committees
Oct. 1  President Signs PCAST Executive Order
Sept. 24Executive Order on Terrorist Financing
Sept. 14President Orders Ready Reserves of Armed Forces to Active Duty
Aug. 17 Executive Order on Export Control Regulations
Jul. 31 Energy Efficient Standby Power Devices
Jul. 2  Executive Order
Jun. 20 President Bush Issues Executive Order Regarding 21st Century 
Workforce Initiative
Jun. 19 President Bush Issues Executive Order Regarding Community-Based 
Alternatives for Individuals with Disabilities
Jun. 6  Executive Order: Amendment To Executive Order 13125
Jun. 1  Executive Order
May 29  President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's 
Veterans
May 23  Executive Order: Additional Measures with Respect to Prohibiting the 
Importation of Rough Diamonds from Sierra Leone
May 18  Executive Order: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
May 18  Executive Order: Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects
May 2   Executive Order: President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security
Apr. 30 Executive Order: Establishment of the President's Task Force on 
Puerto Rico's Status
Apr. 6  Executive Order: Amendment to Executive Order 13202
Apr. 5  Executive Order: Further Amendment to Executive Order 1
Apr. 4  Executive Order: Termination of Emergency Authority For Certain Export 
Controls
Mar. 9  Executive Order: Establishing an Emergency Board
Feb. 21 Executive Order on Preservation of Open Competition and 
Government Neutrality Towards Government Contractors' Labor Relations on 
Federal and Federally Funded Construction Projects
Feb. 21 Executive Order on Notification of Employee Rights Concerning 
Payment of Union Dues or Fees
Feb. 21 Executive Order: Revocation of Executive Order on 
Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers under Certain Contracts
Feb. 21 Executive Order and Presidential Memorandum Concerning 
Labor-Management Partnerships
Feb. 12 Executive Order on the President's Information Technology 
Advisory Committee
Jan. 29 Agency Responsibilities with Respect to Faith-Based and 
Community Initiatives
Jan. 29 Executive Order: Establishment of White House Office of 
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives 

Now, I read all the orders relating to anyth