Re: U.S. in violaton of Geneva convention?
On Dec 16, 2003, at 1:50 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: This makes me a bit curious. Tell me, is your opinion then that the U.S. has done nothing questionable here? You don't feel that treating a former head of state (regardless of what you happen to think of that person) in this manner and videorecording it AND transmitting it to the entire globe violates the spirit of the convention? You feel this was the right thing to do? You would have no problem seing a U.S. or European leader being treated the same way? Who is the you referred to here? Please quote or refer to comments you (you) are responding to, especially when you ask questions. --Tim May
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Nomen Nescio wrote: Your whole post is based on the feeling that we're gonna do what they did to us. There were at least three points made in my post: * The treatment of Saddam seems well within the rules laid down by the Geneva conventions. * On the other hand, he and his government routinely violated the Geneva conventions and encouraged others to do so. * The US and the UK should step back and let Iraqis decide what to do with Saddam. Nowhere did I advocate gassing villages, rape, murder, torture, invasion of neighboring countries for all that good loot, setting off explosives in crowds, nor even the beatings handed out to captured British pilots. In doing so you have manifested what has been written here about gasing into the abyss and so on. I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and getting a haircut. :-| -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Tim, sorry it was unclear from my post whom I was referring to. It was James A. Donald. I did put his message id in a reply-to header. Jim Dixon wrote: Hitler, you mean? Or did you have Milosevic in mind? No what I meant was what IF somehow Bush or Blaire or some other high ranking coalition politician were captured by Iraq during the war and was treated in the same way. I can only presume you would support Saddam's soldiers checking Bush for lice then. You are also utterly missing the point and you are one pretty good example of how the mob are thinking. EVERYONE, including Saddam, Pol Pot or whattever should be treated in accordance with the laws by us who call ourselves the free democratic part of the world. Then they shall stand trial. A fair trial and being represented by lawyers. What would be more satisfying for the critics of U.S. than to see U.S. not being able to get its act together and instead conducting itself in a manner inconsistent with international law during this rather criticl phase of the Iraqi campaign. Mark my words, U.S. will be in regret later. Jim Dixon, you also wrote some half trouths on the subject of Palestinians and the support they received. You should read up on this subject. Saddam also has a history of building up edicational institutions and so on. He recived awards by U.N. earlier on for his wellfare programs and the development Iraq was gaining. Anyone can check this up, just call U.N. in NY and you'll receive a few references I'm sure. What I mean by this is not to defend him in any way but I feel that this rewriting of history and propaganda is serving noone in the long run. If you believe that 100% of the arab world in their harts and minds hate Saddam you're wring. Very wrong. Steve Schear: thanks for your interesting post! Some people need to learn more of that. I also noticed on the news that CIA was conducting the questioning of Saddam. (Did anyone expect anything else?!) I guess this also means that U.S. now will join all dicatators and awful beasts in performing various forms of abuse and torture on him. Iraq formally removed the death penalty just a few weeks ago. Regardless of what you feel about that in general, I think it's embarrasing once again to see U.S. almost lobbying against the Iraqis to have them not honouring their own laws to satisfy Bush on this specific issue! Remember there's only one reason for Bush wanting to see Saddam dead and that he does. And that is the fact that Saddam tried to kill my papa as Bush put it, I've seen it in interviews myself. Jim Dixon, going through your post again I see yet another half trough, you write The people on this list are less.. public humiliation and hanging of Americans.. And you seem to forget that U.S. was in bed with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war era and that there was a friendly tone then. U.S. officials met with Iraqi, I think that Tareq Azis met with Reagan even? Your whole post is based on the feeling that we're gonna do what they did to us. In doing so you have manifested what has been written here about gasing into the abyss and so on. You have become what you hunt. Be ware. It is my opinion that we shall distinguish ourselves from these bastards by not committing their deeds ourselves. You seem not to agree on that. And that is a major mistake.
Re: U.S. in violaton of Geneva convention?
-- On 16 Dec 2003 at 22:50, Nomen Nescio wrote: This makes me a bit curious. Tell me, is your opinion then that the U.S. has done nothing questionable here? You don't feel that treating a former head of state (regardless of what you happen to think of that person) in this manner and videorecording it AND transmitting it to the entire globe violates the spirit of the convention? I assume you are addressing me. If I had my druthers, I would hang him from a lamp post by one arm for the Iraqi populace to use as pinata. The geneva accords are an agreement between honorable warriors to treat each other honorably in war and victory, and a explanation of what constitutes honorable war fighting. I doubt too many heads of state qualify. I am quite sure Saddam does not. I don't know, but I have this feeling that just maybe this wasn't the most appropriate way to behave all things considered. This is a tense and volatile region as it is. I think we all should exercise caution Nothing like a bit of pinata thumping give youthful energy and high spirits a safe outlet. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG CSjJWocwbOahKDLO63mBolSDS+4iUP3qS67zd4hs 41KsROdMjKp3F9n3uxJmghe632ARDSHhf9s9MR276
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
In a message dated 12/17/2003 1:00:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Firstly, the US army has not violated the Geneva convention: How so? we will cheerfully wade knee deep through blood and the body parts of innocents to destroy those that threaten us, as the crusaders waded to the holy sepulchre. I obtained the below quote from your website located at: http://www.jim.com/liberquo.htm "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams Regards, Matt-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 17 Dec 2003 at 9:00, Nomen Nescio wrote: No what I meant was what IF somehow Bush or Blaire or some other high ranking coalition politician were captured by Iraq during the war and was treated in the same way. I can only presume you would support Saddam's soldiers checking Bush for lice then. You are also utterly missing the point and you are one pretty good example of how the mob are thinking. EVERYONE, including Saddam, Pol Pot or whattever should be treated in accordance with the laws by us who call ourselves the free democratic part of the world. Firstly, the US army has not violated the Geneva convention: Saddam was eligible for being shot on sight. Secondly; It is being overly sensitive about the feelings of those poor fragile souls that hate us and seek to murder us, that got us into these trouble. Our enemies take it for weakness, reasonably enough. We should make it obvious that nothing will stop us from striking at our enemies, that we will cheerfully wade knee deep through blood and the body parts of innocents to destroy those that threaten us, as the crusaders waded to the holy sepulchre. As Bin laden said slaughtering the occupants of the twin towers made them look strong: : : when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by : : nature, they will like the strong horse. This is : : only one goal; those who want people to worship the : : lord of the people, without following that doctrine, : : will be following the doctrine of Muhammad, peace be : : upon him You should read up on this subject. Saddam also has a history of building up edicational institutions and so on. He recived awards by U.N. earlier on for his wellfare programs and the development Iraq was gaining. To the best of my knowledge, the UN only grants those awards to those who inflict quite extraordinary ruin and horrible destruction on their subjects -- such awards are as infamous and perverse as the UN human rights commission, headed by Libya las time I heard. The UN is a cartel of governments against their subjects. Just as a cartel of ordinary businesses requires its members to charge high prices and supply low quality, and grants honor and recognition to those members that charge remarkably high prices and unusually low quality, in the same way the UN grants honor and recognition to unusually destructive episodes of looting and pillaging against formerly prosperous law abiding peaceful subjects. The UN was established to protect against direct military conflict, but in ordinary day to day life, peaceful competition is a greater threat to the rulers, for example harmful tax competition. One of the major goals of the EU is to restrain 'harmful tax competition. Similarly one of the major goals of the WTO is to prevent what cypherpunks call regulatory arbitrage. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG wcaHHfIUZy9Tibd6zjm4+q5AQUP7EkuCy6cpPeeX 4svV9LeL01zDRxluCthNIy5l3iiUpZS7LwmP467jH
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Truly great. In doing so you have manifested what has been written here about gasing into the abyss and so on. On 17 Dec 2003 at 8:36, Jim Dixon wrote: I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and getting a haircut. :-| -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
TSA/FBI No-Fly Nexus
Terrorism: The New Aviation Threat http://www.c-spanstore.com/172153.html Since I started loading this video stream I am now watching several hours ago, I no longer remember where I saw the link I clicked on that has allowed me to watch this without buying it :-( But the regular purchase link is above. This presentation by an FBI Counterintel agent (Art Cummings) is mostly a standard promo for the bureau, a bunch of rah-rah, we're great, terrorists suck, etc., but he opens with a firm statement that the TSA no-fly list is a direct product of the FBI itself (we feed the information to TSA). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the FBI stated several times (and in several places) that TSA's list is their own, and that FBI has nothing to do with it? Does this data provide anything for John's suit? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: TSA/FBI No-Fly Nexus
J.A. Terranson (2003-12-17 06:40Z) wrote: Terrorism: The New Aviation Threat http://www.c-spanstore.com/172153.html Since I started loading this video stream I am now watching several hours ago, I no longer remember where I saw the link I clicked on that has allowed me to watch this without buying it :-( But the regular purchase link is above. rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/ldrive/ter082102_aviation.rm www.c-span.org and search in the video search input box. -- I am a carnivorous fish swimming in#+# Banking establishments are two waters, the cold water of art and -*+ more dangerous than standing the hot water of science. - S. Dali #-# armies. - Thomas Jefferson
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 21:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/15/2003 9:44:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are specific clauses which refer to not publically humiliating a prisoner. I'm surprised the Agitprop Division didn't show video of Saddam taking his first dump while in custody. Saddam is not a good guy. But this went beyond the pale. You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific question of does parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention. His answer was that some things are more important, that it was necessary to show to the world that Saddam was in custody and he wasn't going to be back in power, etc. He added that Saddam is being treated humanly, and he takes offense to anyone who suggests otherwise. In other words, yes. Following in the footsteps of Richard Perle. I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html) 'Scuse me whilst I go vomit.
Re: TSA/FBI No-Fly Nexus
J.A. Terranson (2003-12-17 06:40Z) wrote: Terrorism: The New Aviation Threat http://www.c-spanstore.com/172153.html C-SPAN likes to play games splitting up videos into 2 or more parts. The part you mention is probably in the second half... rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/ldrive/ter082102_aviation2.rm -- I am a carnivorous fish swimming in#+# Banking establishments are two waters, the cold water of art and -*+ more dangerous than standing the hot water of science. - S. Dali #-# armies. - Thomas Jefferson
Saddam drugged says daughter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324021.stm And probably they're using drugs to interview Saddam, which explains the quick following busts. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Natt writes: You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific question of does parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention.? Rumsfeld also revealed that the CIA has taken over the Saddam interrogation, and pundits are speculating that they will use the same torture techniques that are being used on the detainees. Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam would be subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get any rest until answers are provided. Bill Bennett said just a few minutes ago, that Saddam's capture made America safer, because the world has learned that If you mess with America, you wind up in a hole. A friend of mine, when asked what he wanted from Santa for Christmas, replied, A crater the size of DC. Clearly, the world's leaders are looking closely at Saddam's treatment, and realizing how easily pissing off the Bush family could result in them being shown on International TV unbathed, unshaven, checked for fleas, and bent over for a rectal probe. Of course, all of this is provoking a new arms race of astronomical proportions, as the other nations of the world realize international law means nothing, and that the US and Israel think they can judge everyone else on the planet, no one can judge them, and they can act with impunity. This will, in a few years, result in the usual force meets force plus brains low level format of the arrogant, and after a few hangings, and a big round of applause, life on the planet will move on. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
In a message dated 12/15/2003 9:44:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are specific clauses which refer to not publically humiliating a prisoner. I'm surprised the Agitprop Division didn't show video of Saddam taking his first dump while in custody. Saddam is not a good guy. But this went beyond the pale. You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific question of does parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention. His answer was that some things are more important, that it was necessary to show to the world that Saddam was in custody and he wasn't going to be back in power, etc. He added that Saddam is being treated humanly, and he takes offense to anyone who suggests otherwise. Regards, Matt-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam would be subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get any rest until answers are provided. At least here in NYC local news, it's common to hear newsmaggots issuing leadins such as, Will the CIA be able to make Saddam talk? and so on. I think this implies the obvious, but it's an obvious that should be stated: The US public basically now generally knows that some forms of extreme measures are being applied to prisoners and detainees, and we're willing to look the other way. After all, 9/11 proves they (picture a cluster of darkish-skinned turbanned men wearing fatigues and huddling in caves) are out to take away our freedoms. so why shouldn't we do the same thing to them? From: Eric Cordian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:43 -0800 (PST) Natt writes: You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific question of does parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention.? Rumsfeld also revealed that the CIA has taken over the Saddam interrogation, and pundits are speculating that they will use the same torture techniques that are being used on the detainees. Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam would be subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get any rest until answers are provided. Bill Bennett said just a few minutes ago, that Saddam's capture made America safer, because the world has learned that If you mess with America, you wind up in a hole. A friend of mine, when asked what he wanted from Santa for Christmas, replied, A crater the size of DC. Clearly, the world's leaders are looking closely at Saddam's treatment, and realizing how easily pissing off the Bush family could result in them being shown on International TV unbathed, unshaven, checked for fleas, and bent over for a rectal probe. Of course, all of this is provoking a new arms race of astronomical proportions, as the other nations of the world realize international law means nothing, and that the US and Israel think they can judge everyone else on the planet, no one can judge them, and they can act with impunity. This will, in a few years, result in the usual force meets force plus brains low level format of the arrogant, and after a few hangings, and a big round of applause, life on the planet will move on. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law _ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Michael Kalus wrote: I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and getting a haircut. :-| And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and get a haircut with the whole world watching? You have omitted a bit. A better question might be: how would you have felt if you had looted an entire country for 30 years, invaded two others, annihilated any who objected, butchered hundreds of thousands of people, dispatched assasins after enemies abroad, laughed at anyone who objected -- and then had been submitted to what appeared to be a polite and conscientious public dental exam and haircut? Damn lucky, to be honest. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Jim Dixon wrote: And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and get a haircut with the whole world watching? You have omitted a bit. A better question might be: how would you have felt if you had looted an entire country for 30 years, invaded two others, annihilated any who objected, butchered hundreds of thousands of people, dispatched assasins after enemies abroad, laughed at anyone who objected -- and then had been submitted to what appeared to be a polite and conscientious public dental exam and haircut? Damn lucky, to be honest. No I did not omit this little bit. This is not the question. Guilt or not guilt is not (supposely) decided when captured but in a court of law. You remember, Justice the thing the US supposely is standing for? Whatever he did before, it does not matter at this point. At this very moment the people who have to abide are the victors and that means the US Government (and thus the US Military). Two wrongs still don't make a right. Michael
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Jim Dixon wrote: I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and getting a haircut. :-| And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and get a haircut with the whole world watching? M.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
James A. Donald wrote: Firstly, the US army has not violated the Geneva convention: Saddam was eligible for being shot on sight. That might have been. But he was not, and he is shown and paraded on TV (and don't tell me he wasn't because showing a man in his state, showing how he gets examined is clearly an attempt to break the morale). Secondly; It is being overly sensitive about the feelings of those poor fragile souls that hate us and seek to murder us, that got us into these trouble. Our enemies take it for weakness, reasonably enough. We should make it obvious that nothing will stop us from striking at our enemies, that we will cheerfully wade knee deep through blood and the body parts of innocents to destroy those that threaten us, as the crusaders waded to the holy sepulchre. Most people outside of the US are blissfully aware of this. After all they had bombs dropped on them for the last 50 years, being shot at by people that were founded by the US Government (have a look at South America) and so forth. It is almost astonishing to hear arguments like these. You (and people who make these arguments) sound like the kid who gets smacked after burning down the house and then starting to cry and call foul. As Bin laden said slaughtering the occupants of the twin towers made them look strong: : : when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by : : nature, they will like the strong horse. This is : : only one goal; those who want people to worship the : : lord of the people, without following that doctrine, : : will be following the doctrine of Muhammad, peace be : : upon him So you advocate to follow Bin Ladin? If you (as in the US Government) consider him evil, then following him and do the same way he does makes you evil as well. Having said that: What makes you the good guy? To the best of my knowledge, the UN only grants those awards to those who inflict quite extraordinary ruin and horrible destruction on their subjects -- such awards are as infamous and perverse as the UN human rights commission, headed by Libya las time I heard. Of course Libya is evil when it doesn't fit into the US foreign policy, but is a good friend' when you can send someone there to get vital information. If that involves torture than this is none of your business. It is sort of ironic that a state like the US can claim no interrest in how the information was obtained and cheerfully extorts people to countries where they know very clearly that those people will be tortured. It seems not even another passport (like say, Canadian) is protecting those people from the wrath and zeal of the US Administration and their henchman. If the Henchman happens to wear a turban while doing his deed, it is fine, as long as it is done under US Supervision, which can be denied if need be. The UN is a cartel of governments against their subjects. Just as a cartel of ordinary businesses requires its members to charge high prices and supply low quality, and grants honor and recognition to those members that charge remarkably high prices and unusually low quality, in the same way the UN grants honor and recognition to unusually destructive episodes of looting and pillaging against formerly prosperous law abiding peaceful subjects. The UN is a meeting chamber. The UN is an ability for countries to meet and try to find solutions that do not involve dropping heavy explosives on other peoples head. The UN also fails regularly because heavy weights like the US use it to throw their weight around. If there would be a proportional (as in number of people living in a country) representation the tables would turn very very quickly. The UN security council should be dropped in it's current form and instead should be re-created without any permanent members or any countries power to veto the decisions. The UN was established to protect against direct military conflict, but in ordinary day to day life, peaceful competition is a greater threat to the rulers, for example harmful tax competition. One of the major goals of the EU is to restrain 'harmful tax competition. Similarly one of the major goals of the WTO is to prevent what cypherpunks call regulatory arbitrage. It is not the leaders of most countries I am afraid of. It is the leaders of a handful of countries which possess the most power and have no problem in abusing it to further their own agenda. Michael
Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In response to such damning reports, the Administration contends that the detainees are dangerous terrorists and thus do not deserve any legal protections, much less liberal sympathies. But after two years of investigations at the camp, the Administration has yet to charge any detainee with a crime or bring a case before a military tribunal. Thus, the public has no way to determine what alleged crimes these men are charged with committing, much less whether or not they are guilty. Interesting. If the prisoners at Guantanamo are POWs, why should they be charged with crimes? It is no crime to be an enemy soldier. However, customary practice is to lock POWs up until the conflict is over. This certainly is what happened in the two world wars, at least in Europe; it also happened during the Korean and Vietnam wars. If these are members of al-Quaeda and prisoners of war, should they not be released when and only when al-Quaeda declares the conflict over? Would not a US government releasing them before the end of the war be derelict in its duty? If they are instead unlawful combatants because they have violated the Geneva conventions (because they have carried arms in battle but discarded them and hid among civilians, say) or if they are spies (out of uniform, engaged in espionage), is the US not being somewhat charitable in treating them as POWs? If they are neither POWs nor unlawful combatants nor spies, if they are just terrorists, why is the US obliged to treat them as though they are in the United States? Presumably they were captured outside the US and were not taken into the US after capture. Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. If any of those at Guantanamo is an American citizen, then of course he should be returned to the States and tried for carrying arms against his country. Treason, isn't it? Let us say that by agreement between the US and the Afghan government (which no one seems to deny is the rightful government of the country) terrorists captured in Afghanistan are being held in Guantanamo. Why should US law apply instead of Afghan law? I know for a fact that conditions in Afghan jails are nowhere near as comfortable as those in Guantanamo. An American friend of mine spent six months in a jail in Kabul. If you didn't buy food from the guards, you starved. If you bought coal from them to heat your cell -- tiny windows high in thick stone walls, so no real ventilation -- you were slowly poisoned by carbon monoxide. If you didn't, you froze. It's cold in Kabul in the winter. The beatings were free. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:41:07PM +, Jim Dixon wrote: You have omitted a bit. A better question might be: how would you have felt if you had looted an entire country for 30 years, invaded two others, annihilated any who objected, butchered hundreds of thousands of people, dispatched assasins after enemies abroad, laughed at anyone who objected You don't really know that any of that is true, you only know what the current message is from the Ministry of Truth. Twenty years ago they were applauding him and giving him bio/chem/nuc weapons. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:23 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: Damn lucky, to be honest. No I did not omit this little bit. This is not the question. Oh but it is. Ah? Why? Guilt or not guilt is not (supposely) decided when captured but in a court of law. You remember, Justice the thing the US supposely is standing for? Are you saying that the United States has to be a light to the world, that it has an extraordinary responsibility to be morally correct, that its actions should be judged by a different standard from those of other countries? The US makes these claims on their own. If they are the good guys than they should act like it. Not only when it is convenient but also when it is not. Morale is not about the best bang for the buck but about integrity. The US Government clearly does not possess a lot of integrity when it comes to morale. What are you, some kind of pro-American fanatic? Last time I checked I was a human being. Whatever he did before, it does not matter at this point. At this very moment the people who have to abide are the victors and that means the US Government (and thus the US Military). Two wrongs still don't make a right. What exactly is wrong with inspecting a prisoner's teeth and giving him a haircut? Televising this for propaganda purposes. Why exactly do you say that mass murder, invasion, genocide somehow are outweighed in the scales of justice by a medical examination? No, what I am saying is that no matter what he did, the US still has to play by international rules (or should at least). Using those images from Saddam as Propaganda clearly is wrong. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DxBGlCnxcrW2uuEQJqKQCgujw7xjSVAPdzXDcEW9abBkRyaF8AoNOL H+VuSTqSPFSTA834qQS2X36C =ULJm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:43 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are unlawful enemy combattants. I can only interpret this as your saying that the US Government's judgement in this issue is correct, and they are not POWs. I only tell you what they are telling us. I do not agree with this assessment personally. The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus they should be released, no? Oh, we are back to their being POWs. Fine. In that case, the answer to your question is no. The war in question was begun by an attack on the United States, by the murder of 3000 people in New York City. Is this war over? Not according to tapes attributed to al Qaeda. They still profess to be at war with the United States. Where the war begun is probably debatable. The US had (and has) their fingerprints over a lot of things that are happening. And all of these you could construe as an act of war. Is the war in Afghanistan over? Not according to news reports. Osama bin Laden remains free. The Taliban remain active. But the regime has been replaced, thus the war is over, no? That was the case in Europe. Germany was defeated, a new government installed (with a lot of people from the old one) and you called it done deal. Same in Japan. So what's different this time? If they are terrorists and they have proof of this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties). Please make your mind up. Now they are terrorists again. I am answering to your statements. We have already established that if they are POWs then they should be released because the war is over (see above). If they are not POWs but held because of terrorist charges, than they should be tried no? Whose law requires that terrorists be treated in this fashion? Our enlightened western society, led by the USofA who proclaims to know what right and wrong is (and who wants to teach it to all those primitive cultures in the middle east). The US Army's responsibility is not to enforce the law. It is to defend the United States. They seem to be doing a good job at the moment. Sure sure, nobody has flown another plane in a building. Is this because of the US Army and all those nifty security screenings at the airport (just last weekend I flew out of Dallas and saw more than enough ways to get something through security), or because nobody really wanted to do it right now? Guess we'll never know. But of course the Spinmeisters are going to say it's because of the war in Iraq and added security. I wonder who or what they are going to blame the next time someone gets blown up. In the United States it is the responsibility of the police to enforce the law in their jurisdiction. There is no US police force with responsiblities in Guantanamo. US law does not apply to Cuba. Nifty, isn't it? Well people, we see your point. But you have to Understanding, even though we control Guantanamo Bay and even though Diego Garcia is a British Island which we just annexed, we can't really do anything to help those poor people. But don't fret, if they would be in an Afghani jail they would be off worse. Remember, we are the good guys, we only do what's in humanities best interrest. If they would be held in New York State they would have more rights. So let's just not even try that, we might actually HAVE to treat them according to the gospel that we preach. But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually convict them? By your way of thinking, if I am taken prisoner in a war, I can decide that I am not a POW and walk free. That's not what I said. What I DID say was that if they are not POWs and are not charged with a crime, they should be set free. In what war has this been common practice? See above. Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states. International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to be allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I might require. This right has not been given. What International Law says that unlawful combatants get to contact their governments in this manner? The term unlawful combatants doesn't exist either. So the question is mute. Let's say Human being instead. What if the government contacted, say Afghan or Pakistani, would prefer that they not be contacted as you desire, or prefers that you be held as a prisoner indefinitely? Than you have a problem with your government. But neither British, nor Canadian nor French authorities were notified / could be contact OR, after they found out, were allowed to
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
Jim Dixon wrote: If the prisoners at Guantanamo are POWs, why should they be charged with crimes? It is no crime to be an enemy soldier. According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are unlawful enemy combattants. However, customary practice is to lock POWs up until the conflict is over. This certainly is what happened in the two world wars, at least in Europe; it also happened during the Korean and Vietnam wars. If these are members of al-Quaeda and prisoners of war, should they not be released when and only when al-Quaeda declares the conflict over? Would not a US government releasing them before the end of the war be derelict in its duty? The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus they should be released, no? If they are terrorists and they have proof of this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties). If they are instead unlawful combatants because they have violated the Geneva conventions (because they have carried arms in battle but discarded them and hid among civilians, say) or if they are spies (out of uniform, engaged in espionage), is the US not being somewhat charitable in treating them as POWs? But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually convict them? If they are neither POWs nor unlawful combatants nor spies, if they are just terrorists, why is the US obliged to treat them as though they are in the United States? Presumably they were captured outside the US and were not taken into the US after capture. Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states. International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to be allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I might require. This right has not been given. Granted, I would not be protected under the rights of the US constitution, but I do have other rights and those are clearly violated as well. If any of those at Guantanamo is an American citizen, then of course he should be returned to the States and tried for carrying arms against his country. Treason, isn't it? Treason would need to be proofen. Considering that no charges have been brought forward after almost two years it is pretty clear (or at least appears to be) that there is no proof that any of these people did anything wrong. Let us say that by agreement between the US and the Afghan government (which no one seems to deny is the rightful government of the country) terrorists captured in Afghanistan are being held in Guantanamo. Why should US law apply instead of Afghan law? It doesn't. But if that would be the case than the captured Afghans should be returned to the Afghan authorities, why is this not happening? I know for a fact that conditions in Afghan jails are nowhere near as comfortable as those in Guantanamo. May as it be, but that still doesn't make the actions of the US Government right. Or are you telling me right now that Guantanamo Bay and Diego Garcia are part of a humanitarian mission? An American friend of mine spent six months in a jail in Kabul. If you didn't buy food from the guards, you starved. If you bought coal from them to heat your cell -- tiny windows high in thick stone walls, so no real ventilation -- you were slowly poisoned by carbon monoxide. If you didn't, you froze. It's cold in Kabul in the winter. Bad conditions, so help the Afghani government to improve the conditions. Michael
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Anatoly Vorobey wrote: If I had record like Saddam's on me? Gee, I'd be real happy I wasn't shot on the spot, or maybe cruelly tortured and then shot, the way I'd behaved to people I'd captured. Or maybe torn into pieces by a shrieking mob. Instead of doing any of that, they check my teeth and give me a haircut in front of the cameras? Boo fucking hoo. I'd be real happy about millions of bleeding hearts all over the world jerking their knees in unison, ready to cry a fucking ocean over this unbelievably cruel haircut and medical check-up I'm being given. Fucking tools. Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter what he has done (or we say he has done). This is not a punishment. Innocent until proofen guilty anyone? This is the basis for the enlightened western society, no? M.
Re: Zombie Patriots and other musings
At 12:34 PM 12/14/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 11:52 AM 12/13/03 -0500, John Kelsey wrote: .. One interesting property of the lone warriors is that they can't actually make peace. Good points, but not entirely true. For instance, we could stop the Jihad (tm) (including future Jihads by other parties) by stopping all foreign aid, following the good general's advice, Trade with all, make treaties with none, and beware of foreign entanglements. So, I think that's pretty sound advice, but I don't think any of the top ten reasons for supporting it involve whether Al Qaida will stop attacking us. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but our foreign policy ought to be made based on what is in our long-term best interest (our meaning American citizens); realistically, terrorist attacks are a fairly small part of that calculation. For example, we could presumably beat China in a war, but such a war would be enormously more expensive and dangerous than fighting Al Qaida. If continuing to play world's policeman improves our chances of avoiding war with China, at the cost of bringing about some attacks from Al Qaida, that's a win for us. Now, I suspect that playing world's policeman does *not* make us less likely to get into really dangerous and expensive war, and often gets us caught up in little wars that could expand into bigger ones. (The Korean war apparently came relatively close to getting us into a war with China, for example.) But there's at least some argument to be made about that--for example, by ensuring the security of Japan and Germany, we have avoided having two potentially very well-armed and dangerous opponents wandering around, possibly going on an empire-building spree that would have forced us into a nuclear war with them sooner or later. .. Of course, there's a more fundamental problem with surrendering to the lone warriors. Imagine that there's such a wave of pro-life terrorism that we finally agree to ban abortion. You're a fanatically committed pro-choice activist. What's your next move? Rudolph bombed clinics, not random people because the govt allowed the clinics. Contrast with a distributed jihad which attacks citizens to sway a govt. Isn't he alleged to have also done the Olympic Park bombing? (Who knows whether he really did, or whether the FBI just assumed he had so they'd only have one domestic terrorist at large.) Anyway, my point is that it's never going to be acceptable for the US government to pull out of making decisions about policy within the US. A campaign of terrorism against abortion clinics, or against liquor stores, or against bookstores, can't be responded to by changes in policy to appease the terrorists without giving up on any kind of a free society. --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:46:51PM -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter what he has done (or we say he has done). Of course it matters. This is not a punishment. Innocent until proofen guilty anyone? This is the basis for the enlightened western society, no? This is a principle of civilian life, not military conflicts. There's no innocent until proven guilty in military conflicts, surely you understand that. Oh, and BTW, do you know that in the enlightened western society (give up the sarcastic quotes shtick, it's died and its corpse stinks pretty badly) judges commonly allow or deny bail, or set its amount, based on hypothesised accusations against a detained person, when nothing at all has been proven, in the court of law or otherwise? Why don't you go and fight that grievious injustice? -- avva
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
You wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:19:43PM -0500: Jim Dixon wrote: I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and getting a haircut. :-| And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and get a haircut with the whole world watching? If I had record like Saddam's on me? Gee, I'd be real happy I wasn't shot on the spot, or maybe cruelly tortured and then shot, the way I'd behaved to people I'd captured. Or maybe torn into pieces by a shrieking mob. Instead of doing any of that, they check my teeth and give me a haircut in front of the cameras? Boo fucking hoo. I'd be real happy about millions of bleeding hearts all over the world jerking their knees in unison, ready to cry a fucking ocean over this unbelievably cruel haircut and medical check-up I'm being given. Fucking tools. -- avva
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:46:51PM -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter what he has done (or we say he has done). This is not a punishment. Innocent until proofen guilty anyone? This is the basis for the enlightened western society, no? This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism.
Re: U.S. in violaton of Geneva convention?
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 18:18, Jim Dixon wrote: I spent several years travelling in that part of the world. Well, that just blew your credibility with this crowd. You're supposed to spout off on topics about which you know nothing. Bonus points for reflexive anti-state-ism [1] [2], and in particular antiamericanism. And for idealistic crypto solutions to the world's problems, which unfortunately will never work in a world inhabited by real people. (Not that you're expected to admit that.) The sheltered children on this list need to get out into the nastier parts of the world. They need to see what life is like when the government is _really_ bad, not just some warts on a mostly benevolent institution. They also need to get a better feel for the cultural differences around the world -- even though we're all humans, what seems like a great idea in Berkeley might not fly in Baghdad or Beijing. [1] As contrasted with anti-statism. [2] Just let the market solve everything. And strong cryptography makes your place of residence irrelevant. Unless, of course, the police goon squad burst in and raped your children in front of you because you were trying to change your place of residence.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:12:55PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us. Twenty years ago it was a different story. Right. We don't know that he's a murdering son of a bitch, that's all propaganda, but we DO know that we've supported him in the past and IT'S ALL OUR FAULT. That is no propaganda, surely. There's never any need to qualify *those* kinds of assertons with the propaganda mills line. -- avva
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:53:56PM -0500, BillyGOTO wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:46:51PM -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter what he has done (or we say he has done). This is not a punishment. Innocent until proofen guilty anyone? This is the basis for the enlightened western society, no? This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us. Twenty years ago it was a different story. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Don't worry...it's just one of Saddam's doubles
At 02:08 PM 12/15/03 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: .. Well, of course Saddam is going to test positive...he's apparently an actual CLONE. Actually, from what I understand this is the 'original' Saddam (note how much older he seems than the Saddams we've been seeing in the press over the last few years), but he hasn't actually controlled things for a couple of decades. The Saddam we're really looking for is approximately Saddam #3, and he's still at large, and directing the insurgency. _The Boys from Baghdad_, coming soon to a theater near you. -TD --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
I'd be real happy about millions of bleeding hearts all over the world jerking their knees in unison, ready to cry a fucking ocean over this unbelievably cruel haircut and medical check-up I'm being given. Fucking tools. A thread that started out quasi-interesting has descended into non-Cypherpunk levels of triviality. The original point stands, and is valid. The Islamic world and, in particular, the Arabic part of the Islamic world, are probably going to forget their dislike of Saddam when they see those newreels of the great Dictator being rubbergloved and de-loused. For them it's almost certainly going to resound as a symbol of how we've systematically manipulated and fucked them over all these years. They're not going to respect our Power, they're not going to care much that WE supported Saddam in the first place. They're just going to get angrier. Look for bin Laden to grow in status until he's just a notch or two below Mohammed. Look then for more bombings and 9/11s here in the US. That Saddam was a cruel, butchering dictator will soon be nearly irrelevant. -Tyler Durden From: Anatoly Vorobey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:54:57 +0200 You wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:19:43PM -0500: Jim Dixon wrote: I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and getting a haircut. :-| And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and get a haircut with the whole world watching? If I had record like Saddam's on me? Gee, I'd be real happy I wasn't shot on the spot, or maybe cruelly tortured and then shot, the way I'd behaved to people I'd captured. Or maybe torn into pieces by a shrieking mob. Instead of doing any of that, they check my teeth and give me a haircut in front of the cameras? Boo fucking hoo. I'd be real happy about millions of bleeding hearts all over the world jerking their knees in unison, ready to cry a fucking ocean over this unbelievably cruel haircut and medical check-up I'm being given. Fucking tools. -- avva _ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Tyler Durden wrote: Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam would be subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get any rest until answers are provided. At least here in NYC local news, it's common to hear newsmaggots issuing leadins such as, Will the CIA be able to make Saddam talk? and so on. I think this implies the obvious, but it's an obvious that should be stated: The US public basically now generally knows that some forms of extreme measures are being applied to prisoners and detainees, and we're willing to look the other way. After all, 9/11 proves they (picture a cluster of darkish-skinned turbanned men wearing fatigues and huddling in caves) are out to take away our freedoms. so why shouldn't we do the same thing to them? I'll take it that was a rhetoric question but: Eye for an Eye and the world goes blind. Michael
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:06:55PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: A thread that started out quasi-interesting has descended into non-Cypherpunk levels of triviality. I thought it was trivial all along. The original point stands, and is valid. The Islamic world and, in particular, the Arabic part of the Islamic world, are probably going to forget their dislike of Saddam when they see those newreels of the great Dictator being rubbergloved and de-loused. Oh please. They (well, many of them) sure didn't forget their dislike of the US when they saw those newsreels of the twin towers tumbling down. For them it's almost certainly going to resound as a symbol of how we've systematically manipulated and fucked them over all these years. Actually, they mostly systematically manipulated and fucked themselves over, with occassional help from different factions in the rest of the world. And they already have a symbol of how we've, etc. - American military presence in the most holy of Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia. That's one of the largest reasons for Al-Qaeda growth in recent years. Compared to infidel military bases somewhere near Mecca and Medina, whatever's done to some dictator who has presided over a mostly secular regime is insignificant. And American military presence in Saudi Arabia is actually subsiding now because Iraq is no longer a threat. They're not going to respect our Power, they're not going to care much that WE supported Saddam in the first place. They're just going to get angrier. This is just so much armchair psychology. Most of it is silly theoretising that has no grounding in reality. One side says: look, we had to humuliate him publicly, because those Arabs only understand power, they only respect you if you clearly show them who's the boss, bla bla bla. The other side says: we shouldn't humiliate him, because the Arab culture is built around the all-powerful concept of pride, and they'll never forget how we hurt their pride, bla bla bla. Both sides are spewing idiotic garbage with some marginal relevance to reality, which is much, much more complicated than that. You can't predict what the crowd will say, and the Arab crowd is no more symplistic than the American one. It does work somewhat differently, and does display different mentality, whatever that means, but none of it is exploitable with any useful degree of certainty by cheap armchair psychologising. Look for bin Laden to grow in status until he's just a notch or two below Mohammed. This is inane. That Saddam was a cruel, butchering dictator will soon be nearly irrelevant. Truth is always relevant. -- avva
Re: Zombie Patriots and other musings
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 06:59:59PM -0500, John Kelsey wrote: us. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but our foreign policy ought to be made based on what is in our long-term best interest (our meaning American citizens); realistically, terrorist attacks are a fairly small part of that calculation. For example, we could presumably beat China in a Oh, but our foreign policy is based on our long term best interest, or so our minders tell us: Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump through hoops; the purpose is to facilitate our exploitation of resources. - Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Harmon Seaver wrote: This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us. Twenty years ago it was a different story. The propaganda mills were working for Saddam, not against him. http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1599076.php Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard - awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff. http://www.techcentralstation.com/041103H.html It appears there is another, more troubling, reason Jordan decided not to report these hideous crimes until the regime was safely out of the way: CNN didn't want to lose its on-the-ground access to a big story. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and countless Iraqi refugees all report similar stories of widespread torture and murder. Is it your position that these are all propagandists? Dismissing as propaganda any reports that oppose your argument, while accepting as truth any claim that supports it, is simple intellectual dishonesty.
