From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Mon May 17 2004 - 18:08:04 MDT
Hi B,
I must say I agree with the general. A convention is something regarded as a
normative example or a formal agreement between country leaders, politicians
or states on a matter which involves them all.
If the enemy does not hold to the convention, in fact flouts it, the
convention is void. There is no agreement unless both parties agree.
Sometimes conventions become obsolete or changes render them meaningless.
Sometimes they need to be updated. In the case of the Geneva Conventions,
the last of which was updated over 50 years ago, we may need some changes.
Even under the current rules, we cannot know if the Geneva Conventions apply
to the recently made famous prisoners or the Insurgents. After all they need
to satisfy the following criteria:
Those entitled to prisoner of war status include:
4A(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil
the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.
4A(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government
or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4A(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.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
Furthermore the convention make it clear that signatories to the conventions
are still bound by the conventions, until that is the "non-signatory no
longer acts under the strictures of the convention".
In my opinion this certainly frees Israel from it's obligations in its war
against Palestinian and other Islamist terrorists. It also frees the United
States of its obligation vis-à-vis the current Insurgents.
The Geneva Conventions apply to those who respect them. This includes
parties who discover and punish inevitable breeches within their ranks. It
does not apply to the systematic and deliberate flouting of the conventions
- especially by non-signatory against a signatory.
Kind regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Blunderov
Sent: 17 May 2004 23:19
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
[Blunderov]The buck stops where?
Best Regards
http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEL20040517033311&Title=B%20R%2001c4
E%20A%20K%20I%20N%20G%20%20%20%20N%20E%20W%20S&Topic=301&
<Excerpt>
By January 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by 'Newsweek,' it was
clear that President Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions
did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or al-Qaeda.
In the memo written to Bush, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales laid out
the argument that the Geneva Conventions were obsolete in the new paradigm.
"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales
wrote to Bush and concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new
paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of
enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."
</Excerpt>
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 17 2004 - 18:08:56 MDT