[Hermit 2] Getting the basics wrong again, as usual Joe.
<snip>
[Hermit 2] Notice the last clause. The US is bound to honor the Geneva Conventions even if it did not recognize the Afghan government.
[Joe Dees 3] First, there is no evidence that the Taliban ever observed the Geneva Convention; in fact, far from it. Second, the Taliban does not qualify as a Power, as it is itself not recognized by the UN. This provision was written to apply to governments that were both recognized members of the UN, but which did not recognize each other.
[Hermit 4] I'll quote the relevant bit again. Perhaps you will comprehend it this time. If not ask a tenth grade child to explain it to you:
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
<snip>
[Joe Dees 3] Nope, because the Taliban are not recognized as a legitimate Party to a Conflict, not being recognized by the UN as legitimate, and a forteriori to the Al Quaeda.
[Hermit 4] See above. Any state which is a party to the convention is still bound to the convention, even engaging in a war which is not. And attempting to bypass that by claiming that it was not a war also doesn't assist you. A war need not be recognized by both parties, and two Afghanistan is a signatory and thus the US was occupying a signatories territory.
<Snip>
[Hermit 2] Further the US while claiming to the World that these are not combatants - as you attempt here, while simultaneously http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50845-2002Aug6.htmlclaiming "Under the fundamental separation of powers principles recognized by the 4th Circuit . . . in justifying the detention of captured enemy combatants in wartime, the military should not need to supply a court with the raw notes from interviews with a captured enemy combatant" in American Courts.
[Hermit 2] In otherwords, the entire argument is a wash.
[Joe Dees 3] In other words, you are attempting to exploit a perceived (as opposed to actual) linguistic slip; enemies need not be states,, and thus would not fall under Geneva Convention provisions; the Barbary pirates were not (although they were pre-Geneva).
[Hermit 4] Today they would be covered by the Geneva Convention if battling with the US on National territory (as opposed to on the high seas). But this is not a linguist slip, it is a principle of law that a public submission before one court may be used in another court. And in this case it is a submission before a US Federal court. Your arguments demonstrate how much respect you don't have for it. Unfortunately for the world, you have too much company these days. Law is worthless if it can be discarded when it is inconvenient. Which is what you, the US and Israel appear to be arguing.
How are the mighty fallen.
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26019>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:18 MDT