On 10 Aug 2002 at 23:51, Hermit wrote:
>
> [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.
>
How can a non-UN noncountry sunscribe to the Geneva Convention
(not that they ever did); the point is quite clear, except to wilfully
muddified eyes such as yours; Parties are UN members; the Taliban
was never (and for damned good reason) recognized as such. I know
that you'll be purposefully dense and obtuse enough to elide that point
again; it is becoming a forte of yours.
>
> <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.
>
They have to recognize such if it is against a UN-recognized power that
is not a signatory; such does not apply with the Taliban as the UN
(wisely) never recognized them. Do I have to spoonfeed it to you?
Open your precious maw--that's good--aaaah!
>
> 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.
>
The Rabbani Government, the one that was UN-recognized at the time,
was not a principal to the conflict; therefore, the Taliban fell (quite
rightly) under the rubric of non-state terrorist organization. Unless you
are prepared to assert that the UN was wrong in this decision, and that
a regime that executed women for attempting to teach other women to
read and flogged taxi drivers for listening to music in their cabs was
unfairly denied admittance into the community of nations. Next, you'll
be criticizing them for denying Pol Pot admittance, and claiming that it
wasn't real, because, By God! The Divine Hermit recognizes them!
>
> [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.htmlclai
> ming "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).
>
Not if they were not recognized by the UN as representing a sovereign
state.
>
> 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.
>
Your arguments demonstrate how much power you are willing to cede
to a rogue judge (like the one in George Bush's home state that ruled
that a convicted wife beater, under peace bond for threatening to shoot
his estranged spouse dead, still possessed a 2nd Amendment right to
keep and bear firearms).
>
> 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.
>
Law cannot be discarded when it is inconvenient, but it can be ignored
when it doesn't apply. And no matter how much you and those who
share your agenda attempt to twist the meanings of words to serve your
purposes, their legal meaning - and exclusions - nevertheless still
apply.
>
> How are the mighty fallen.
>
Yeah, you keep doing that; more with each post.
>
>
> ----
> 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;thread
> id=26019>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:18 MDT