Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention

measl at mfn.org measl at mfn.org
Sun Jan 13 20:03:10 PST 2002



On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:

> mattd wrote:
> 
> > US violates the Geneva Convention
> 
> > The US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, which specifies the
> > conditions under which such prisoners are to be treated.  The Convention
> > covers irregular forces such as al-Qaeda as well as regular armed forces,
> 
> Al-Quaeda is not a military force by any reasonable reckoning;

I don't know what your definition of military force is Marc, but any *group*
of persons who are armed and engaged in common cause qualify as a military
force in my book.

According to dictionary.com, "military" is defined as:

	military (ml-tr)
	adj.	 
	Of, relating to, or characteristic of members of the armed forces: a military
	bearing; military attire. 
	Performed or supported by the armed forces: military service. 
	Of or relating to war: military operations. 
	Of or relating to land forces. 

You may not approve of calling groups you disagree with "military", yet it
does not change the facts.


> it is a
> criminal association whose victims are defenseless and innocent of any
> involvement (pro or anti) in the cause that the criminal association
> claims to espouse.

I assume you are referring to the WTC victims here.  Sorry, but they were not
"innocent".  They, as participants in the selection of the rulers of this
country, are 100% guilty of the many crimes perpetrated by the United States
against other peoples.

As for AQ being a "criminal association": how do you arrive at this?  I
suspect you get there by considering their acts to be outside of accepted
behaviour (of any "lawful" society).  If so, then I agree that they qualify
as a "criminal association", however, this definition also qualifies the USA
as a criminal association.

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya?
 
> > and a quick skim suggests that the US are violating it in several ways.
> > Interrogation: the US has publicly stated they will interrogate the
> > prisoners; however this is specificly forbidden by the convention.
> 
> Interrogation is certainly NOT prohibited by the Convention. Where are
> you getting this nonsense? 

He hallicinates a lot when he runs out of Thorazine.

> > Trial and punishment: POWs are considered to be subject to the same laws
> > and regulations as soldiers of the detaining power; they may be tried only
> > by military courts (except where jurisdiction would normally belong to
> > civil courts), and sentances must be the same as for soldiers of the
> > detaining power commiting similar acts.  POWs tried for acts commited prior
> > to capture retain the benefits of the Convention even if convicted.
> 
> I'll say it again - these are not prisoners of war! 

Really? Fuhrer Bush disagrees with you.  Our Maximum Leader has "declared" a
"war on terrorism" (conveniently leaving out our own terrorist tendencies and
acts).  It was this "war" which led to the detention of these
prisoners.  Sorry Marc, these are indeed prisoners of war.  Or maybe you
consider that all the military force we just used over in Afghanistan was
something other than an act of war?  Terrorism maybe?

> > If US prisoners were treated in this manner, the US would be kicking and
> > screaming.  Is this another case of US moral exceptionalism?

I just *hate* to agree with mattd, but he's right on target here.

> If the US prisoners in question had engineered, or were suspected of
> having engineered, the deaths of thousands of innocent people,

You can't *possibly* be this naive.

> I suspect
> that even LESS sympathy or consideration would be shown them. They
> certainly would not get any from me.

Talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?
 
> Marc de Piolenc

-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
sysadmin at mfn.org

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...
--------------------------------------------------------------------






More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list