U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?

[Michael Kalus]

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