 |
| |
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Once again you are stating an opinion which is not supported by the actual text of the treaties. The G&HCs expressly remove any and all protections for persons deemed to be unlawful combatants. No trials are required, no court hearings of any kind, in fact they are subject to summary execution. |
I'll just comment on that one. First you evade the issue of procedural guarantee in actually ESTABLISHING who is an unlawful combattant. Second, unlawful combatants are not further protected under the conventions, but the conventions do not remove protections under other legal instruments, namely general human rights laws.
Your claim of them being outside any law requires an argument that the Humanitarian law of war seeks to derogate Human Rights Law, which would of course be utter bullshit.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"If it is war time then the G&HC are the the treaties under which all conduct is to be judged."
That is a typical layman error. As a default rule, every instrument has to be applied according to its own scope. Second, no instrument shall be construed to exclude others unless it explicitly does so. Third, if it seeks to exclude another instrument, the conflict has to be resolved, which is far from simple especially for multinational treaties, just read the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law. It gets even more complex with other sources of international law, and when you have ius cogens issues - the latter can easily arise when we are talking about torture.
As an example for this, I doubt that the anti-genocide convention is excluded from governing warfare. But it also has a broader scope.
"It would be interesting to see what legal authority treaties signed (such as any human rights treaties) subsiquent to the G&HCs have over warfare. Do you have any specific examples which would pertain to the Gitmo case?"
Human rights treaties usually have clauses about their application in war or, broader, emergencies. Some key articles cannot be suspended even in times of war; I relate you to Art 15 ECHR or Art 4 of the UN Human Rights Covenant II.
Their exact role for Guantanamo is another matter, especially in how far the US is a party, the territorial scope, and US reservations. I would have to research that for an answer, and so would you.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
I consider a simple tribunal procedure more effective.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
If that is the result of fair trial... I just doubt that most of the prisoners there qualify.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kropotkin
|
 |
of Ålidhem
Mar 1999
time: 06:31
|
|
Meanwhile, in the real world and on the topic of this thread; another chopper, a blackhawk this time, has crashed near Tikrit. There's no real information just yet if was due to technical errors or an attack. The reports of the number of deaths was at four but according to the BBC it's now six.
I might as well post the entire article. It, amoungst other things, claims that the violence is spreading northward, towards Mosul. Might imply something for MtG's military plans if this is true. More ground to cover.
quote:
Six die in US helicopter crash
Other helicopters flew over the crash site
An American Black Hawk helicopter has been forced down near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, killing all six soldiers on board.
The US military is investigating whether the chopper was attacked or suffered mechanical problems.
American troops have secured the scene near the Tigris River in north Iraq.
Last weekend, an American Chinook helicopter was shot down, killing 16 soldiers in the biggest single strike on US forces since they invaded Iraq.
The Black Hawk went down on a riverbank along the Tigris River about a kilometre from the US base in Saddam Hussein's former palace in Tikrit.
Smoke was seen rising from the wreckage as other helicopters hovered above.
"We don't know if it was a mechanical failure or hostile fire," Major Josslyn Aberle told the Associated Press.
Factfile: Black Hawk
Profile: Saddam's home town
All the soldiers killed were from the 101st Airborne Division.
On 25 October a Black Hawk helicopter was shot down near Tikrit, injuring one crew member.
Tikrit lies in the heart of the "Sunni Triangle" - the region around Baghdad seen as most loyal to the ousted regime of Saddam Hussein.
It has been the scene of continued resistance to US-led forces.
In continuing violence elsewhere, a US convoy was ambushed in Mosul early on Friday morning, coming under fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, the US military said.
One soldier died and six others were injured in the clash.
This brings the number of US soldiers killed in action since President George W Bush declared major combat over on 1 May to 140.
In a separate attack, a roadside bomb in the city injured three US soldiers.
Mosul, Iraq's third largest city and close to the semi-autonomous Kurdish areas, was quiet until relatively recently.
Correspondents say the spate of attacks there has prompted concern among US commanders that guerrilla attacks are spreading north from the Sunni Triangle.
Chinook warning
The attack came hours after a memorial service was held for the men killed when their Chinook helicopter was shot down on Sunday.
"Death was in the cause of freedom. They were serving our country and answering our nation's call to fight terrorists," Colonel David Teeples, commanding officer of the men's unit, said.
Army officials said the Chinook's crew apparently had a warning of an approaching missile seconds before it struck, the Associated Press reports.
The crew managed to launch flares designed to draw the heat-seeking missile away but the defensive measure did not work. |
Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3249493.stm
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
HO, I agree with your position.
Unlike MtG some others here, I do not believe that we had the right to simply gun down the AQ as we captured them.
Question: if they are no more than foot soldiers in a terrorist organization that wages war primarily if not exclusively by unlawful means are they themselves quilty of being war criminals?
I am thinking now about about being a "foot soldier" in a gang that exists for committing various sorts of crimes. Is such a "foot soldier" just as much guilty as the bosses?
Last edited by Ned on 07-11-2003 at 19:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
What Lefty said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
Just my tupennyworth on this subject;- I'm AMAZED there were any survivors at all from a downed Chinook.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-11-2003 13:48
|