Slashdot Mirror

No, says Article 4 of the Geneva Convention
Since those captured do not fall under the definitions of Article 4, they're not subject to the protections granted by it.

It's pretty simple, if you get off the 'blame Bush' mode for a few minutes and check the facts.

The UN Human Rights Committe is a joke. It's not taken seriously anywhere because it's just used by flagrant human rights abusers as a "bash Israel" platform.

What does the situation in the Congo have to do with bashing Israel?

What do reports on the situation in Uruguay have to do with bashing Israel?

Why is it that stupid comments are guaranteed to get moderated "insightful" if they bash the UN?

I want to see the actual resolution. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on what exactly the resolution said.

I think they're referring to this, from http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/4C99B0F4E7BC7EE8C1257585007B5D90?opendocument:

On combating defamation of religions, the Council strongly deplored all acts of psychological and physical violence and assaults, and incitement thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, and such acts directed against their businesses, properties, cultural centres and places of worship, as well as targeting of holy sites, religious symbols and venerated personalities of all religions. The Council noted with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001. The resolution was passed by a vote of 23 in favour, 13 against and 11 abstentions.

, except that the against and abstentions numbers seem to be reversed. The long version (further down that same page) is:

Action on Draft Resolution on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.2/Rev.1) on combating defamation of religions
, adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 11 against, and 13 abstentions, the Council strongly deplores all acts of psychological and physical violence and assaults, and incitement thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, and such acts directed against their businesses, properties, cultural centres and places of worship, as well as targeting of holy sites, religious symbols and venerated personalities of all religions; notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities; deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, as well as the targeting of religious symbols and venerated persons; emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations only as provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and general welfare; urges all States to apply and, where required, reinforce existing laws when xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to deny impunity for those who commit such acts; urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs; calls for strengthened international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels; requests the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the

The Human Rights are well defined, and don't cover a person's wage, but their living conditions.
They have nothing to do with giving everyone some arbitrary sum of money.

When copyrights become an issue according to the European Court of Human Rights (or similar authorities), like they did for the UK DNA database [slashdot.org], then you can claim it's a "moral case."

FYI: From the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Article 15, Number 1: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone... To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."

There is a lot of debate over the meaning of Article 15, but many pro-IP people take it to mean that copyrights are a human right.

Something else that's been massively translated:

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/

I can't find a list of contents for the Rosetta Disk but hopefully it has this in bigger print than Genesis...

They are subject to military tribunals. But based on the facts the military tribunal decides if they are protected by the Geneva Convention or not based on Article 4.

I think it would be perfectly legal to claim they were shooting at US soldiers as criminals and not combatants. Then they can be released into the custody of the current governments of Afghanistan and Iraq to be dealt with according to their local laws. In many cases, those laws are considerably harsher than Guantanamo.

Ah yes. If only the US hadn't been waterboarding vietnamese POWs, John McCain wouldn't have been tortured for 5 years. American POWs have been -- and will be -- tortured regardless.

You might want to read the Convention Against Torture and brush up on the concept of "erga omnes." In short, we don't get to choose.

Your interpretation doesn't fit with my understanding of the Geneva Conventions so I looked them up and started reading them. They very clearly do not agree with your rather inflammatory and anti-islamic statements. Amazing how an anti-islamic rant can get rated informative by stating poppycock and complaining that no one else plays by the rules. Anyone interested in what the Geneva Convention actually states should read it, not rely on some uninformed partisans "interpretation". You can google, or go to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm or http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/365?OpenDocument

i generally go by the http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs16.htm , unfortunately its not ISO aproved :(

It is a mistake to assume that governments still have unlimited leeway to do whatever they want within their borders. That is why we have human rights: to protect individual citizens against their states, and that's why organisations like Human Rights Watch can express opinions on the human rights situation in all countries, including China. In the past sixty years, these rights have grown from what you would probably call utopian ideals into actual legal rights in international law, so much so that the originally non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which celebrates its 60th anniversary this year, is now considered to be an expression of customary international law. If a notion of customary law is too vague for you, the fact still remains that the great majority of states have signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the freedom of speech in Article 19, which includes the "freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds". This right can only be restricted in accordance with the provisions of that article. China has signed up to this treaty, although it still has to ratify it. However, as a matter of treaty law it has to refrain from acts which would be incompatible with the purpose of the treaty there's quite a strong argument that arbitrary censorship violates it.

I will be the first to admit that there are all kinds of shortcomings in the protection of human rights through international treaties, but the only point that I want to make here is that you are incorrect when you state that every government "has the right to dictate the rules within its boundaries". That right is no longer absolute, and in large part this is the result of governments providing the stick they are beaten with themselves by signing human rights treaties. It took only sixty years to get where we are now, so the utopian society you mention may be less than a thousand years away.

Bullshit. Swisse is fragmented and they have a real running democracy. It's just that ISLAM is contrary to democracy as much it is contrary to the application of basic human rights.

As a proof they don't apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm as every other country, ISLAMIC COUNTRIES obtained a "sharia revised version" named as "Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in ISLAM" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam that is basically you have no rights because you are subject to god (A imaginary entity) and the teachings of a madman of something like 14 centuries ago.

And here it goes the fucking political correctness of our leaders: keeping bending over to those nazi-religious zealots. In a decent world countries that don't apply the unaltered version of the Declaration of Human Rights should be banned from the UN and sanctions should be applied to them. Needless to say islamic immigrants are using this discrepancy to get into free nations as political refugees. As a bonus fucking Europe leaders are constantly bending over the silliest and undemocratic requests in order to show acceptance of multiculturalism and not to offend the tribal beliefs of those filthy muslin immigrants. Those coming here with the excuse of being oppressed and praticing oppression on their wifes and daughters as some newspaper casually mentions (most don't in fear of "offending").

Know your enemy.

1. They shall be enabled to receive the individual or collective relief that may be sent to them.

2. They shall, if their state of health so requires, receive medical attention and hospital treatment to the same extent as the nationals of the State concerned.

3. They shall be allowed to practise their religion and to receive spiritual assistance from ministers of their faith.

4. If they reside in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war, they shall be authorized to move from that area to the same extent as the nationals of the State concerned.

5. Children under fifteen years, pregnant women and mothers of children under seven years shall benefit by any preferential treatment to the same extent as the nationals of the State concerned.

When used appropriately, tasing someone is not used to obtain information, confessions, punishment, revenge, intimidation, or coercion.

Excuse me. How are tasers *not* used to "[punish] him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed", and of course for "intimidating or coercing him or a third person". Last I checked, they were explicitly used to coerce people into cooperating with the police, and punishing those who remain non-compliant.

In fact, the UNTC goes on to explicitly exclude pain and suffering "inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions".

Yes. Lawful sanctions. As handed down by a court of law, not a cop on the street. Further, the text explicitly states that such actions must be "consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners". Interesting that you excluded that bit of text. I wonder what said rules state? Well, among other things, they state that:

"Corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited as punishments for disciplinary offences."

Which, in my mind, clearly rules out tasers. It also states:

"No prisoner shall be punished unless he has been informed of the offence alleged against him and given a proper opportunity of presenting his defence."

Last I checked, most taser victims aren't given a chance to defend themselves before the shock is administered.

So, no, by the UN's own documents, tasers are *not* an acceptable tool for law enforcement, and do, in fact, meet the guidelines for torture, unless your reading of the text is so drastically distorted as to be rendered meaningless.

Apparently the Left would have us treat Al Qaeda better, as opposed to worse, than combatants living up to Geneva. Talk about assbackwards thinking!

I know I shouldn't but I just have to...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Ok, so, here you have a right granted by the constitution of the United States which was designed to ensure the independence of the states. Sure. A little bit outdated, probably not intended to allow automatic weapons (and you won't see the ACLU being for a total gun ban). We'll also ignore the phrase "a well regulated militia" and the (now untrue) implication that such a militia is necessary to maintain the security of a free state. We have something called the army now.

But seriously, ignore my rant. I will just go ahead and accept that the previous paragraph is crap. What is undeniably true, however, is that the right to bear arms is not a civil right. It is a constitutional right in the United States, undeniably. But let's have a look at what civil rights are. Probably a fair, unbiased starting point would be the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . Have a bit of a read. It lists freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religious worship, the freedom to petition, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and self-incrimination. It even lists a need for guaranteeing due process of law and a fair trial. The one which we'll focus on, however, is the right of self determination (Art 1).

Article 1 is really what the second amendment was about: maintaining the rights of the people and ensuring that the government doesn't raise an army against its own people. This isn't about the right to bear arms generally. This is about the right to bear arms in resistance against a despot. Nobody denies anyone that right. These days it's called the right to self determination and it means that you get to vote and if you don't get to vote then you get to rebel. So quit all the crap about how "being able to own a weapon and defend yourself from harm is the ULTIMATE in individual civil liberties." If we're talking about civil liberties (rather than civil rights) then the ULTIMATE in civil liberties is actually being able to do whatever you want - kill, rape, pillage, burn etc. But we don't do that. We restrict the behaviour of individuals for the betterment of society. If these restrictions become too much we have means to reduce them. These means can include, if necessary, bearing arms against an oppressor. Once again, this does not mean you have a right to keep an assault rifle on the back of your pickup for those really aggressive deer.

My apologies for the rant. But the second amendment is a poorly framed outmoded and unnecessary provision. People who claim that it is their right to bear any arms in any situation have no basis for that in the principles that underpin the constitution and the law.

Did they target the building BECAUSE there were children there? No.

Do people like Hizb'Allah target children? Yes.

Do those awful Joooooos hide behind children when they shoot? No

Does Hizb'Allah base their attacks from among civilians who are SURE to be hurt when the Joooooos shoot back? Yes.

War crimes are clearly described in the Geneva Conventions. Hizb'Allah violates them by the score; they seem to be TRYING to see how many they can violate!

The conventions also make clear in Article 28 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm): "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." The blood of the innocent at that house stains the hands of Hizb'Allah.

Katusha rockets are small, and shoulder launched? Far too big for that. The warhead alone is about 45 KG, IIRC. And EVERY ONE of them is fired in the hope it will kill Jooooooos -- An indescriminate weapon fired at civilian targets. Every one a war crime.

But, no. You can't seem to see that. You hate those awful Joooooooos who drop leaflets to warn civilians to flee and TRY to limit their attacks to military targets.

And now I'll probably have to remove some other relationship in order to designate a new Slashdot Foe.

• It was revised in 1949, and with the modified form and name, it was adopted on August 12 of that year by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, that was held in Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949. The Third Geneva Convention entered into force on October 21, 1950.

Article 4, Section 1 of the American Convention on Human Rights , signed but not ratified by the U.S., and ratified by most central american countries:

1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

The U.N. Declaration of the Rights of the Child

Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth...

Principle 1: The child shall enjoy all the rights set forth in this Declaration. Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.

No World Police? What's the UN supposed to be then?

Well, right now they are too busy trading food for sex with young children. Link:

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060509-090826-9 806r.htm

The U.N. is a corrupt cesspool. I have no interest in annointing those thugs as "world police". And the U.S. went to war after Iraq ignored the U.N. resolutions, and the U.N. refused to enforce them.

Isn't Syria on the Human Rights Commission? Wow. I can't believe anyone takes that organization seriously. I would evict those deadbeats from Manhattan in a heartbeat, and cut U.S. funding.

Link: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.[NOPE]

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;[NOT EXACTLY, but arguable]

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;{DEFINATELY NOT]

(c) That of carrying arms openly;[WELL, IN SOME CASES... but telling a retarded kid to drive a truck somewhere and remotely detonating it is arguably underhanded]

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.[NOPE]

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.[NOPE]

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.[NOPE]

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.[NOPE.]

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. [NOPE, nothing spontaneous about the "insurgency"]

***"Now, as to the media leaning left, you have to be kidding me. Show me any real study and the result, coward."

Something like 90% of the Washington press corp votes Democrat, and twice as many self-identify as liberals as the general population.

Here is at least one poll of journalists that you could find for your self if you really wanted to know the answers to your questions.

And another, showing that they are way to the left of the general public on the Iraq war. Furthermore, if you don't trust the journalist themselves, the public, by a 5:3 margin perceives the media as being biased to the left. This margin handily exceeds the margin by which the public self-identifies as conservative (not to be confused with Republican).

Article

If they are not POWs, then they are protected persons under the fourth geneva convention and if they're breaking the law (by murdering, etc.) then they are to be tried by the occupied country, and are given numerous protections from the occupied power: namely, the occupied power cannot transfer them out of the occupied country.

There is no legal backing or precedent for treating people as this mysterious "enemy combatant" category, a classification that affords people neither the protection of the 4th geneva convention nor the protections of POW status.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y4gcpcp.htm

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.h tm

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Geneva Convention Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

.....

Hate to interrupt your uninformed rant, but persons who violate (b), (c), and (d) don't count as "prisoners of war". It's right there in the text of the geneva convention.

HTH

HAND

Your " truly relevant passage " is nowhere to be found, the crucial phrase "shall not be regarded as protected persons", is not there either, it does however contain the reference as I gave it. Your "point of fact" is false and politically motivated, when you stop pulling quotes out of your arse maybe we can talk further.

The real Geneva convention and a wiki article on unlawful_combatants for future references and "points of fact".

4. If we are at war with Al Qaeda, then why doesn't the US treat them by Geneva conventions, and other standards for treating POWs? But the administration has denied that they are prisoners of war - they are "enemy combatants" - therefore, there must be no war, if they are not POWs.

It is quite clear that either you do not understand the Geneva Conventions, or you are merely spouting anti-American/anti-Bush rhetoric, or both, because the people at GITMO clearly do not qualify for POW status. Here is a link to the authoritative text of Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War . I direct your attention to Article 3 and especially Article 4 which I quote for you.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The combatants held at GITMO do not meet these conditions and they are, in fact, war criminals themselves. They do not carry arms openly and they do not respect the laws and customs of war (i.e. they purposely and directly attack civilians and violate every single clause of Article 3 as a matter of deliberate policy). They are quite literally "illegal combatants", that is, they wage war without following the laws and customs of war. In fact, they are lucky because the "customs" of war prior to the Geneva and Hauge Conventions (which they are not protected by), would be to summarily execute anybody who was engaged in a purposeful violation of the laws and customs of wars (i.e. the old custom was to grant no quarter to war criminals on the field and, if they did happen to be captured, they would be tried at the drumhead, at best).

You also do not seem to grasp the concept that a state of War can exist without a neatly signed declaration. Nor do you grasp that war can also be waged by non-stat

Amazing. And the Geneva Convention says that you should respect this symbol as a token of medical aid . Leave it up the the Americans to try and sue their enemies over using it. *spit*.

Only three countries - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government in Kabul.

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
See article 19, and then go back to being geeks :)

Case closed, its as easy as that...

They buy children in Belgium

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/eee2 76066375879b8025689600531c70?Opendocument

Actually.. freedom of speech is a human right..
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm - atleast according to the united nations definition of human rights..

In my humble opinion.. this is just more of the classic line: "I take away this freedom for your own protection" .. and so on and so forth.. until we reach 1984. / Mark

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
   • (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
   • (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
   • (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
   • (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

I'm sure you're right...we can trust the UN to only put members of the internet committee that have proven track records for open thinking and free speech.

I mean, hey, lets look at the great track record for say....countries on the committees for things like "Human Rights" . Nothing but top notch choices there...

:-)

"So me arguing that my nation has problems but is not fascist based on facts counts as a demonstration of nationalism to the point of fascism?"

I'm not saying for one second that you personally are a fascist. However, there's no denying America is one of the most nationalist countries on earth - it's obvious even when you compare something (as you offered) as simple as the prevalence of national flags about the place.

In Britain, France or Germany you can go for weeks without seeing the national flag anywhere, and anyone who stuck a flag bumper-sticker on their car, hung a flag on their wall as a kid, or used a varient of the flag's design in the logo or lettering of their political campaign would be considered a bit odd. Patriotism isn't dead, it's just that we don't feel the need to beat people over the head with it. "Nationalism" isn't very often promoted as a good thing, because it isn't - it's an assumption that you're the best country in the world, and that leads to arrogance and cultural isolationism, and those things lead to situations like the USA's current one, or to (extreme case) Nazi germany's expansionist drive to subjugate the "lesser races" that caused WWII.

While many citizens do believe they live in the country they'd like the most, they don't consider "my favourite" to be synonymous with "objective best" - indeed, many people would view that confusion as childish and unempathic. Especially when you're world-famous for not knowing what it's like in other countries.

"The constitution is not perfect, nor were the founding fathers. The fact remains that the constitution does recognize numerous rights, regardless of race, and those rights are enforced by the courts."

Indeed. I didn't intend to indicate that the Founding Fathers didn't give a crap for anyone, more that even they fell a long way short of a commitment to universal human rights.

"Human rights abuses occurr... they become known and the government is held accountable to the people. Courts have handed down many rulings against the administration's practices at Gitmo. Justice has been slow, but will not go lacking."

And if the human rights abuses are perpetrated by your own government? And despite court rulings the overwhelming majority of the prisoners are still illegally detained and tortured? And the population chooses to vote the ones responsible for the abuses back into government?

At what point does it become fair to say "the country lacks a commitment to human rights"?

Nobody these days in the civilised world can get away with standing up and saying "I think Human Rights are bollocks". The best they can get away with is to merely ignore them - to state your public opposition to somethign so fundamental would be to invite international castigation.

As another example, would you say China has a human rights problem? (Most would say yes).

And yet China is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just because they mouthe the words, does that mean they still really believe in them?

"if you both aren't going to read the article properly"

"I am responding to the link given. I make no claims to respond to the article no one here was directed to. "

My apologies - I meant the page I had linked-to. An awful lot of people in this thread don't seem to have read the article properly, or only seem to have skimmed the headlines, and are erecting straw-men arguments. Simply reading the details under the headlines is generally enough to disprove their argument, and it gets frustrating having to type out the same damn rebuttals to several people, which would be unnecessary if they'd just read the article properly.

That said, are we conceding the point that the USA does invest a great deal of time, pride and energy in ensuring it has a superior military? And that the neocons have been kno

So the links would have been relevant if the grandparent had written You didn't see our country piling innocent people into prisons after 9/11??? If Cat Stevens had been American the link would have been relevant? The attrocities in the third link are ok as the prisoners are not American?

My point remains: that imprisoning even criminals in this way is not acceptable, much less civilians whose guilt has not yet been proven (or do you not believe in "innocent until proven guilty"? Perhaps it only applies to Americans?)

(As to the link about Steven Hatfill, I apologise for the red herring -- I was out of the country at the time and only caught the beginning of the tale, not it's conclusion. Thank you for enlarging my knowledge in that area.)

"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm

If the Chinese government doesn't like these rights, I suggest they kick themselves out of the United Nations and the rest of the civilized world.

There is, and there should be, a basic set of human rights no matter what country you live in. These rights should be sensitive to all cultures, but at the end of the day, and in the 21st century, it's not acceptable to excuse opression in any form.

And you very well know that what the Chinese are engaging on is opression. Even if their own citizens voted to revoke these rights (their votes don't count btw), that doesn't mean all of it's citizens shouldn't enjoy them. We should define and enforce these rights in all countries, and at the very minimum expect that our corporations don't help and enable the supression of these rights.

That's the minimum I'm asking for, and I don't think it's unreasonable at all.

The Third Convention. Note no "unlawful combatants" there.

Those not covered by GC3 fall under the Fourth Convention

i am interested in hearing how president bush went back in time to 1942 and added the idea of unlawful combatants in the US legal system.

US legal system is irrelevant as the Geneva Conventions override it (as all treaties do). The GC3 was signed in 1949 which would take precedence over a 1942 decision even within US legal system itself. "Unlawful combatant" in regards to the Geneva Convention is a never before used (in this context) invention of the Bush Administration and you can quote all appologist-made Wikipedia articles (this being the main reason Wikipedia is such a poor source of political data) you can find and it will still not change this rather obvious and easily verified fact.

Oh whoops, I should've clarified: prisoners of war are not subject to courts-martial. They are subject to trial by civilian court or a specially appointed war crimes court. Courts-martial is reserved for service men and woman only in the military where the courts-martial is taking place, never for POWs. It is assumed that during a time of war your typical grunt, while he might hold valuable intel, cannot be held responsible for actions committed which do not violate the rules of war.

You have this backward. It is illegal to try a prisoner of war in a civillian court--unless the detaining party also tries its soldiers in civil courts. Also, "laws of war" don't enter into it: you can try a POW for any offense your own soldiers are subject to, and you must sentence them as you would one of your own soldiers. Up to and including the death penalty. The one thing you cannot do is reduce the prisoner in rank, or strip them of medals or qualification badges.

The important part, by the way, is that the court martial be fair--the accused is entitled to a defense inclusive of the help of one of his own side, an interpreter (if required), and an officer to defend him of his own choosing. A 'Protecting Party' (the International Red Cross, pretty much, though these days the UN would probably also be acceptable) must be informed if judicial proceedings are initiated against a POW, and must be allowed to attend the trial to ensure its fairness.

From the 3rd Geneva Convention:

Article 84

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.

Article 85

Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the present Convention.

There's more, but I don't see the need to inject yet more text into this discussion. You can read the test for you self at the UN Commissioner for Human Rights website.

From the United Nations "Universal Declaration of Human Rights": http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

"Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

How about this.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm
The membership of the Commission on Human Rights.
Some of the members are Libya, North Korea, China, and the Sudan?
Here is one about the fraud in the Oil for food program that the UN ran http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?s tory_id=2618260
Here is one on the UN Sex Scandal. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp

The UN has done some good but as far as human rights and freedom goes there track record is not great. I really do not the idea of them running the DNS. If nothing else what we have now works.

That's a valid point on a philosophical level. When there's no universally recognized moral authority (such as a supernatural being of some kind), there's no way to tell right from wrong that is beyond contestation.

From a more down-to-earth political viewpoint however, there are such things as universal human rights, which include, amongst others, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Chinese law is in violation of those human rights, just like law in nazi-Germany and Japan during WWII, or laws in the former GDR that allowed people to be shot on the spot if they tried to flee the country.

Since WWII, the international community has developed an international legal framework to protect basic human rights independent of national law. There's, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Although it remains a controversial issue, human rights related international law is increasingly considered jus cogens, meaning it applies universally, regardless of a countries national laws or whether it has actually signed a human rights treaty or not. This is especially true for issues like slavery or torture, that are illegal in all cases. Regretfully, censorship law is probably in a somewhat greyer area, though.

Apart from all that legal mumbo jumbo, the question what gives the Chinese government the right to decide what's to be published and what's not, is just as valid as yours.

China is a member of the United Nations, and as such has signed on to certain human rights, among these the right to free expression of opinion.
China thus seems to be in breach of this charter.
Further, being a Chinese citizen (or citizen of most countries) is not like a business contract entered into of free will. For this reason, it seems to me that Chinese (or other countries') laws that could fairly be judged as severely unjust, or sometimes immoral, should not be considered binding on individuals who are citizens through no choice of their own.

Perhaps reading about the law of war might enlighten you; prisoners of war are not given "due process", and are not "criminals". Why do you want to treat enemy combatants as if they had all the rights of a U.S. citizen?

"I still can't get over this Abu Graib thing."

Maybe you should be locked up in a prison on suspicion of a crime, especially a crime you didn't commit, and be tortured and sexually humiliated in front of a camera and then have those pictures shown to your friends and family if not the whole world.

Here , read this, its the testimony of one of the people tortured at Abu Graib. He was and is being held on "suspicion" of theft, not terrorism or decapitating people or anything he had been convicted of. Try putting yourself in his shoes while you are reading it and maybe you will stop being such an arrogant American dick.

I don't think ANY of the people tortured in Abu Graib were "terrorists" that had decapitated peoples. Most of them were people arrested for ordinary crimes, especially looting which EVERYONE in Iraq was doing after the invasion, or innocent people just caught up in dragnets when the U.S. was rounding up people looking mostly in vain for insurgents and Saddam loyalists.

Its key, NONE of the people in Abu Ghraib had been "convicted" of anything. They were suspects. You are basicly dropping the bar so low that the U.S. government can arrest and torture anyone, anywhere on suspicion, and maybe torture a confession out of them that isn't worth the paper its printed on. If they aren't found to be guilty of anything how do you justify torturing them?

You are in fact endorsing EXACTLY the same thing the U.S. has been so indignant about Saddam doing and used as an excuse to overthrow him. The stuff you are taking about is the antithesis of the "Freedom and Democracy" the Bush administration cons everyone in to thinking we brought to Iraq. It is a key reason the Iraqi people have become to despise the U.S. occupation force so much because it managed, with ease, to put itself at the same level as Saddam with arbitrary arrests, torture and killing innocent civilians, often women, children and wounded, unarmed combatants.

All in all you should probably turn in your U.S. citizenship because you have NO CLUE what your country is supposed to stand for, in particular due process is the most basic underpinning of the rule of law and if you chose to cast it aside for some people its a matter of time its thrown aside for everyone, you included, and you have a police state no different from Saddam's.

As for Geneva conventions not applying in Iraq they most certainly do. Its legal hair splitting if they apply to Al Qaida but they sure as hell apply to Iraq. When your nation invades and occupies a sovereign nation there are most definitely rules on how you treat the civilian population of that occupied country, they most definitely apply to the U.S. as a signatory no matter how much you and the Bush administration want to pretend they don't. They forbid:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ...
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

The U.S. has done EVERY one of these in Iraq.

If you want to cast aside U.S. adherence to the Geneva conventions then DON'T get mad if American's are taken as prisoners of war, in the upcoming war in Iran for example, if they are tortured and sexually humiliated, you've given every American adversary the rationale to do it and the world which just say America is getting what it deserves. You better also hope that you are never in place that is invaded and occupied because again you are giving the invading army a blank check to arrest, torture, sexually humiliate and kill you because you are an American who has chosen to cast aside the Geneva conventions.

By conservative estimates, 250,000 children died from 1991 to 1996. But during those five years, Saddam refused offers to sell his oil and import humanitarian goods under UN supervision, gambling that images of starving babies would break the will of the international community.

By 1996 he was allowed to sell oil to clients of his choice provided that the income went into a UN account to be spent on food and medicine.

Saddam siphoned 10 cents off every barrel of oil leaving the country and a further 10 per cent "kickback" from every shipment of food or medicine to reach Iraq.

Tyrant's oil-for-food scam raised £11bn, along with a choice quote:

The scam - under which Saddam would bribe officials with vouchers entitling the bearer to a certain amount of oil on the open market - had brought in the equivalent of £11 billion for his regime, the US Congress has been told.

That has been taken as further proof that the UN sanctions regime was crumbling - and that Saddam had acquired the financial muscle needed to pursue his aim of acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

And here is another good source

Non citizens do not have the right to speedy trial.

Spies and mercenaries are directly covered in Protocol I to the treaty.

Re: Holding tribunals - I believe that this is actually a second round of tribunals. My (possibly faulty) recollection is that "battlefield tribunals" were held around the time they were captured, which meet the requirements of the treaty. The most recent round of hearings amounts to more of a reevaluation of the status of those currently held.

I will note that so far something like 12 former prisoners who were released have been recaptured or killed while engaging in terrorist activities. It is apparently an imperfect process.

The legal concept of a "foriegn(sic) combatant" is largely fiction. Prisioners taken on a battlefield are classified as "Prisioners of War" and have rights under the Geneva Convention -- which the US, despite being signatories of the Convention, are not respecting.

You are simply wrong. The Geneva conventions explicitly exclude certain categories of persons from their protections, such as mercenaries and spies. For certain others, they must pass various tests to qualify for the protections.

Now, somehow I doubt that you have ever bothered to read the conventions since then you would know this, and you would also realize that the specific protections of the Geneva Conventions don't necessarily make any sense for those people, such as PAYING them a monthly salary (article 60).

Please do trouble yourself enough to actually read them. Maybe you could start with Article 4, section 2. Hopefully you will do this before spreading any more highly moderated malarkey.