Slashdot Mirror

I'd be interested in seeing your sources (for your facts).

Yes, Tony Blair and USAID are biased sources. But, many other organizations have released similar statistics (example United Nations Comission on Human Rights - here, click on the Iraqi reports on the right side).

As for the Irainian war dead, those are mostly POW's that Sadamm slaughtered, so it is still mass murder. (Where on earth are you getting your 3000 a month?)

Lastly, I recently completed an overseas trip to Samara Russia. There they hate the US and dislike the war, but still readily admit that Sadamm was an mass-murderer.

That all sounds wonderful.

But how does one actually do it? How do you "make the U.N. more effective and then enforce its resolutions swiftly and firmly. with U.N. garb", when the United Nations is clearly unwilling to do so? How do we deal with an organization that allows Sudan to retain its current seat on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights at the very time that Sudan is committing genocide (or, in the words of the U.N.'s own High Commissioner for Human Rights, "a disturbing pattern of disregard for basic principles of human rights and humanitarian law, which is taking place in Darfur for which the armed forces of the Sudan and the Janjaweed are responsible."

This is, of course, the same U.N. Commission on Human Rights that was chaired by Libya in 2002 at the same time Libya was defying U.N. Security Council resolutions calling on it to turn over the terrorists who blew up Pan Am 103 and answer for other terrorist attacks around the world.

Look, I would like the support of the rest of the world. But I have absolutely no faith in the U.N.'s ability to actually resolve conflicts which involve dictators (all of whom, of course, are members of the U.N. itself) and terrorists. The U.N. almost presupposes a certain amount of rationality and good will among its members when it tries to end conflict. This is just not always the case, and when it isn't, the U.N. is organizationaly incapable of dealing with it effectively.

Remember that one of the main reasons President George H. W. Bush did not invade Baghdad during the first Gulf war was because he did not have unanimous support from the international community to do so. That didn't pan out so well.

Again, I agree that your goals are laudable. But I don't see how to change it in the current global situation, and I certainly don't think we will make it better by refusing to do what me must to defend ourselves.

And in terms of the current presidential race, if John Kerry were saying how corrupt the U.N. was and his first job would be to bring about U.N. reform so that it would actually have the will and desire to enforce its own resolutions, then I might support him. But he has offered no vision other than his own ability to somehow persuade our allies to go along with us in the future.

Hey! The article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, does not mention that all religions are the same - people have a right to a religion, and that's it.

No, but just like the US and many other nations, Germany signed the UN declaration of human rights. (article 19) Germany is therefore legally bound to guarantee free speech to it's citizens. Additionally the German constitution contains free speech and free press rights.

So now Iraq is a nearest neighbor of the U.S.? Saddam not only wanted to invade Kuwait, he did. And on the way out his people torched the oil fields.

The US isn't propping up Stalinist dictatorships that want nukes.
G. W. Bush already has nukes, and is working on taking all your freedoms. And how many "Stalinist dictatorships" has the U.S. put in power over the years? Castro? Sadam (sp?)?

If you are suggesting that both Castro and Saddam are U.S. puppets, you're sadly mistaken. The U.S. has had an embargo on Castro's Cuba for decades and has gone to war twice with Saddam.

The US has more than one political party.
Two is not much bigger than one. How different are they really? They are mostly the same except for a few distinguishing details. If a third party wanted to run, how long would it take for them to have a realistic shot?

Two is precisely twice the number one. Exactly where does one find a choice where only one politcal party exists? If there can't be two, there can't be three either.

The US doesn't arrest people in peaceful demonstrations and stick them in prison camps for 10 years at a time.
Prisoners from Afganistan. These are classified as "non-combatants" by the U.S. government. They are held with no trial, and are not POWs. And let's not forget about "free Kevin," held for (was it) 4 years without trial, and the only reason that he got out was because he agreed to a plea bargain imposed by the prosecutor.

Prisoners are held as "non-combatants" as that is precisely what they are under the Geneva Conventions. Read it sometime.

The US doesn't think it owns Tibet.
Iraq.

Please inform the Chinese of your world map.

The US doesn't tell the religious to register with the state or else.
Any of the government databases that track "undesirables"; members of the comunist party (or is that still illegal?), people of mid-east descent....

This is non-responsive to the original comment. Being required to register with a particular religion, or face death, is a far journey from tracking individuals with 'suspicious' routines.

You are simply wrong, or maybe you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Here, read the Geneva Convenstion for yourself, in particular Article 4. Al Qaeda would fall under Article 4 A 2. Unfortunately they fail at least 3 of 4 tests. The 4th test is a sometimes thing at best (refering to 4A2a). Because they have taken up arms they are combatants. Because they fail the tests for protection they have none. They are unlawful combatants. Your assertion about them having protection as civilians when they aren't attacking is specious.

Absolutely appalling.Like all posts on /. the author couldnt be bothered to check his facts and the idiot moderators who modded this as informative didnt bother to check whether this information was correct ot not.

This is what the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War has to say.For those short on time do atleast read Articles 13 till 20.

Sleep deprivation -- OK.

• Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated.

• Article 17

*Threat* of beatings -- OK.

• Article 14

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons

Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture.

Witholding pain medication -- OK.

• Article 15

The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health.

Loud music -- OK.

• Article 17

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.

• Article 14

Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture

Please do read the Geneva Conventions and you will be surpised how restrictive it is in regards to POW's.and please people can we be bothered to check up on our facts before we start espousing them as true.These are issues literally of life and death.

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: ...

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.

As you can see, Al Qaeda and its associates fail at least three of the four tests with the fourth one being a sometime thing at best. Because they fail the test, they are not covered under the convention, just like spies and mercenaries aren't covered. Now, that isn't so hard, is it?

Since we are on the subject, if we were to disregard the qualifications for the protections as Prisoner Of War under the conventions it would mean doing some really stupid things. For example:

Under Article 26 we would be responsible to see that:

Prisoners of war shall, as far as possible, be associated with the preparation of their meals; they may be employed for that purpose in the kitchens. Furthermore, they shall be given the means of preparing, themselves, the additional food in their possession.

Do you want fanatical terrorists who are often ready to kill themselves deliberately in the pursuit of their goals to have full access to a kitchen with its many potential bladed weapons and chemicals? That would be stupid. But, if we didn't do it we wouldn't be treating them in accordance with the Geneva Convention. But then we don't have to because they fail the basic test for being covered by the treaty in Article 4 A 2.

And what about Article 60:

The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay, the amount of which shall be fixed by conversion, into the currency of the said Power, of the following amounts:

Category I: Prisoners ranking below sergeant: eight Swiss francs.

Category II: Sergeants and other non-commissioned officers, or prisoners of equivalent rank: twelve Swiss francs.

Category III: Warrant officers and commissioned officers below the rank of major or prisoners of equivalent rank: fifty Swiss francs.

Category IV: Majors, lieutenant-colonels, colonels or prisoners of equivalent rank: sixty Swiss francs.

Category V: General officers or prisoners of equivalent rank: seventy-five Swiss francs.

Do you really advocate that we should pay Al Qaeda members in our custody? Once again that would be stupid, but we wouldn't be treating them in compliance of the Geneva Convention if we didn't do it. But then we don't have to because they fail the basic test for being covered by the treaty in Article 4 A

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: ...

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.

Now, as you can see, Al Qaeda and its associates fail at least three of the four tests with the fourth one being a sometime thing at best. Because they fail the test, they are not covered under the convention, just like spies and mercenaries aren't covered. Now, that isn't so hard, is it?

And, since we are on the subject, if we were to disregard the qualifications for the protections of a Prisoner OF War under the conventions it would mean doing some really stupid things. For example:

Under Article 26 we would be responsible to see that:

Prisoners of war shall, as far as possible, be associated with the preparation of their meals; they may be employed for that purpose in the kitchens. Furthermore, they shall be given the means of preparing, themselves, the additional food in their possession.

Do you want fanatical terrorists who are often ready to kill themselves deliberately in the pursuit of their goals to have full access to a kitchen with its many potential bladed weapons and chemicals? That would be stupid. But, if we didn't do it we wouldn't be treating them in accordance with the Geneva Convention. But then we don't have to because they fail the basic test for being covered by the treaty in Article 4A2.

And what about Article 60:

The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay, the amount of which shall be fixed by conversion, into the currency of the said Power, of the following amounts:

Category I: Prisoners ranking below sergeant: eight Swiss francs.

Category II: Sergeants and other non-commissioned officers, or prisoners of equivalent rank: twelve Swiss francs.

Category III: Warrant officers and commissioned officers below the rank of major or prisoners of equivalent rank: fifty Swiss francs.

Category IV: Majors, lieutenant-colonels, colonels or prisoners of equivalent rank: sixty Swiss francs.

Category V: General officers or prisoners of equivalent rank: seventy-five Swiss francs.

Do you really advocate that we should pay Al Qaeda members in our custody? Hmm? Once again that would

It remains to be seen if the torture committed by Americans in Iraq was truly the sole responsibility of "a few rogue soldiers." It certainly hasn't been proved to be the case, and I for one don't believe it for a second.

This is one thing that scares me. In a number of countries (think of the old USSR and China) there is no freedom of information and that the information that is available is tightly controlled. These are societies that have been painted with lack of freedom and oppressive. If current USA policy is allowed to evolve in the direction it is going then there is danger that its citizens will lose their freedoms and being a free-thinking academic would be badly thought of. Also, with what we have seen happening in Iraq, can we really trust the government on human rights, be it for nationals, foreigners or prisoners of war - the latter is more a question of the Geneva convention.

Today's USA is no longer perceived as the land of the free, despite what the slogan might be. The terrorists won in the USA, and the media just feeds them even more.

Freedom is about a state of being and not slogans.

This is one thing that scares me. In a number of countries (think of the old USSR and China) there is no freedom of information and that the information that is available is tightly controlled. These are societies that have been painted with lack of freedom and oppressive. If current USA policy is allowed to evolve in the direction it is going then there is danger that its citizens will lose their freedoms and being a free-thinking academic would be badly thought of. Also, with what we have seen happening in Iraq, can we really trust the government on human rights, be it for nationals, foreigners or prisoners of war - the latter is more a question of the Geneva convention.

Today's USA is no longer perceived as the land of the free, despite what the slogan might be. The terrorists won in the USA, and the media just feeds them even more.

Freedom is about a state of being and not slogans.

Actually, they wanted to, but apparently it violates some treaty

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.

looks like they have Interlingua and Esperanto both of the "planned international auxiliary language" category. But nothing says universal like "planned interplanetary auxiliary language," and it looks likes there's as many Klingon speakers as there are Matsés speakers, so where is it? But I guess they haven't finished the Klingon Shakespeare yet.

looks like they have Interlingua and Esperanto both of the "planned international auxiliary language" category. But nothing says universal like "planned interplanetary auxiliary language," and it looks likes there's as many Klingon speakers as there are Matsés speakers, so where is it? But I guess they haven't finished the Klingon Shakespeare yet.

looks like they have Interlingua and Esperanto both of the "planned international auxiliary language" category. But nothing says universal like "planned interplanetary auxiliary language," and it looks likes there's as many Klingon speakers as there are Matsés speakers, so where is it? But I guess they haven't finished the Klingon Shakespeare yet.

looks like they have Interlingua and Esperanto both of the "planned international auxiliary language" category. But nothing says universal like "planned interplanetary auxiliary language," and it looks likes there's as many Klingon speakers as there are Matsés speakers, so where is it? But I guess they haven't finished the Klingon Shakespeare yet.

PS: for a good laugh, and an interesting cultural experience, try reading The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Nigerian Pidgin English. It's beautiful.

As a mater of fact, they thought about that as well, if you read the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights you can find the limitations.
As such, I have no fundamental right to discover your medical background etc., because it is also your fundamental right to have your privacy and reputation intact. (a19.3.a)
(The famous "the freedom of your fist ends where my nose starts")
Note also the "protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals (a19.3.b)
The fact is, sharing mp3's or whatevers with someone is not a national security/health/moral hazard, nor it invades your privacy or reputation.
Z
PS: dont forget that for mp3 sharing to be imoral, the majority of the population should agree on that. And it doesnt, most people dont even care.

It all depends on your point of view,
See: Universal Declaration of Human Rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 19
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.

I repeat: SEEK, RECEIVE, and impart
INFORMATION and Ideas
through ANY MEDIA

So, at least from my point of view, Its Your Right, My Right, and everyone right for sure. As it also says any media, Online is covered. So as you can see, the YRO tag is well deserved

Z
A19

It all depends on your point of view,
See: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 19
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.

I repeat: SEEK, RECEIVE, and impart
INFORMATION and Ideas
through ANY MEDIA

Its Your Right, my right, and everyones right for sure. As it also says any media, Online is covered. So as you can see, the YRO tag is well deserved

Z
A19

WOAH!
You're saying that it's the French and Russians fault that this was allowed to happen?
Bullshit.
The sanctions themselves were the problem. Iraq couldn't import vital items like CHLORINE, a critical ingredient for the purification of water. THIS is a human rights violation (in a sense) worse than anything that Saddam did. Allowing innocent children die due to poor water is a GROSS violation of human rights. These childred were dieing by the THOUSANDS because THE UNITED STATES wouldn't let them import critical water/food treatment chemicals.
Granted, a lot of the problems wouldn't have existed if Saddam wouldn't have been in power, but the fact still remains that the US allowed these sanctions to destroy the people of Iraq.

And, we can't forget the fact that Bush OPENLY ADMITTED that there would be civillian casualties. This was in direct violation of the Geneva convention. Here's the proof
Step off your high horse and realize that Bush was just as bad for openly killing thousands of innocent civillians, as Saddam was for killing his people.
In a certain light, Bush is even worse because he brought it upon himself (against nearly every other country in the world) to force democracy down the throats of Iraq.
Look at political philosophers that specialize in the middle east and you'll see that DEMOCRACY WON'T WORK IN THE MIDDLE EAST. There are so many opposing groups (and I'm not talking Democrats vs Republicans opposition... I'm talking about 'willing to suicide bomb' opposition) in Iraq, that there will NEVER be a clear majority in favor or in opposition of any proposition that a democratic government needs to work.
All democracy will succeed at doing is commiting cultural genocide in the region, and that is by far the worst kind of dehuminization imaginiable. If I were to die, it wouldn't be as large a deal, because people would still be able to carry on my heritage. If my culture is taken away, I might as well not even live because something was taken away from me that can NEVER be replaced. These people are being raped of their herritage to satisfy Big Oil (tm)!
That's the real war crime.

This pretty much summarizes all of your misconceptions about the UN:

And I won't go into how the members of the UN aren't elected and are appointed and aren't out to better the world but (usually) to their country.

Ummmm, duuh. That's why the title for the human being who sits behind the "UNITED STATES" placard is "Ambassador". Like all of our ambassadors he is appointed and it is his job to represent our country. Strictly speaking, Ambassador Negroponte isn't a member of the UN. The United States is a member of the UN. Ambassador Negroponte is our representative to the UN. Like the rest of our Ambassadors, our Federal Judges, and many other positions in our country, he's appointed, not elected.

The UN is a place for all of the nations of the world, even ones who are at each other's throats, can get together and try to work things about. Convincing everyone to stick around is a tricky job and means you have to be absolutely even handed, even if being even handed seems stupid. The big picture is that it's important to keep these people talking so we can try and move forward through peace. Judging a country evil and throwing them out isn't going to convince them to shape up. They'll still be evil, but they won't be talking to us. For example...

Where but the UN can countries with tons of human rights violations be on and chair commities to end human rights violations?

Anywhere where you want to be inclusive. Is it worth throwing them out and risking the delicate political structure that brought them to the table? There isn't any risk of these countries pushing some evil agenda through the Commission. There are 53 member countries. Do you think at least some of them might stop such an evil scheme? Furthermore, who has the authority to judge the acceptability of a potential member. Do we need a Commission on the Commission on Human Rights to screen potential members? And a Commission on the Commission on the Commission to screen them?

International politics is hard. Just getting everyone to the table is hard. Don't dismiss that effort out of hand.

To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

You can review the Purposes and Principles at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-chp1.htm. I don't think you'll find anything offensive.

You can ignore anything the UN says on human rights, given that it has appointed these countries [Libya and Syria] to monitor others.

That's a personal attack and not a logical argument.

You know, ever few years there is a big public scandel and we discover that some local police department has corrupt officers. Common sense suggests that there remain corrupt officers throughout the country. Do we dismiss out of hand the statements of the law enforcement community as a result? The same goes for, say, your elected officials. There have been and likely will continue to be dirty politicians; do I dismiss the statements of the US Congress out of hand?

There are 53 member countries in the commission. Might any of Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom, or even the United States have had a say? Are you implying that a majority of the member states are corrupt and actually condone human rights violations?

I favor imposing involuntary fees across network users such that the fees become so low they are hardly worth complaining about.

The size of the fee is not the problem. It would be a huge mistake to codify the current flawed network structure of 'network users' and providers into tax law.

We already have a many legally taxable networks. The telephone, cable, water, sewer, and road networks are all taxable for various reasons and with varying amounts of harm and good.

But the Internet is ideally a distributed mesh network constructed and operated by the individual owners of its nodes and links, not multinational corporations. New tax structures based on the current heirarchal model will limit our ability to migrate to a meshed peer network structure as technology allows it. And no government has the authority to prevent the construction of such networks, according to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

When two roomates decide to network their computers, should tax collectors be involved? Of course not. What about two neighbors? Ten? An entire city? Neighboring cities?

In some cases, taxes might reasonably fund parts of the network. Links between cities might be paid for with sales or property taxes. But that is an issue to be decided by the citizens of the respective cities. Enabling speech with taxes is fine. Limiting speech with taxes is not.

It would be absurd to limit the ability of individuals to communicate with each other in order to promote the ability of some artists and their agents to communicate to their market.

Is there any country on the planet where "corporate profit" is a consitutional right?

Well put. Corporations do have many obligations and responsibilites, few privileges, and no rights.

For the moment at least, the United Nations seems to agree. They have created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (read it!), but no similar declaration of corporate rights.

It is interesting to note that the UN does not declare that humans have any right to form corporations. Not even unprofitable ones.

The UN needs a split houses concept similar to the US and other democratic nation. One house gets a number of representatives dependent on a nations population, and in the other house all nations have equal numbers of representatives. This is the ONLY fair way to ensure that all nations are heard regardless of size or population.

Why? Lots of European democracies have just one house, why is there a need for two? As things are right now, all member states have exactly 1 voting seat in the UN General Assembly.

Abolish the security council. It made sense 50 years ago, but not today.

Reforms of the Security Council is currently in the works.

All representatives should be ELECTED by the people in their nations, with reasonably limited terms (5 or six years max). If these people are going to determine my fate and run my Internet, I'd damned well better get a say in who represents me. Undemocratic nations that don't allow their citizens to vote should NOT get voting seats in the UN.

Representatives are appointed by their respective governments. They do not serve in terms. One day you might see Colin Powell address the Security Council, the next day it might be Rumsfeld or George W. Bush himself. This goes for all councils and committees in the UN. This is the exact same way most ambassadors are picked. It should respect the constitutions of its member nations. The UN should not have the ability to override, veto, or limit decisions or rights made or granted by their sovereign member states.

It does. The General Assembly does not make laws, is has no authority with which it can demand certain actions from any country. Rather, the General Assembly makes standards or recommendations - wether your country chooses to ratify these bills and conventions, and thus obligating itself to follow them, is completely voluntary. For instance, the Unites States has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but has ratified most of the other treaties concerning human rights.

I'm not gonna go into details about the Security Council, but rest assured that they do not have the authority to demand changes in your constitution or anything like that.

To be frank, I don't think you have to fear that the UN will take control of the Internet. As should be evident, the UN is not the kind of organisation that is able to - or wishes to, for that matter - control a certain media outlet and dictate what it can and can't be used for.

Well children basically have no rights.
They are pretty much their parents property, so no it doesn't violate their rights. The UN disagrees.

That's pretty easy, too, Dave.

Check the Geneva Convention. A "prisoner of war" is a legal definition. You have to meet certain criteria in order to be considered an official "prisoner of war," and those criteria are specifically enumerated in the Geneva convention. In general, you have to be a member of, or closely affiliated with, an armed force of a legitamate government. The Al Qaeda fighters are not uniformed, and are not under the command of a governmental authority responsible for their actions. Therefore, they cannot be official prisoners of war, and therefore they do not receive any of the protections afforded by the Geneva convention. Also, it's not like they play by the rules of Geneva convention, anyway.

So then, a "Prisoner of War" is someone who meets the criteria specified by the Geneva convention, and a 'detainee' is somebody captured during military action who does not fit that criteria.

Yes, there's a lot of kooky stuff there. But it's not 100% kooky.

1. Depleted uranium has been classified by the UN (yeah, yeah) as an illegal weapon. The more I read on DU, the more concerned I get. Check this interview and this site for some info.

2. Please don't confuse criticism of the policies of the Israeli administration with 'Jew-hating'. It's a diservice to all concerned. Including those of us whose ancestors lived through anti-Semitic pogroms, but who may not think that the Israeli government has the right idea.

Right......

Just one minor point:

detainees that haven't been declared POW's anyone?

I've heard statements like this a lot, and believed them until I actually did some research and read up on the Geneva convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) and other applicable war laws (ie War Powers Act of 1973).

There are some very high standards that enemy combatants must meet in order to have the right of POW status. If they don't meet all of them than a country doesn't have to give them POW treatment. The factors are:

(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. ... one can very easily argue that al queda/ taliban fighters didn't meet all of these requirements.

The only thing I wonder about the detained prisoners is if we met the requirements in this passage: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Did we ever give the detainees a tribunal to confirm that they're not POW's?

--
On a related note, don't go into the "but Congress never declared war" argument unless you can point out *exactly* where it says in the geneva convention that you need a declaration of war. I read "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict" which seems to make it unnecessary. And the war powers act cited above gives congress the power to give the president specific wartime powers without a formal declaration of war (see "specific statutory authorization" under section 2(c)).

I just want to say that I hate the bush regime and their attitude towards international and domestic affairs (esp the OHS) as much as the next whiny liberal ;) ... but it seems that all the claims of bush's war acts violating international and domestic law aren't entirely accurate. Both sides of a debate need to be well-informed for it to get anywhere. Perhaps the laws of war need to be reformed, but we're not really breaking them.

Wait, I thought we were using the European definition. Because, well, you Americans [sic] don't know the first thing about human rights...you still have executions. Our definition of human rights is correct.

I find it easy to tell the difference, If they follow the Geneva Convention, then they are to be classified as a military unit. Freedom fighters would not blow up a school, terrorists would, which is in Geneva Convention on human rights. Taking of hostages is outlined in the convention, hostages no, detainees as spies yes. Guess you could bend the rules, but the basic is no murder or torture.

-
Diversity training 101 - all white men are oppressors.

Except that the Geneva Convention explicitly bans allowing any harm to or hostage-taking of "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause". In fact, that ban is the Convention's main purpose for being.

"De-populating the opposition forces" is a war crime.

Or are you trying to argue that the Geneva Convention is for sissies, or something?

Or am i just misunderstanding what you are trying to say?

Perfectly clear, but only because it is taken out of context. The UN Charter also says:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."
so, again, after the attacks of September 11 occurred, all bets were off as far as the restrictions placed by the UN charter.

Look who's taking things out of context. :) :

", until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

So your statement that "all bets are off" is simply false. Not to mention the fact that Afghanistan under the Taliban NEVER attacked the US. There was no "armed-attack" by the Taliban on the USA. The silly Bush doctrine of unleashing collective punishment on any nation that directly or indirectly harbors or supports a terrorist organization would in theory justify a British attack of the US for harboring/supporting the IRA, or a host of other nations attacking Americans because various insurgent groups are living comfortable lives in US terrirory.

On September 28, 2001, both the Security Council and the General Assembly approved US-drafted, US-sponsored measures approving our actions in response to the attacks of September 11. I welcome you to look these up.

If you had actually looked these up yourself, you would have noticed that I refered to the same resolution directly in the text you were replying to. Yes, resolution 1373. Now if you'll actually *read* the resolution you will see NOTHING about the security council approving the US bombing of Afghanistan.

What you do see is a series of guidelines on how states should behave with respect to terroist groups, as well as some of the financial steps to be taken to freeze assets and the like.

Where there IS some indirect reference to more forceful action, it is ALWAYS qualified with "in accordance to the UN Charter" or "in accordance to its responsibilities under the Charter".

If you'll read up on those responsibilities, you'll learn that MANY measures need to be taken BEFORE the use of force is even considered. You know.. things like sanctions and stuff like that.

So you'll have to do much better than that to show me that the Security Council somehow supported the bombing of Afghanistan.

This is a misrepresentation of a specific provision of the Conventions, which actually calls for such tribunals only in the case where a nation has generally upheld their obligations under the conventions, but where an individual soldier caught fighting in civilian garb claims that he had legitimate reasons to do so.

For more on the Geneva Conventions, see this article [opinionjournal.com]

Your statements confirm for me that you have almost certainly never READ the Geneva convention's provisions on the treatment of POWs. Rather than point you to some editorial, I'll point you instead to the actual text of the convention, ok? Here.

In it, you'll find this:

"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. " - Article 2, paragraph 3.

You might also be interested in Article 4 (emphasis is mine) which states, in part:

"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.

[...]

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. "

And as for my "deliberate misreading", I'll quote, and you can read for yourself:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. " -- Article 5, paragraph 2.

>Afghanistan is free? When did this happen?

Around when it was liberated by US and Northern Alliance troops, basically. Is there more progress to be made? Sure. Is it miles beyond where it was under the Taliban? Clearly.

It's funny that you deny that Canada, the UK, Sweden, Germany and others are free, and yet you claim that Afghanistan, which has not had an election in decades, is free. Also, your claims about the state of the nation now that the Taliban is gone sound an awful lot like what was said about the Taliban when they took over in the first place.

I'll be the first to condemn the Taliban as a bunch of back-assward thugs. But the same can be said of the Northern alliance. Afghanistan is most certainly NOT free.

Peace

As has already been pointed out to you several times in this thread, they are covered. They are being covered under the illegal combantant clauses.

Please, point out these 'illegal combatant' clauses of the Geneva Conventions. I'd really be interested in seeing them. Here, I'll spell out what *is* said for you:

Article 4, Section 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.
...

Are you really trying to say that Al Quaida(sp?) does not fit the above description?

Article 5 clearly says: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

So when, exactly did these prisoners have their tribunal deciding that they weren't prisoners of war?

The Geneva Convention

The Nuremburg Charter.

Before you think anything about Sept. 11th being something entirely new and especially evil, requiring less due process than in the past, read the Nuremburg Charter. If presumption of innocence is ok for Nazis, it's hard to see when it shouldn't apply.

Also, keep in mind that all this "anti-terrorism" talk uses Bin Laden as their reason for enacting the laws, but the laws are not confined to the acts of Sept 11th, or even confined to "violent" terrorism. There has been much effort to make sure that illegal political acts that don't involve violence fall under the category of "terrorism". Even before Sept 11th, anti-terrorism laws were used to infiltrate and disrupt non-violent activist groups and labor unions.

If a farm owner accuses non-citizen farm workers of illegal acts during a union organizing drive or strike, what is to stop these "anti-terrorism" laws and military tribunals from being used? Again, even before Sept 11th, many newspapers have referred to both violent and non-violent protestors in the U.S. as "terrorists", in many cases equating civil-disobedience (illegal acts intended to achieve a political agenda) with assassinations and mass murder.

And this is nothing new. Dissidents are often called terrorists by repressive governments. Never mind the fundamental differences between the people that destroyed the WTC and people like Martin Luther King.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

By the time the amendment was passed to free the slaves, the world had matured past the point where slavery could be tolerated.

First you say that world no longer tolerated slavery by the time the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865 and then you say slavery wasn't "truly" abolished until 1920.

You are using the word slavery in two different senses. The conditions of servitude of sharecroppers were onerous but were a far cry from slavery. Families could not be broken up and sold, individuals could not be beaten, they could own property, the could move elsewhere, etc. The conditions of black sharecroppers were closer to the conditions of white sharecroppers than to slaves.

As for the world having matured, some people argue persuasively that there are more slaves alive today than ever. While slavery may be widely tolerated, it is at least universally condemned, which could be a kind of maturity.

" No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. "

bearing arms is not a human right

as to that being an American right, even that is a stretch. The American Constitution clearly states in the Second Amendment - "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"

You might wish it meant otherwise, but that seems pretty clearly aimed at the state armed forces, not civilians. Specifically a well-regulated armed force.

If you want to see unicode in action visit a site I developed: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights site. It has 320+ language translations of this document, the majority of which are in unicode. You will also find a nice browser UTF-8 torture test there..

There are still languages that do not have standardized unicode glyphs (Amharic for example) thus you'll find some pdf and scanned images there.. But all in all unicode made this project doable.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads :

Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

This declaration is supposed to be our ideal as a responsible society. Now of course you might want to disagree, but remember that "the disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts" as the declaration reads in the preamble.

To begin with, I'm 16 years old. By definition I am biased, and my comment shall speak from only one point of view. However I tried to put it down well.

To me, such enforcement of parental control over their children clearly defies all wisdom that has ever been collected while bringing up children. It all comes to trust.

Trust is a vital aspect in any kind of a relationship. It persumes a certain degree of independence, yet it also provides a degree of security. And old saying states that "where there's no trust, there's no love". However, it is also true that where there's no love there's no trust.

It also disturbs me that many parents try to shape their children the way they would like themselves to be. Indeed, I dare not imagine how many Mozarts, Turings, Tolkiens or Hilberts are being born each year, of which just few get to do what they're good at.

Another issue is horizon of knowledge. I believe that there should not be any single book that is forbidden to the youth. I've already heard (not being a citizen of the US) that the American authorities deprecate a wide range of books (e.g. "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"). I am Jewish; yet I find a higher wisdom in the fact that my parents allow me to read Erich von Manstein's "Lost Victories", since I'm interested in WWII history. I fail to understand why the youth is considered basically unable to distinguish good and bad, right and wrong. It is this treatment that diminishes its ability to do so.

The traits which development I consider most important are creativity, originality, freshness of perception, good judgement, love of the fair. Many of these are virtues of freedom. They are impossible to achieve by keeping children in a cage - even if the cage is gilded.

The last point I'd like to make is regarding freedom. The Convention on the Rights of the Child speaks of this clearly: Articles 12 to 19 speak about the children's rights, specifically the right to information and Article 16 specifically forbids "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence". I will only mention such issues as curfews or various sorts of giving-in organizations which sponsor unlawful deprivation of rights which is combined with ghestapo tactics. I think that such policies may laugh a totalitarian country to scorn. What do you think?

.. since they have one of the worst human rights records in the world. Seems that even without firearms in the hands of the average citizen, the police still feel the need to "drop in" twice a year to "check up" on law-abiding citizens.

1.) Do you think the "founding fathers" had today's society and government in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

2.) If a clear, unambiguous document were written, taking into account documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and defining the United States as not an isolated nation but a member of a world community, would you consider supporting it?