Most of the people captured were not wearing uniforms and were not even apart of a government military. The Geneva Convention doesn't protect you if you are fighting in a non-governmental army out of a uniform.
No, but it does protect you if you are in a "militias or volunteer corps", or if you are an ordinary person and you "spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces". But the most important section is this one. "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." If they were in a country which was being invaded (which they were), carrying arms openly (which at least some of them were), and there's a possibility they were respecting the laws and customs of war (which there is), they are PoWs until the US can prove they aren't. If the US knows they are "unlawful combatants" and can prove it in a court of law I have no problem with what the US is doing to them. But until the US proves it, they have rights.
The biggest reason why the US doesn't want to call them POWs and give them Geneva Convention rights is because if they did, they would have to let them all go. Think what you want of how the US is treating them, you can be pretty well assured that there are people there you really don't want to let go and run around freely.
No doubt some of them are. But how do I know one of them isn't just some farmer who heard that he was being invaded, got his shotgun and decided to try and defend his homeland. Answer: I don't. And democracies used to believe in something called "innocent until proven guilty".
This leaves the US in an ugly position. If you call them POWs, then you have to simply let them go. If you try them in an American civilian court, you are going to end up letting them go because the standard for proving guilt is so high,
The standard of proof is high because it needs to be. Again, innocent until proven guilty. Basic human rights.
you will not want to make your intelligence and how you got it part of the public record (...I hereby call CIA operative number 3 to the stand...)
That's what sealed evidence is for.
and they would get off on technicalities of the American legal system.
Huh? "Our legal system has technicalities so you're not entitled to a fair trial"
I am not saying that things are being handled perfectly there, but do realize the problem that the US faces when dealing with these people. The solution isn't as obvious as simply declaring them POWs.
No, the "solution" is to be honest. It used to be said that it's better to let a thousand guilty men walk free than to wrongly execute an innocent. If they are PoWs, they have a right to be treated as such. If they might be PoWs, they still have a right to be treated as them. If they aren't PoWs but there's doubt, any doubt at all, they're entitled to a public hearing where they can make their case, before they are treated as non-PoWs. And I think there is reasonable doubt about the US claim that all of them are non-PoWs.
The word "being" appears in three places in the US constitution. In the first place it is talking about voting - "[certain propolals] being disapproved by [the president], shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives". Here it's clearly an if-then case - if the president disapproves of the bill, then it needs to be repassed. The second place is the second amendment we're discussing. The third is in amendment 14, "when the right to vote at any election [...] denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, [...] the basis of representation therein shall be reduced" (it's a very long sentence, apologies for snippage. Again, this is clearly if-then: if people are over 21 and not allowed to vote, the state does not get as many representatives. Why would "being" be used in this meaning in the rest of the constitutution, both prior and post to the place we are discussing, and then used to mean something different in the second amendment?
Cambodia - The invaision of Cambodia was to stop the North Vietamese from using to supply its troops in the South -- it had nothing to do with Cambodia's leaders or how they were selected.
So it's still an invasion of a country with a legitimate leader chosen by the people. Or did I miss something?
I might get a few wrong, but iirc:
Colombia
Cambodia (yes it has a king, but he doesn't rule the country any more than the queen of england)
El Salvador (The regime was very corrupt, but a hell of a lot more democratic than the military junta the US put in its place)
In that case why is the first part in there at all then? It doesn't seem to contain any rules or rights for the government or the people? And why is it "being" rather than "is", as would be the logical choice of word if the clauses were independent. "A well regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Several times when there have been rocket attacks against civilian targets, the USA has been the only country not to condemn them. Even Tony Blair said something like "we fully support israel's right to defend itself but killing innocent civilians in the name of defense is unacceptable
Yes, but you can only claim that after having had a public hearing to decide whether that is the case. This should have been done before they left Afganistan. You can't just say "I don't think they were following the laws of war". And so far none of those prisoners has had such a hearing.
No, a meteorite is a meteor that hits the ground, as opposed to completely burning up in the atmosphere. And to the parent, until it hits the atmosphere a meteor can be any celestial object - an asteroid, a comet, even a fucking moon.
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.
I think you added that first comma. Anyway, it seems to me that the most sensible interpretation of that is a condition - if a well armed militia is essential to the security of a free state, then the right to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed. Which means that these days, with most of europe showing that such militias are not necessary, you ought to be able to introduce some gun control and stop all those people getting shot.
The definition of WMD is not fixed, americans of all people (ooh, this nerve gas could be used to kill people within 600m, it must be a WMD) should know that. Look at the effects. If these lasers are something the military is getting excited about (how big's the crater) they may well be WMD.
Have you ever seen pictures of it? Completely flattened. ~60000 people dead in a matter of seconds. Anyone who sees that as "cool" should be locked up.
The difference is direct weapons in space. More important, though, is the precedent. Would I worry about there being spy satellites around alpha centurai if I was going to live there? Well, a little. Would I be worried about there being missiles there? Yes.
The outer space treaty applies to all of space. We're only seeing the effects in LEO at the moment, but it's important to make sure we do things right, as we're setting a precedent for how it's going to be in the rest of the universe.
No, the main thing Osama is upset about is the US giving Israel carte blanche over what was an arab country for hundreds of years before US intervention, and propping up the nondemocratic Saudi government. Does it justify killing thousands of civillians? Not in my book. But is it closer than the rationales of many terrorist groups and US-led wars? Hell yes.
(No, those people are not protected by the Geneva Convention.)
Why the fuck not? They were captured by the other side in a war, which to my mind makes them pretty likely to be PoWs. At the very least they were entitled to a public hearing to decide whether they were protected by the Geneva Convention which, so far, none of them have had.
Guantanamo bay. A large number of prisoners are being kept there without charge, without trial, without access to legal representation, and without having had a hearing to decide whether they are in fact "nonlegal combatants" as the US administration claims, or just ordinary PoWs (in which case they are entitled to legal counsel) or civillians (in which case they are entitled to a trial or else being released).
Those responsible (Al Qaida) are a large, coherent, independant group
No they're not. They didn't even have a name for themselves. They're largely an invention of the US military-industrial complex.
I find it troubling that people in other countries are trying to influence how we select OUR leaders
This from a country that invades other countries when they elect someone you don't like
Apparently you missed the point where Alan Cox said "it's up to distro makers to make sure their kernels are stable". Not to mention breaking CD burning because Linus doesn't like the only interface that actually works well for doing it. 2.6 kernels are not stable enough for production use, and presumably FC users consider 2.4 to be too old. Notice that slackware is still stuck on 2.4, it's for a good reason.
Oh no. I'd much prefer that no-one knew I was being tortured and the public never complained about the inhumane treatment I was getting. It's so much better when you're being tortured if you know the person torturing you has no chance at all of getting in any trouble for it, so much more bearable than if they're going to be charged with war crimes.
Idiot.
And worse, it doesn't support wheelmice. This is a real problem for me at least when trying to read ebooks in pdf form - I can either use xpdf and have no bookmarks, or acrobat and have to scroll manually. Anyone know of an alternative?
Bruce Scheiner explained this much better than me, but basically, that's not a good idea. There would be such strings of data, just as there are for any single hash, and because the MD5 and SHA1 algorithms are derived from a common root, they would be more common than the amount of data you're storing would suggest. You're better off modifying SHA-1 (the more secure of the two) to produce hashes of a length equal to the sum of both types of hashes, that would be more effective. If MD5 and SHA1 had nothing in common, this would be a valid approach, but still no more effective than a double-length SHA1.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he's saying they are independent, which is true. Some aircraft are helicopters, but aircraft and helicopters are not the same thing.
No, but it does protect you if you are in a "militias or volunteer corps", or if you are an ordinary person and you "spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces". But the most important section is this one. "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." If they were in a country which was being invaded (which they were), carrying arms openly (which at least some of them were), and there's a possibility they were respecting the laws and customs of war (which there is), they are PoWs until the US can prove they aren't. If the US knows they are "unlawful combatants" and can prove it in a court of law I have no problem with what the US is doing to them. But until the US proves it, they have rights.
The biggest reason why the US doesn't want to call them POWs and give them Geneva Convention rights is because if they did, they would have to let them all go. Think what you want of how the US is treating them, you can be pretty well assured that there are people there you really don't want to let go and run around freely.
No doubt some of them are. But how do I know one of them isn't just some farmer who heard that he was being invaded, got his shotgun and decided to try and defend his homeland. Answer: I don't. And democracies used to believe in something called "innocent until proven guilty".
This leaves the US in an ugly position. If you call them POWs, then you have to simply let them go. If you try them in an American civilian court, you are going to end up letting them go because the standard for proving guilt is so high,
The standard of proof is high because it needs to be. Again, innocent until proven guilty. Basic human rights.
you will not want to make your intelligence and how you got it part of the public record (...I hereby call CIA operative number 3 to the stand...)
That's what sealed evidence is for.
and they would get off on technicalities of the American legal system.
Huh? "Our legal system has technicalities so you're not entitled to a fair trial"
I am not saying that things are being handled perfectly there, but do realize the problem that the US faces when dealing with these people. The solution isn't as obvious as simply declaring them POWs.
No, the "solution" is to be honest. It used to be said that it's better to let a thousand guilty men walk free than to wrongly execute an innocent. If they are PoWs, they have a right to be treated as such. If they might be PoWs, they still have a right to be treated as them. If they aren't PoWs but there's doubt, any doubt at all, they're entitled to a public hearing where they can make their case, before they are treated as non-PoWs. And I think there is reasonable doubt about the US claim that all of them are non-PoWs.
The word "being" appears in three places in the US constitution. In the first place it is talking about voting - "[certain propolals] being disapproved by [the president], shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives". Here it's clearly an if-then case - if the president disapproves of the bill, then it needs to be repassed. The second place is the second amendment we're discussing. The third is in amendment 14, "when the right to vote at any election [...] denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, [...] the basis of representation therein shall be reduced" (it's a very long sentence, apologies for snippage. Again, this is clearly if-then: if people are over 21 and not allowed to vote, the state does not get as many representatives. Why would "being" be used in this meaning in the rest of the constitutution, both prior and post to the place we are discussing, and then used to mean something different in the second amendment?
Cambodia - The invaision of Cambodia was to stop the North Vietamese from using to supply its troops in the South -- it had nothing to do with Cambodia's leaders or how they were selected. So it's still an invasion of a country with a legitimate leader chosen by the people. Or did I miss something?
I might get a few wrong, but iirc: Colombia Cambodia (yes it has a king, but he doesn't rule the country any more than the queen of england) El Salvador (The regime was very corrupt, but a hell of a lot more democratic than the military junta the US put in its place)
Bluetooth AR goggles would be teh coolness.
In that case why is the first part in there at all then? It doesn't seem to contain any rules or rights for the government or the people? And why is it "being" rather than "is", as would be the logical choice of word if the clauses were independent. "A well regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Several times when there have been rocket attacks against civilian targets, the USA has been the only country not to condemn them. Even Tony Blair said something like "we fully support israel's right to defend itself but killing innocent civilians in the name of defense is unacceptable
Yes, but you can only claim that after having had a public hearing to decide whether that is the case. This should have been done before they left Afganistan. You can't just say "I don't think they were following the laws of war". And so far none of those prisoners has had such a hearing.
No, a meteorite is a meteor that hits the ground, as opposed to completely burning up in the atmosphere. And to the parent, until it hits the atmosphere a meteor can be any celestial object - an asteroid, a comet, even a fucking moon.
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. I think you added that first comma. Anyway, it seems to me that the most sensible interpretation of that is a condition - if a well armed militia is essential to the security of a free state, then the right to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed. Which means that these days, with most of europe showing that such militias are not necessary, you ought to be able to introduce some gun control and stop all those people getting shot.
The definition of WMD is not fixed, americans of all people (ooh, this nerve gas could be used to kill people within 600m, it must be a WMD) should know that. Look at the effects. If these lasers are something the military is getting excited about (how big's the crater) they may well be WMD.
Have you ever seen pictures of it? Completely flattened. ~60000 people dead in a matter of seconds. Anyone who sees that as "cool" should be locked up.
The difference is direct weapons in space. More important, though, is the precedent. Would I worry about there being spy satellites around alpha centurai if I was going to live there? Well, a little. Would I be worried about there being missiles there? Yes. The outer space treaty applies to all of space. We're only seeing the effects in LEO at the moment, but it's important to make sure we do things right, as we're setting a precedent for how it's going to be in the rest of the universe.
No, the main thing Osama is upset about is the US giving Israel carte blanche over what was an arab country for hundreds of years before US intervention, and propping up the nondemocratic Saudi government. Does it justify killing thousands of civillians? Not in my book. But is it closer than the rationales of many terrorist groups and US-led wars? Hell yes.
(No, those people are not protected by the Geneva Convention.) Why the fuck not? They were captured by the other side in a war, which to my mind makes them pretty likely to be PoWs. At the very least they were entitled to a public hearing to decide whether they were protected by the Geneva Convention which, so far, none of them have had.
Guantanamo bay. A large number of prisoners are being kept there without charge, without trial, without access to legal representation, and without having had a hearing to decide whether they are in fact "nonlegal combatants" as the US administration claims, or just ordinary PoWs (in which case they are entitled to legal counsel) or civillians (in which case they are entitled to a trial or else being released).
Those responsible (Al Qaida) are a large, coherent, independant group No they're not. They didn't even have a name for themselves. They're largely an invention of the US military-industrial complex.
I find it troubling that people in other countries are trying to influence how we select OUR leaders This from a country that invades other countries when they elect someone you don't like
Apparently you missed the point where Alan Cox said "it's up to distro makers to make sure their kernels are stable". Not to mention breaking CD burning because Linus doesn't like the only interface that actually works well for doing it. 2.6 kernels are not stable enough for production use, and presumably FC users consider 2.4 to be too old. Notice that slackware is still stuck on 2.4, it's for a good reason.
For the same reason you should vote if you strongly support a third-party candidate.
Oh no. I'd much prefer that no-one knew I was being tortured and the public never complained about the inhumane treatment I was getting. It's so much better when you're being tortured if you know the person torturing you has no chance at all of getting in any trouble for it, so much more bearable than if they're going to be charged with war crimes. Idiot.
Gah! I've just realised I had the bookmark pane off to the left all the time, just had to drag the handle to see it. Oops.
And worse, it doesn't support wheelmice. This is a real problem for me at least when trying to read ebooks in pdf form - I can either use xpdf and have no bookmarks, or acrobat and have to scroll manually. Anyone know of an alternative?
Bruce Scheiner explained this much better than me, but basically, that's not a good idea. There would be such strings of data, just as there are for any single hash, and because the MD5 and SHA1 algorithms are derived from a common root, they would be more common than the amount of data you're storing would suggest. You're better off modifying SHA-1 (the more secure of the two) to produce hashes of a length equal to the sum of both types of hashes, that would be more effective. If MD5 and SHA1 had nothing in common, this would be a valid approach, but still no more effective than a double-length SHA1.