From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Tue May 18 2004 - 08:07:55 MDT
Jonathan Davis
Sent: 18 May 2004 01:31 PM
Oh no! Does this mean that they will lose the "protections" of having their
captives beheaded, enemy combatants disguised as civilians, the enemy firing
from holy places and the enemy using false surrender to launch attacks? Now
I pity them!
Of course I am just gently ribbing you B, but there is a serious point here.
Firstly in this war they have never been protected by the conventions anyway
because the enemy simply did not operate under their constrictions. White
flags used as tactical ruses and the beating (and murder) of captives was
and is routine. These breaches have not been disavowed by the enemy
leadership nor were they exceptional. This cannot be said of the US breaches
which have been exposed, denounced and the miscreants are in the process of
being punished. The USA is a signatory of the conventions and overwhelmingly
accepts and applies the provisions of those conventions.
Can anyone show me where the current Insurgents have signed up? Can anyone
show me where they have ever respected these conventions?
Seems to me a bit like saying to a guy obeying Queensbury rules in a boxing
match "Uh oh, one of your punches landed low, your opponents gloves are
coming off!" whilst his opponent has been wearing knuckdusters and kicking
for the groin all along.
[Blunderov] What I had more in mind was any future opponent - say Iran or
North Korea, who knows, maybe one day even China.
In the future, anyone can claim that the USA considers the Geneva convention
'obsolete' and 'quaint' and does not therefore qualify for its protections.
Or that their forces are de facto terrorists.
The British AFIK have been very quiet on the subject of the Geneva
Convention but then I think they might be signatories to the International
Criminal Court. Either that or it's English circumspection.
Best Regards
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 18 2004 - 08:09:17 MDT