Trump "International Law" now

Religions > Atheism > Trump "International Law" now

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Jd"
Date:	20 May 2004 06:33:49 PM
Object:	Trump "International Law" now

.... at least in the spirit of International Law, our own liberal media
could be held accountable for violating "human rights".
From a FAQ sheet on "International Law"…
------ Filming of Prisoners of War ------
"Question: Can POWs be shown on television?
It is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to deliberately expose
prisoners of war (POWs) to the media. A detaining authority in wartime
has a clear obligation not to parade POWs, or allow them to be exposed
to public viewing."
"Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention states: "Prisoners of war
must at all times be humanely treated.... Likewise, prisoners of war
must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence
or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of
reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited." "
"The prohibition is not a blanket ban on any image whatsoever of a
POW; for example, it would not extend to incidental filming of POWs,
when journalists are documenting broader military operations."
http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaq.htm
What your liberal media has done is not "incidental filiming" of POW's
which curiously enough means that if/when International Law is fully
implemented upon all nations (especially the USA) and strictly
followed... that your liberal media will not be able to show such
things at their sole discretion on the nightly news without risking
punishment from some sort of international court.
And BTW, according to International Law terrorists (see "non-citizens"
below) must be treated in a humanitarian way, by you and I who are now
deemed "Occupying powers". According to them, we should be sending
the terrorists food, medicine and all other 'humans rights' things.
Again from a FAQ sheet....
"What are the basic principles of international humanitarian law (IHL)
underlying the military occupation of Iraq?"
"The United States, United Kingdom and other coalition members are
considered occupying powers in Iraq. The Hague Regulations and the
Fourth Geneva Convention impose numerous rights and obligations on
occupying powers. They are obliged to restore and maintain, as far as
possible, public order and safety. They must also respect the
fundamental human rights of the territory's inhabitants, including
refugees and other non-citizens."
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaq042904.htm#How%20does%20human%20rights%20law%20apply%20in%20Iraq?
Why isn't the media in an uproar over our foes in Iraq who are
definatley violating "International Law" WRT urban combat?
From a FAQ sheet...
------ IHL on Urban Combat and Besieged Areas ------
"Question: What obligations do armies have to protect civilians during
fighting in urban areas? "
"Urban warfare significantly increases the risks to the civilian
population. In the conduct of military operations, armed forces must
take constant care to spare the civilian population, civilians and
civilian objects. IHL places obligations on both defending and
attacking forces. Defending forces must to the maximum extent feasible
avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated
areas; seek to remove the civilian population, individual civilians
and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military
objectives; and take other necessary precautions to protect civilians
against the dangers resulting from military operations (P1, art. 58)."
http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaq.htm
"Pax Americana" ended 3 years ago according to the following
website...
Pax Romana: 27 B. C. - 180 A. D. The period known as the Pax Romana.
"A super power in its day, Rome put the development of its citizens
ahead of conquest. This was enabled by active defense of its borders.
Its neighbors benefited from the Pax Romana as much as did Rome.
By analogy, the period between 1865 and 2001, was a Pax Americana in
the sense that mainland Americans, like the Romans before them,
enjoyed peace and security—at home. In large measure, we still do.
Pax Romana happened in spite of human nature, not because of any
particular traits of character or temperament of the Romans.
Nevertheless, the mere fact that a relatively peaceful period lasted
two centuries in spite of human nature gives us hope."
http://www.roadtopeace.org/history/human_history/human_history_pax.html
The goal of Utopians is now "Pax Worldicana"... a world peace which,
obviously can only come about after the imposition of world law i.e.
"International Law".
And so as to remove all doubt that I'm unmercifully picking on ungodly
atheists, here's a couple of examples of Christians and Jews who
support the notion of "International Law"....
"Who We Are: JPPI is a Washington, D.C.based group of American Jews
who believe that a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace in Palestine
and Israel is attainable through negotiations based on international
law and the implementation of relevant United Nations (UN)
resolutions."
http://www.jppi.org/mission_statement.html
"The Holy See maintains that there are still peaceful avenues within
the context of the vast patrimony of international law and
institutions which exist for that purpose. A decision regarding the
use of military force can only be taken within the framework of the
United Nations, but always taking into account the grave consequences
of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and
those involved in the military operation, a further instability in the
region and a new gulf between Islam and Christianity."
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-051.htm
I think some want to REVOKE the Patriot Act in order to INVOKE
International Law (and it's granting of rights to terroists)... right
here in the "land of the free and the home of the brave".
My question is this: Do you think terrorists (such as the ones
involved in planning, plotting and carrying out 911) should all be
well fed, have better medical insurance than some of us, and be
treated with respect while we are chasing them around the world trying
to kill them?
If you answer that with a "yes", I'd then like to ask you this: Would
you feed an intruder who breaks into your house prior to him
unmercifully slaughtering your entire family before your eyes?
If you answer "yes" to that I can see why you might think trumping the
US Constitution with "International Law" together with removing God
from the public eye would be priorities WRT your agenda.
Jd
"Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of
singing declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth;
say ye, The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob." (Isaiah 48:20)
.

User: "turk"
Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now	20 May 2004 07:20:01 PM

"Jd" <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u81sa0peig04hof1fr9mnfigi5fe3h2p5c@4ax.com...

... at least in the spirit of International Law, our own liberal media
could be held accountable for violating "human rights".

From a FAQ sheet on "International Law".

------ Filming of Prisoners of War ------

"Question: Can POWs be shown on television?
It is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to deliberately expose
prisoners of war (POWs) to the media. A detaining authority in wartime
has a clear obligation not to parade POWs, or allow them to be exposed
to public viewing."

What's the Geneva Convention say about forcing POWs into sexual situations
for the amusement of their captors, you dumbass neocon hypocrite?
turk
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now	20 May 2004 08:31:43 PM

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:20:01 -0500, turk wrote
(in article <RWbrc.87834$iF6.7523948@attbi_s02>):

"Jd" <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u81sa0peig04hof1fr9mnfigi5fe3h2p5c@4ax.com...

What's the Geneva Convention say about forcing POWs into sexual situations
for the amusement of their captors, you dumbass neocon hypocrite?

turk

That it isn't as bad as murdering them but that both fall into
the category of "war crimes".
If it comes to that, I would wonder what defense that Bush,
Cheney and Rumsfeld would try to use.
The only one of which I can think is that they didn't do it to as
many prisoners as Saddam aka the defense of "he did it, too".
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer
that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H. L. Mencken
.

User: "Jd"
Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now	29 May 2004 06:12:30 AM

turk wrote:

"Jd" <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u81sa0peig04hof1fr9mnfigi5fe3h2p5c@4ax.com...

What's the Geneva Convention say about forcing POWs into sexual situations
for the amusement of their captors, you dumbass neocon hypocrite?

turk

Hey... I'm not the one who allowed Sodomites into the US military.
Deal with it.
Jd
.

User: "Puck Greenman"
Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now	30 May 2004 02:37:41 PM

On Sat, 29 May 2004 11:12:30 GMT, Jd <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

What's the Geneva Convention say about forcing POWs into sexual situations
for the amusement of their captors, you dumbass neocon hypocrite?

turk

Hey... I'm not the one who allowed Sodomites into the US military.
Deal with it.

Female sodomites? Mmm. An interesting concept.
Puck Greenman

#162

BAAWA Knight.

Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now (or later)	30 May 2004 10:47:37 PM

On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:37:41 -0500, Puck Greenman wrote
(in article <nudkb09huh28ec98i3m1hro1eunq2eb1vv@4ax.com>):

Hey... I'm not the one who allowed Sodomites into the US military.
Deal with it.

Female sodomites? Mmm. An interesting concept.
Puck Greenman

What makes it fun is one of the jet pilots that was interviewed
in the "beginning of the beginning that was different from the
middle of the beginning or the end of the beginning or the middle
of the middle or the end (or the beginning) of the middle of the
Iraqi adventure.
As pilots only could give out their "flight name" she was called
by hers, "KC". At the end of the interview, the reporter asked
her what "KC" stood for and she told him "Killer Chick".

#162

BAAWA Knight.

Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.

Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer
that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H. L. Mencken
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now	31 May 2004 08:28:18 AM

On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:37:41 +0100 in episode
<nudkb09huh28ec98i3m1hro1eunq2eb1vv@4ax.com> we saw our hero Puck Greenman
<puck@pooks.hill.fey>:

On Sat, 29 May 2004 11:12:30 GMT, Jd <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

What's the Geneva Convention say about forcing POWs into sexual
situations for the amusement of their captors, you dumbass neocon
hypocrite?

turk

Hey... I'm not the one who allowed Sodomites into the US military. Deal
with it.

Female sodomites? Mmm. An interesting concept.

Strap on interrogations???
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.

User: "Puck Greenman"
Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now	31 May 2004 02:15:22 PM

On Mon, 31 May 2004 08:28:18 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:37:41 +0100 in episode
<nudkb09huh28ec98i3m1hro1eunq2eb1vv@4ax.com> we saw our hero Puck Greenman
<puck@pooks.hill.fey>:

On Sat, 29 May 2004 11:12:30 GMT, Jd <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

What's the Geneva Convention say about forcing POWs into sexual
situations for the amusement of their captors, you dumbass neocon
hypocrite?

turk

Hey... I'm not the one who allowed Sodomites into the US military. Deal
with it.

Female sodomites? Mmm. An interesting concept.

Strap on interrogations???

The mind boggles.
Puck Greenman

#162

BAAWA Knight.

Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now	31 May 2004 06:34:59 PM

On Mon, 31 May 2004 20:15:22 +0100 in episode
<911nb01q4qppcf87tackpu7m9rfckb3hai@4ax.com> we saw our hero Puck Greenman
<puck@pooks.hill.fey>:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 08:28:18 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi>
wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:37:41 +0100 in episode
<nudkb09huh28ec98i3m1hro1eunq2eb1vv@4ax.com> we saw our hero Puck
Greenman <puck@pooks.hill.fey>:

On Sat, 29 May 2004 11:12:30 GMT, Jd <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

What's the Geneva Convention say about forcing POWs into sexual
situations for the amusement of their captors, you dumbass neocon
hypocrite?

turk

Hey... I'm not the one who allowed Sodomites into the US military. Deal
with it.

Female sodomites? Mmm. An interesting concept.

Strap on interrogations???

The mind boggles.

If by "boggles" you mean "flees in fear of the mental image."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.

User: "ZenIsWhen"
Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now	21 May 2004 01:07:04 AM

"Jd" <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u81sa0peig04hof1fr9mnfigi5fe3h2p5c@4ax.com...

... at least in the spirit of International Law, our own liberal media
could be held accountable for violating "human rights".

Get a brain, dipshit.
The government, not the media, is responsible for such actions!
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now	21 May 2004 06:58:48 AM

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in
news:10ar743nbm6idda@corp.supernews.com:

"Jd" <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u81sa0peig04hof1fr9mnfigi5fe3h2p5c@4ax.com...

... at least in the spirit of International Law, our own liberal media
could be held accountable for violating "human rights".

Get a brain, dipshit.
The government, not the media, is responsible for such actions!

The government is responsible for what the media does? Hmm...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.

User: "Jez"
Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now	21 May 2004 07:50:27 AM

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94F0512F12F68fstone69@207.69.154.205...

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in
news:10ar743nbm6idda@corp.supernews.com:

"Jd" <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u81sa0peig04hof1fr9mnfigi5fe3h2p5c@4ax.com...

... at least in the spirit of International Law, our own liberal media
could be held accountable for violating "human rights".

Get a brain, dipshit.
The government, not the media, is responsible for such actions!

The government is responsible for what the media does? Hmm...

Britain: Sacking of Mirror editor over Iraq abuse photos—a major attack on
press freedom
By Chris Marsden
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/mirr-m20.shtml
The sacking of Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan on May 14 is a victory for a
government-led campaign to silence all criticism of the brutal occupation of
Iraq.
The Mirror is one of only two British newspapers that has consistently
opposed the war against Iraq and been somewhat critical of the ongoing
occupation. Silencing its revelations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by the
British army was essential for the Labour government of Prime Minister Tony
Blair, at a time when it faces growing difficulties at home and abroad.
Given that the accounts of beatings, torture and murder made to the Mirror
by several unidentified soldiers cannot be contested, the government
focussed its attentions on the insistence that photographs of the abuse were
fakes.
Until last week this campaign had proved unsuccessful. Though there were
questions as to the authenticity of the photographs, there was no doubt they
had been given to the Mirror by the soldiers concerned who had insisted that
they were participants in the abuses documented. And even the staunchest
critics of the Mirror noted the possibility that they were contemporaneous
reproductions of the actual events, possibly staged by investigators as
opposed to fakes made for the purpose of monetary gain.
Morgan, despite acknowledging the possibility that the pictures were not
authentic, stood by his decision to publish and correctly insisted that the
government had not proven the photographs to be fake. He could not only rely
on the testimony of a number of soldiers, but earlier reports of abuses in
the Independent and even the pro-war Sun newspapers, as well as reports by
Amnesty International and the International Red Cross of the systematic
abuse of prisoners involving the British army. The Queen’s Lancashire
Regiment, whose soldiers were alleged to have carried out the abuses
photographed, was facing a charge of having murdered an Iraqi detainee.
In any event, the context of Morgan’s decision to publish argued strongly
for doing so. The photographs were given to the Mirror at a time when
literally hundreds of undeniably genuine photos of abuses by US troops, had
come to light.
But the Ministry of Defence launched an investigation into the Mirror’s
account with the sole purpose of discrediting the photos. In contrast to
months of inactivity with regard to the actual abuses, more than 25
investigators were set to work to find out whom in the QLR had made the
leaks to the Mirror, and to find evidence proving that the truck in the
photographs had never been to Iraq.
In the end, it was not even possible for the government to wait for the
publication of this report. As one Labour MP explained, ministers knew that
charges against British soldiers, including members of the QLR, for abusing
Iraqi civilians were imminent. Therefore, “If Morgan had hung on until the
charges he would have claimed vindication even if his pictures were shown to
be fakes. We couldn’t let that happen.”
To avoid this outcome a statement was issued alleging that forensic
investigations had found the truck depicted by identifying scratches and
other markings, and that it had never been to Iraq. A number of government
spokesmen, including Blair, began issuing public statements insisting that
the photos were a hoax.
Even so, until the very last Morgan was standing by his decision to publish
the photographs and insisting that it was wrongdoing by the government and
the armed forces that was the central issue. On the evening of May 13,
Mirror informant solider C told ITV’s Tonight with Trevor McDonald that
Iraqi prisoners “were beaten for fun. I saw them in those sand bags for
hours and hours on end. And then water would be poured over them. I know
that some of them had trouble breathing.”
But at midday on May 14, the QLR convened a press conference, demanding an
apology from the Mirror and that action be taken against Morgan. Just hours
later, Morgan was sacked and escorted off the premises by security guards.
A media controlled by big business
Morgan’s sacking has served to confirm the absence of anything that could
remotely be described as a “free” and “independent” media.
In the first instance the government is no longer prepared to tolerate any
independent scrutiny of its policies and actions. Such is the degree to
which it acts against the wishes and basic interests of the mass of the
population and in the service of a wealthy elite that suppression and
censorship are the order of the day.
It is remarkable that, faced with the exposure of a systematic campaign of
lies and misinformation used to justify support for an illegal war of
aggression against Iraq focussing on claims that it possessed an arsenal of
weapons of mass destruction, the government’s defence was that it had acted
in good faith on what turned out to be poor intelligence. No government
minister resigned and none was held accountable.
In contrast, BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan was hounded out of his job on the
basis of a wrongly attributed comment that the government had “sexed up” the
now widely discredited intelligence dossiers used to justify support for
war. No one could deny that Gilligan had correctly reported the substance of
comments by whistleblower Dr. David Kelly noting widespread unease within
the intelligence services over the government’s propaganda. Yet the
conclusion of the inquiry into Kelly’s death by Lord Hutton exonerated the
government and turned all criticism against Gilligan and the BBC for the
supposed crime of reporting a story of major public interest. Not only was
Gilligan forced out, but he was joined by BBC Director General Greg ***** and
Chairman Gavyn Davies.
Once again the government has succeeded in turning revelations of wrongdoing
by the army and its own silence on these issues into a campaign to discredit
its critics. Unable to disprove an unpalatable message, the messenger has
been shot.
None of this could have been achieved without the active collaboration of
both the Mirror’s owners, Trinity Mirror, and the vast bulk of the press.
A key role was played by a number of prominent US corporations with shares
in Trinity who were opposed to the Mirror’s antiwar stance long before the
publication of the photos. These included Fidelity and Tweedy, Browne, which
collectively own 20 percent of Trinity’s stock. In an unprecedented
decision, other shareholders such as First Isis Asset Management, a fund
management company that owns almost 4 percent of stock, and Deutsche Asset
Management spoke out publicly to question the Mirror’s editorial integrity.
There were already calls from these prominent Trinity shareholders for the
corporation to sell the Mirror, the People, the Sunday Mirror and their
Scottish counterparts.
One indication of the extent to which corporate investors are ready and able
to dictate the editorial direction of newspapers under their control is the
policy of the German company Axel Springer—currently bidding for control of
the Daily Telegraph. It demands that its journalists sign a pledge to
promote the free market, the existence of Israel, the transatlantic alliance
and the unification of Europe.
Also working to the government’s advantage, the editorial staff of many
newspapers and their high-profile commentators were fully prepared to join
in the witch-hunt of Piers Morgan. These included not only the more obvious
culprits such as Rupert Murdoch’s Sun, but also the Guardian—whose liberal
pretensions were again sidelined in favour of their determined support for
the Blair government.
Just how far the Guardian is prepared to see such attacks on democratic
press freedoms to be extended was manifested in a comment piece by Martin
Kettle on May 18.
Railing against “journalists’ self-righteous arrogance,” Kettle said the
case against Morgan was “open and shut.” He continued that the Mirror’s
“faked tale was not some one off event.” It was symptomatic of a press that
was out of control.
The power of the media has to be curbed, Kettle insisted, before drawing a
parallel with the attacks on trade unions carried out by the Conservative
government of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. He declared, “Forty years ago,
there was another irresponsible power in the land, one that also considered
itself outside the rules that others made and obeyed.”
The trade unions “most powerful leaders—rightly dubbed barons—often behaved
as if they had no responsibility for the condition of the country beyond the
gratification of their own self interest. It took many decades for the trade
unions to be brought within the boundaries of civil society and the law. It
had to be done.”
Given that the curbing of “union power” that Kettle endorses took place
through the enforcing of a series of anti-democratic laws and by a mass
mobilisation of the state to suppress opposition from the working class, one
can only assume the worst when considering what levels of censorship the
Guardian will portray as legitimate in order to defend the government from
criticism. And covering the government’s back is what is at stake here, for
no other calumny perpetrated by the media against working people—including
the daily witch-hunting of asylum-seekers—has so enraged Kettle.
Even now the attack on democratic freedoms continues to gather pace. In
order to discredit Morgan’s exclusive, the 500-plus members of the QLR are
being subject to unprecedented invasions of their privacy. At least one
soldier is currently being detained, suspected of being a Mirror source,
after an investigation by a team of military police during which the entire
regiment was apparently confined to barracks while on duty in Cyprus. All
soldiers have been instructed to hand over any photos taken while on duty in
Iraq.
A report in the Independent on Sunday summarised a text message sent home by
one soldier that said, “what a naughty regiment we are! confined to
barracks. Two lads sent back to Colchester for trying to get a drink. Whole
regiment threatened with being disbanded.”
Another QLR soldier sent a message reading, “Phew. I’m out of Cyprus. They
looked up my a—e and down my p—- hole before they left me go.”
Once again, the sole concern of the government and the armed forces is not
to end abuses, but to prevent evidence of such abuses being disclosed.
______________________________________
Free press my arse !!
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now	21 May 2004 09:07:20 AM

"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40adfaf6$0$20513$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94F0512F12F68fstone69@207.69.154.205...

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in
news:10ar743nbm6idda@corp.supernews.com:

"Jd" <Igo.B4u@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u81sa0peig04hof1fr9mnfigi5fe3h2p5c@4ax.com...

... at least in the spirit of International Law, our own liberal
media could be held accountable for violating "human rights".

Get a brain, dipshit.
The government, not the media, is responsible for such actions!

The government is responsible for what the media does? Hmm...

Britain: Sacking of Mirror editor over Iraq abuse photos—a major
attack on press freedom
By Chris Marsden

I hate to remind you but the topic was the continued publication of
pictures of prisoners which is *still* a violation of the Geneva
Convention, no matter whether the acts pictured are violations or not.
I also remind you that the Mirror *admitted* that the pix *they* showed
were fakes.
<...>
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.

User: "Jez"
Title: Re: Trump "International Law" now	21 May 2004 09:46:49 AM

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94F066FA8229Efstone69@207.69.154.202...