In article <DtBmd.4629302$ic1.440925@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:XXAmd.3121779$yk.485727@news.easynews.com...
Yes of course.
Are you serious? I have to pose the question again, because your stance
makes absolutly no sense, and I get the felling you're not reading it
properly:
You want Iraqi insurgents to abide by the Geneva convention, while at the
same time you believe they should be afforded no protection by it?
They are not afforded any protection by it because they are illegal
combatants. That is under the Geneva convention.
Where in the Geneva Convention is the term "illegal combatants" defined,
exactly?
Woods
.
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
17 Nov 2004 09:59:06 PM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <DtBmd.4629302$ic1.440925@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:XXAmd.3121779$yk.485727@news.easynews.com...
Yes of course.
Are you serious? I have to pose the question again, because your stance
makes absolutly no sense, and I get the felling you're not reading it
properly:
You want Iraqi insurgents to abide by the Geneva convention, while at the
same time you believe they should be afforded no protection by it?
They are not afforded any protection by it because they are illegal
combatants. That is under the Geneva convention.
Where in the Geneva Convention is the term "illegal combatants" defined,
exactly?
Woods
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of
or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such
individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and
privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the
favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such
State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained
as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of
activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person
shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be
regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present
Convention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 03:22:17 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:e6Vmd.3186145$yk.495991@news.easynews.com...
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <DtBmd.4629302$ic1.440925@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:XXAmd.3121779$yk.485727@news.easynews.com...
Yes of course.
Are you serious? I have to pose the question again, because your
stance
makes absolutly no sense, and I get the felling you're not reading it
properly:
You want Iraqi insurgents to abide by the Geneva convention, while at
the
same time you believe they should be afforded no protection by it?
They are not afforded any protection by it because they are illegal
combatants. That is under the Geneva convention.
Where in the Geneva Convention is the term "illegal combatants" defined,
exactly?
As I'm sure you are aware, it isn't.
Woods
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d8614689
8c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of
or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such
individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and
privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the
favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such
State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained
as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of
activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person
shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be
regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present
Convention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
no mention of the term "illegal combatant" there. Try again Jean..
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 04:42:25 PM |
|
|
In article <e6Vmd.3186145$yk.495991@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <DtBmd.4629302$ic1.440925@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:XXAmd.3121779$yk.485727@news.easynews.com...
Yes of course.
Are you serious? I have to pose the question again, because your stance
makes absolutly no sense, and I get the felling you're not reading it
properly:
You want Iraqi insurgents to abide by the Geneva convention, while at the
same time you believe they should be afforded no protection by it?
They are not afforded any protection by it because they are illegal
combatants. That is under the Geneva convention.
Where in the Geneva Convention is the term "illegal combatants" defined,
exactly?
Woods
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c1
25641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of
or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such
individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and
privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the
favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such
State.
Actually, that sounds more like the Coalition troops. Security of the State
completely broke down as a direct result of the invasion.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained
as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of
activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person
shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be
regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present
Convention.
The term "illegal combatant" is used ... nowhere. Try again.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 11:07:05 PM |
|
|
*****.
J.
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <e6Vmd.3186145$yk.495991@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <DtBmd.4629302$ic1.440925@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Aidan a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:XXAmd.3121779$yk.485727@news.easynews.com...
Yes of course.
Are you serious? I have to pose the question again, because your stance
makes absolutly no sense, and I get the felling you're not reading it
properly:
You want Iraqi insurgents to abide by the Geneva convention, while at the
same time you believe they should be afforded no protection by it?
They are not afforded any protection by it because they are illegal
combatants. That is under the Geneva convention.
Where in the Geneva Convention is the term "illegal combatants" defined,
exactly?
Woods
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c1
25641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of
or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such
individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and
privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the
favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such
State.
Actually, that sounds more like the Coalition troops. Security of the State
completely broke down as a direct result of the invasion.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained
as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of
activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person
shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be
regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present
Convention.
The term "illegal combatant" is used ... nowhere. Try again.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bollogs" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 04:56:28 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<e6Vmd.3186145$yk.495991@news.easynews.com>...
Woodswun a écrit:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of
or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such
individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and
privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the
favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such
State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained
as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of
activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person
shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be
regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present
Convention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.
....and it says "illegal combattant" where?
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 09:07:28 AM |
|
|
bollogs a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<e6Vmd.3186145$yk.495991@news.easynews.com>...
Woodswun a écrit:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of
or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such
individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and
privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the
favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such
State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained
as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of
activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person
shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be
regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present
Convention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.
...and it says "illegal combattant" where?
WH
They are not protected as legal combatants because they are illegal
combatants.
But it goes further, they have to abide by that under the Geneva
convention (Art. 4. "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the
Convention are not protected by it."):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the
following provisions:
(1) 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, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction
founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any
other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any
time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned
persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording
all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, the foreign and local terrorists do not observe any of these
obligations. So they are not part of the convention. They are illegal
combatants. Why? While when the Geneva convention has been designed when
there were only distinct states at war with each others, when there were
no such a thing as multinational terrorists, the principle applies.
If they didn't act like terrorists, they might have some protection. But
they don't because they are not even defined under the Geneva
convention, since they are not a state, they are illegal by definition.
Either way, even if one would brand them some kind of a status, they are
not protected by it because they don't abide by it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 4. "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are
not protected by it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence why they are regarded as hostile above (person is definitely
suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the
State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights
and privileges under the present Convention).
I admit that they will have to revise it to combine the terrorists which
are not a state yet are part to the conflict, yet don't abide by
anything, but meanwhile this clearly is the in-between.
In both case they are totally outside the protection, and it is because
they are illegal combatants.
You see, in 1945, there were no such a thing as terrorists part of a
conflict that were not part of one country or group of countries that
were at war. Here there is. An hostile ideology that by itself, without
any specific country, could enter into a war, wasn't foreseen then. (And
this is yet another - 3rd - reason why they are illegal. But by fitting
them in existing parameters, they still are in no way protected by the
Geneva convention, because they forfeited the protection by not abiding
by it.)
Doesn't mean that killing a wounded, unarmed, person, that is not
hostile is acceptable even if they wouldn't hesitate themselves to do
much worse than mercy killing to innocent civilians. But that is one
possible case, maybe two others that were reported but weren't under
camera, yet they will be prosecuted without a doubt if they prove
accurately reported. There is honor with the coalition force, not so
with the Muslims terrorists.
J.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
