Oh my god...

[MrFun]

[cynicism]
United States is not bound to any international laws, because it's the most powerful nation on Earth, so it can do whatever it wants, with no fear of repercussions.
[cynicism]

[chequita guevara]

We don't believe the rules apply to us, collectively and individually. We're entitled. We're priveleged. We're better than everyone else.

[Nubclear]

We're the....Ameryans!

America, America above everyone! Above everyone in the world!!!

[DinoDoc]

What are you talking about Tass? You're just a mongrel Russian we only barely tolerate.

[laurentius]

Actually Dino, this is one of the few times Tass makes sence

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You're just a mongrel Russian we only barely tolerate.

Mongrel or Mongol?

[DinoDoc]

laurentius: He's not worth mentioning our greatness while worshiping his false god Putie-Poo.

[Nubclear]

PATRIOT ALERT!

The terrorist organisation, also known by the lesserpeoples as the "Red Cross" has attempted to defy the will of the Ameryan civilisation by demanding that America, the chosen nation of our lord God, Jesus Christ, and the HOLY GHOST, respect international law!
Clearly we must condemn this with the utmost vigor! Any members of this organisation are clearly not Ameryan, and thus will be shipped to "Fun Camps" located across the nation where they will be allowed to play and have fun until genetic purity can be established

Hail Bush!

[MrFun]

What did you put in your coffee this morning, Tass?

[chequita guevara]

Where did you find that god-awful thing, Tass???

[Straybow]

The neutrality of the ICRC is supposed to work both ways. They get access where nobody else does, they keep their traps shut. They serve as a means of communication between prisoners and relatives or similar private parties.

They start trying to pull this crap and the POTUS could theoretically "decertify" the ICRC as a neutral agent.

That would be very bad, but no worse than ICRC becoming another Amnesty Intl.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Straybow
The neutrality of the ICRC is supposed to work both ways. They get access where nobody else does, they keep their traps shut. They serve as a means of communication between prisoners and relatives or similar private parties.

They start trying to pull this crap and the POTUS could theoretically "decertify" the ICRC as a neutral agent.

That would be very bad, but no worse than ICRC becoming another Amnesty Intl.

Yes. How can the ICRC be neutral when it does not even bow to the Ameryan peoples? We must not only decertify the Red Cross as a neutral agent but put it on the list of terrorist organisations for it is actively seeking to undermine the superior peoples position in this world.

[Straybow]

Historically, the Red Cross does not report anything except tangible physical abuse.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We don't believe the rules apply to us, collectively and individually. We're entitled. We're priveleged. We're better than everyone else.

Which law abiding President of the United States said this:

"Without law there can be no freedom, only chaos and disorder."


the day after his administration announced it would not recognize the World Court's jurisdiction over the U.S. mining of Nicaraguan harbors (which violated international law), and then proclaimed 1st May as "Law Day USA" ?


American law good.

International law (which has existed in some form or other for several hundred years prior to the founding of the United States) BAD.

Of course, once upon a time, Americans thought differently:

"
Art. 56.

A prisoner of war is subject to no punishment for being a public enemy, nor is any revenge wreaked upon him by the intentional infliction of any suffering, or disgrace, by cruel imprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death, or any other barbarity.

Art. 67.

The law of nations allows every sovereign government to make war upon another sovereign state, and, therefore, admits of no rules or laws different from those of regular warfare, regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, although they may belong to the army of a government which the captor may consider as a wanton and unjust assailant.

Art. 68.

Modern wars are not internecine wars, in which the killing of the enemy is the object. The destruction of the enemy in modern war, and, indeed, modern war itself, are means to obtain that object of the belligerent which lies beyond the war.

Unnecessary or revengeful destruction of life is not lawful. "

Found those in an American manual.

[Thorn]

U.S. Said to Give Iraq Saddam in 2 Weeks

By FISNIK ABRASHI, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The United States will hand over Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and all other detainees to Iraq (news - web sites)'s new government over the next two weeks as sovereignty is restored, the interim prime minister said Monday.



U.S. officials have said they plan to continue to hold up to 5,000 prisoners deemed a threat to the coalition even after the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty at the end of this month. They say as many as 1,400 detainees will either be released or transferred to Iraqi authorities.


However, in an interview with Al-Jazeera television, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said Iraqi officials expect to take possession of Saddam and all other detainees with the transfer of power.


"All the detainees will be transferred to the Iraqi authorities and the transporting operation will be done within the two coming weeks," Allawi said. "Saddam and the others will be delivered to the Iraqis."


He said the former Iraqi president would stand trial "as soon as possible" but gave no specific timeframe. The detainees and "Saddam as well will be handed to the Iraqi government, and you can consider this as an official confirmation," he added.


Saddam has been in American custody at an undisclosed location in Iraq since his capture last December near Tikrit. His status has been under discussion as the formal end of the U.S.-led occupation approaches.


In Geneva, the spokeswoman of the International Committee of the Red Cross said coalition authorities must file criminal charges against Saddam or let him go when sovereignty is transferred.


Under international and military law, prisoners of war and civilian internees are supposed to be freed at the end of the conflict and occupation, unless there are charges against them, Red Cross spokeswoman Nada Doumani said.


Saddam was granted prisoner of war status after his capture. Although he is alleged to have committed crimes against his own people, he has not been charged with any offense.


"If he is not charged, then the law says that at the end of war, of occupation, he should be released," Doumani told Associated Press Television News.


In Geneva, the chief spokeswoman of the international Red Cross, Antonella Notari, said the organization was not calling for Saddam's release but simply stating the rules under international law.


"We're not making any ultimatums or calls for release," Notari said. "What we're saying is: Saddam Hussein, as far as we understand today, is a POW, prisoner of war, protected by the third Geneva Convention as all prisoners of war are.


"In theory, when a war ends and when an occupation ends, the detaining force has to release prisoners of war or civilian detainees if there are no reasons for holding them," she said.


But Notari added that "a prisoner of war who is suspected of having committed a crime must not just be released. Of course, he must be prosecuted, tried, through a legal proceeding."


She said it was up to U.S. authorities to decide what they will do about Saddam — whether to charge him, or hand him over to the Iraqis for trial.


Although Iraqis will run their own affairs after June 30, tens of thousands of coalition troops will remain in the country to maintain security under a resolution approved unanimously last week by the U.N. Security Council.


After the handover of sovereignty, detainees held by the Iraqi authorities will be subject to Iraqi law.


Mohammed Rashdan, a Jordanian attorney who claims to represent Saddam, said the Red Cross's stand "violates international and military law."

"Under the provisions of international laws and conventions, ICRC should have only called for Saddam Hussein's release," Rashdan told The Associated Press in neighboring Jordan.

He accused the Red Cross of serving the United States "in every possible way."

"The ICRC should help Saddam's defense lawyers to meet with him — the minimum requirement of the due process in developed nations," Rashdan said.

Question Asked, and Answered!