Why are Americans so different from the rest of us Westerners

[orange]

Originally posted by Frogger
Anything which does not incite breaches of the peace should not be covered. So, "blacks are dirty rotten scoundrels" should not be banned, in my opinion, but it is, by section 319(2)

oh ok, i get it now

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frogger
The "Al-Qaeda prisoners" should probably be covered by clause 6.

What's clause 6?
edit: nevermind

[KrazyHorse]

Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war

Unless they were engaged in terrorist tactics on the battlefield around the time of capture, then they should be covered.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frogger
Unless they were engaged in terrorist tactics on the battlefield around the time of capture, then they should be covered.

I don't see how clause 6 applies in this case given the fact that al Qaeda has taken it upon itself in the past to fight the Taleban's battles. They assassinated the leader of the NA just before 9/11 in fact.

[KrazyHorse]

And so? Not all members of Al Qaeda were party to it. Their belonging in an outside organization, some of whose members voided their status of POW by taking part in practices which contravened the laws of war does not affect their status. I was under the impression that most of them were undergoing training, not taking part in the civil war.

[KrazyHorse]

In other words, most of them weren't fighting the war until the war came to them.

EDIT: which is why we need individual hearings, no? The US gov't had no right to give the tribunals (if they even took place) a blanket guide as to who was a POW and who was not. That negates the competence of the tribunal.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's all up to interpretation, Kitty, as it's not clear that 4:3 or 4:6 apply to the Taliban at all. If you aren't part of a uniformed army, your status is up in the air, subject to the interpretation of the more vague clauses by a court. The American courts decided the Taliban weren't POW's. Where's the violation of international law?

[KrazyHorse]

Which American courts? You still haven't told me where you read that each was getting an independent hearing.

And 4:3 applies pretty obviously to the bulk of the Taleban forces.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frogger
And so?

It gives lie to the claim of spontaneity and proves that the organization had more than enough time to form themselves into regular armed units.

[Drake Tungsten]

Which American courts? You still haven't told me where you read that each was getting an independent hearing.

I can't remember. It's been months since this topic has been in the press. The last I knew, the prisoners were being brought before secret military tribunals.

And 4:3 applies pretty obviously to the bulk of the Taleban forces.

It depends how you define the term "regular armed forces". The Taliban were little more than an amalgam of different Pashtun tribal militias, which doesn't exactly fit my definition of a "regular armed force". It's certainly not a violation of international law if the US courts felt the same way.

[KrazyHorse]

Really? The war was over pretty quickly. You think they had time to order up uniforms?

They carried their arms openly and engaged in conventional warfare. They were not springing up behind the lines as partisans. Seems pretty obvious to me that unless, as you mentioned they were already engaged in fighting the NA before the NA started advancing that they're covered by section 6.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
We try to be nice to you, though. You literally don't bother. And people are starting to get to the point of wondering if we do need you or not...

Only the mentally deficient.

Take a look at imports and exports from Canada, then ask yourself why you even bother to wonder if we need them?

Without the US many of our industries would go bust. Something many people love to forget about.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Which American courts? You still haven't told me where you read that each was getting an independent hearing.

I can't remember. It's been months since this topic has been in the press. The last I knew, the prisoners were being brought before secret military tribunals.

The Bush admin declared itself who would be classified as what. Even if they got tribunals to determine certain facts about their situation, they were not given full competence to decide about each individual case. And in addition, their rights were violated before the determination was made as to their status. The convention requires that until their status is determined they are to be treated as POWs.

And 4:3 applies pretty obviously to the bulk of the Taleban forces.

It depends how you define the term "regular armed forces". The Taliban were little more than an amalgam of different Pashtun tribal militias, which doesn't exactly fit my definition of a "regular armed force". It's certainly not a violation of international law if the US courts felt the same way.

It's as much of a regular armed force as Afghanistan was able to field. They engaged in conventional warfare while openly bearing arms, and most were more or less continuously engaged in fighting the NA. They weren't partisans or spies; they were a regular armed force employed by the de facto government of Afghanistan at the time. You and I both know that any argument you're going to give me on these guys is just a means to weasel out. The convention is fairly broad in terms of who it accepts as a POW.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Only the mentally deficient.

Take a look at imports and exports from Canada, then ask yourself why you even bother to wonder if we need them?

Without the US many of our industries would go bust. Something many people love to forget about.

Not at all. But their northern states "need us" in terms of trade too. I'm not suggesting we close our border, but unless the US tries to play blackmail that's not dependent on us being as buddy-buddy as we are. It's obvious that being good friends doesn't make them give a damn about trade concerns, so what's in it for us?

[Asher]

It's obvious that being good friends doesn't make them give a damn about trade concerns, so what's in it for us?

Trade benefits both, it's stupid for Bush to be a protectionist moron and it's stupid for us to ask questions like "What's in it for us?".