Why are Americans so different from the rest of us Westerners

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by cia
I actually agree with you Frogger. But unfortunately after a preliminary hearing the government can put you 'on ice' pretty much indefinitely. They did that to a hacker who was a citizen and angered the feds. The little part about a speedy trial seems to have been missed. BTW, what about the language on that hate speech thing?

There are two sections, 318 and 319

318 bans all speech which calls for genocide. 319(1) bans speech which is likely to end in a breach of the peace and 319(2) bans the wilful promotion of hatred against members of an identifiable group.

I am in favour of 318 and 319(1). 319(2) is too nebulous, and is the part I would suppose most civil libertarians would have problems with.

The other two are fairly concrete and the negative consequences of speech covered by them is tangible. It's illegal for me to tell people to burn Edgar Smith's house at 35 Cherry Lane because he's a no-good liar, so it should be illegal for me to tell people to burn down Jews' houses because they're no-good liars.

[KrazyHorse]

Referenced at http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v6n2/banks62.html

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Drake, when were these supposed military tribunals held?

I suppose they've been held at various times over a period of months, but how would I know? The government isn't giving detailed reports of what goes on at Guantanamo every day. The government said they were going to do it, so I think it's been done. I don't see why they wouldn't.

When did they say they were going to do that? Are the military tribunals given full competence in determining a prisoners' status (as required) or do they simply have the job of determining whether the prisoner was a member of Al-Qaeda or not?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Drake, when were these supposed military tribunals held?

I suppose they've been held at various times over a period of months, but how would I know? The government isn't giving detailed reports of what goes on at Guantanamo every day. The government said they were going to do it, so I think it's been done. I don't see why they wouldn't.

I'd forgotten that even "Taleban prisoners" were not afforded POW status.

Read your Geneva Convention again. Even the Taliban didn't meet the requirement for POW status. You have to be a clearly marked member of a state army.

No you don't. You read the conditions again.

[orange]

319(1) bans speech which is likely to end in a breach of the peace

This is a little vague...can you explain?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by orange


This is a little vague...can you explain?

The example I gave. "It would be a good idea to burn their houses down" "we need to take up arms to protect ourselves against the waves of illegal immigrants" etc.

[KrazyHorse]

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)

[Drake Tungsten]

According to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, a combatant must be part of an identifiable army or militia, wear a "distinctive sign" such as uniforms and insignias, carry arms, and subscribe to the international laws of warfare

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/guantanamo.cfm

The site has a nice chart you can look at and everything...

[Jon Miller]

I like Canada (of course, the US is alright (to live in) also)

Jon Miller

[cia]

But if I say to someone, "You are a complete *******!" and they hits me, did I just not violate 319(1) due to a breech of the peace?

[KrazyHorse]

Drake, the "Taleban prisoners" (i.e. those employed as regular forces of the party governing most of Afghanistan at the time of the US attack) are covered by clause 3 of article 4 of the Geneva Convention respecting treatment of prisoners of war.

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

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by cia
But if I say to someone, "You are a complete *******!" and they hits me, did I just not violate 319(1) due to a breech of the peace?

No, you committed a verbal assault, depending on the circumstances. Sorry, 319(1) actually is about "the incitement of hatred where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace"...

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake, the "Taleban prisoners" (i.e. those employed as regular forces of the party governing most of Afghanistan at the time of the US attack) are covered by clause 3 of article 4 of the Geneva Convention respecting treatment of prisoners of war.

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

Source?

I'm sorry, but I don't have a copy of the Geneva Convention with me right now...

[Jon Miller]

I must say that I like being able to incite

even though, if it did come time for the need for violent revolution, I would probably not be able to incite

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

According to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, a combatant must be part of an identifiable army or militia, wear a "distinctive sign" such as uniforms and insignias, carry arms, and subscribe to the international laws of warfare

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/guantanamo.cfm

The site has a nice chart you can look at and everything...

I suggest you read the actual convention. That chart is inaccurate.

http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm

scroll down to article 4. Read, in particular clauses 3 and 6