Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Yeah, I get that's the argument. I just don't think it makes any sense. What's the point of saying that you're party to the conventions whether the other party is or not, then saying that you're not if the other party isn't? I just don't think the second sentence can be read that way, or the entire paragraph doesn't really make sense.
So it seems to me.
Why are not Al Queda members detained in Afghanistan not considered the same as Hessians who fought along side the British in the Revolutionary war. Though not a "power" itself, Al Queda were "hosted" by the Taliban.
Are Taliban detainees afforded Geneva protections?
Gonna Brave Toothache;
Gruffly Brayed Thomas;
Groddily Behaved the Gang;
Glibly--But There (go I);
Good (enough)--Behold The (past--which is no more).
I needed to get it all out. Glenn, I hope, will forgive me.
If you were instead referring to this first sentence:
"Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."
Then this sentence clearly only applies to conflicts that break out between High Contracting Parties (i.e. - signatories to the GCs), which may be to your point about al-Qaida not being a High Contracting Party.
`O, Ms. (Luna) Morally_Bankrupt.
`
1) Bumble bee Jack Mackerel fish?
2) Star kiss chunk tuna fish in water?
3) Forgive me. mei culpa's
___, _,*;~;*,_ o very stupid
"To defend the powerful in a system designed to accomodate them is unethical."
Something about this commment really disturbs me. I'm really not that articulate this late in the day, but here's the thing, slicknlover, I can understand and on some level agree with your objections to Holder for his work with Chiquita. I hate Chiquita banana. They are the devil.
But what if the powerful are on the side of justice? Or, are they inherently, because they are powerful and have been accomodated, unethical and by extention anyone who defends them are unethical? (I made myself dizzy there.)
To be honest, I think what you really want to say here is immoral. It's morally wrong not to fight the power. I know morality has a religious connotation, but ethics, especially when talking about the law, which is in and of itself a system with its own set of ethics, is too loaded a term to use.
I repeated your "go for the juggler" joke to my husband who was very</> pleased. I may have made a serious mistake, I have no doubt I will hear that joke said by him for many years...
So in the same clown vein...
Two cannibals are eating a clown, one turns to the other and asks "Does this taste funny to you?"
~
Be happy you don't have a ingrown toe nail.
Visit Jim Henley (sp. I think it's the right name?)
He's the musician. I met him in a strange place.
The Clinton White House. He, Martin E. Marty, Henley, Maxinne Hong Kinston etc., received a Humanity Award. Henley runs the Henry D. Thoreau: from 'Walden' It's a library and Thoreau Foundation. of all places, I was in the White House. Whoopee. HDT said: `The sun is but a morning star.
Maybe read: HERE. by Grace Paley. I gave a book she wrote about cats. Pedinska may like Grace Paley?
Wendell Berry-*The Peace of Wild Things.
`
When despair for the world grows in me and I wake in the night at the least sound in fear what my life and my children's lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake rest in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things who do not tax their lives with forethought of grief. I come into the presence of of still water. And I feel above me the day-blind stars waiting for their light.
For a time,
I rest in the grace
of the world,
and I am free.
one turns to the other and asks "Is this legal?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122704656624238791.html
or click on signature.
Excerpt:
Capturing pirates is not the critical problem. Rather, the issue is how to handle those in captivity. Traditionally, pirates fell within that category of illegitimate hostiles that once included slave traders, brigands on the roads and, in wartime, unprivileged or "unlawful" enemy combatants. As Judge Nicholas Trott, presiding over as a pirate trial, explained in 1718: "it is lawful for any one that takes them, if they cannot with safety to themselves bring them under some government to be tried, to put them to death." This law, of course, has changed since the 18th century. Pirates, brigands and unlawful combatants must be now tried before they can be punished.
One solution would be for the capturing state to press charges based on the much misunderstood and abused principle of "universal" jurisdiction. This is the notion that any state may criminalize and punish conduct that violates certain accepted international law norms. Although its application in most circumstances is dubious -- there is very little actual state practice supporting the right of one state to punish the nationals of a second for offenses against the citizens of a third -- piracy is one area where a strong case for universal jurisdiction can be made (if only because piratical activities often take place on the high seas, beyond any state's territorial jurisdiction).
Moreover, given the nature of naval operations, discerning who is a pirate is usually a much easier task than separating Taliban and al Qaeda members from innocent bystanders. This fact, all things being equal, should make the task of prosecuting captured pirates an easier process, both from the legal and public relations perspective.
The key problem is that America's NATO allies have effectively abandoned the historical legal rules permitting irregular fighters to be tried in special military courts (or, in the case of pirates, admiralty courts) in favor of a straightforward criminal-justice model. Although piracy is certainly a criminal offense, treating it like bank robbery or an ordinary murder case presents certain problems for Western states.
To begin with, common criminals cannot be targeted with military force. There are other issues as well. Last April the British Foreign Office reportedly warned the Royal Navy not to detain pirates, since this might violate their "human rights" and could even lead to claims of asylum in Britain. Turning the captives over to Somali authorities is also problematic -- since they might face the head and hand-chopping rigors of Shariah law. Similar considerations have confounded U.S. government officials in their discussions of how to confront this new problem of an old terror at sea.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
