I bet you destroy rythm..

@GBT, Don't blame that on GC! My husband and I are the true destroyers of rythm, and we have tapes of us dancing at weddings to prove it.

He does a version of the white man jog and I'm not quite sure how to describe my own lack of talent, other than it makes my husband look talented in comparison.

He's a classic tweaker.

link at sig

A sotted, soiled & soured string.

Unravelling all by itself. The yarn cannot hold.

And all the while, swayin', staggerin', pissin' into the punchbowl & mumblin' to yourself about all those other assholes who aren't here to be in on your great joke. Ha! Served them right. Hey, where'd all those pussies go?

And the evening comes, and swallows you up in its madness, and spits you out, cold, unshaven and bitter. And you spend that weak wintery morning stewing in your very own bitter juices . . .

Are you and Pedinska togethers tonight?

You listening to the last Jebbie web tune?

Be nice, Invite YKW to a tent to give CPR?

Thee escaped DOJ staff is a OCD jackals?

Who is the 'tweaker' web girl at the bottom? Is M. Moore Ms. Pedinska?

I liked the other Jebbie's web, The music at a beach. Pedinska dipping?

I hope waves knock you 2- cold. O, you float to sea with holy mackerel.

Naw, we won't get together until Saturday. Gonna do some pub crawling on Sunday and we're set for the beach and a sunset dinner cruise on a small sail boat Monday evening then more pub crawling, I suppose. If you can, watch the Schooner's Wharf webcam and maybe you'll catch a glimpse of Pedinska doing the hully gully in her fishnets and sneakers. Me? I'm going to be the one under the table.

For lurkers.....we are both going to be with our respective spouses.

Rather, we would simply accept the fact that we would become war criminals by defending ourselves in that manner, and try to defend ourselves without killing innocent civilians. --BM

Well it seems you fell into my much more subtle trap ...

I specifically stipulated that Canada had withdrawn from the GCs and the HCs and refused to be bound by their tenets before the conflict even began.

For example, imagine Canada suddenly became belligerent, withdrew its name from the GCs, Hague Conventions, etc., invaded the US and said, "We will give no quarter to any of your citizens or your military. Anyone who is captured will be executed on the spot. --jschultz

As such, we are not legally bound by the GCs or the HCs in a conflict with them. All of the HCs and GCs specifically say that they only apply between High Contracting Powers.

For example, 1907 - Hague Convention IV (The Laws and Customs of War on Land), Art. 2: The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

And Common Article 2 of the GCs: ... 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 ...

You argument would be correct if evil Canada had remained Party to the HCs and GCs, but they did not, so your legal argument that we are in violation of the HCs or GCs is incorrect. Without the HCs or GCs in force, I don't know if there is some more basic laws of war that could then be applied to us and Canada in our conflict.

Your argument is analogous to wiping out an entire city because a single resident of that city, or another city, tried to kill you. --BM

That would certainly go against the concept of proportionality and would, therefore, at the very least be a moral war crime. However, if the GCs and HCs weren't in force, then I don't know under what international law you would be prosecuted. Whatever international law that now defines crimes against humanity (UN charter, etc.), I would guess.

If that's the case, we should never have put Japanese on trial for war crimes after WWII since both sides in that conflict engaged in atrocities. --Jebbie

Victors write the history (and conduct the military tribunals). Just because we were not prosecuted does not mean we were not actually also guilty of war crimes.

You and Baldie do make a valid point though. I do believe the Japanese were also a High Contracting Party to the HCs during WWII. As such, the HCs were in force in our conflict with them. So, I believe both sides were guilty of war crimes under the HCs.

I find your explanation regarding claiming "self-defense" as a justification for responding to a war crime against it rather confusing also. If there is no danger of the initial attack continuing, the term self defense is not applicable.

My true point was that if the HCs and/or GCs do not apply to a conflict then we cannot possibly be guilty of war crimes under them. I was incorrect when I said that if one HPC does not hold true to the rules of war, then the other side is also free to ignore them in response.

Poutine rears its head, spreading gravy in our airspace.

My overarching point was that a strong argument can be made that the GCs do not cover our conflict with al-Qaida.

GC CA2: ... 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 ...

Al-Qaida is neither a High Contracting Party, nor do they bind themselves to the tenets of the Conventions, so the GCs do not govern our conflict with them per se.

GC CA3: 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:

Our armed conflict with al-Qaida takes place in the territory of several HPCs. However, CA3 specifically and explicitly limits its scope to only cover "armed conflict not of an international character."

There are a couple of ways to interpret this. On one hand our conflict with al-Qaida certainly crosses many international borders and, therefore, can be seen as an international conflict. On the other hand, our conflict with them is not a conflict with another nation and so the conflict could be seen as not international.

I believe the intent of CA3 was to apply some basic rules to civil wars that take place within HPCs, leaving international conflicts to the HCs and other articles of the GCs. So, I favor the first interpretation. Ultimately, it would be up to judges to determine the original intent of the Parties and either reading could easily prevail (and probably already has).

I think we can all agree that al-Qaida combatants generally do not pass the POW test, even when considering the extended Protocols. For example, the 9/11 terrorists did not carry their weapons openly before and during their military engagement with us. That only leaves potentially GCIV protections for them.

However, the first article of GCIV, after the common articles, explicitly states: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Most of the home nations (e.g. - Saudi Arabia) of al-Qaida members are either neutral or co-belligerents with us in our conflict with al-Qaida and have normal political representation with us. So, they don't even get protection under GCIV.

Only those members of al-Qaida that are nationals of Iraq and Afghanistan that were taken captive during our conflicts in those countries would get GCIV protection, until the hostilities ended, which they have now.