"DSK" wrote
And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?

Yes.

I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.

Like I told Dave, you keep looking for a US or UK type trial with all the
hoopla, but that's not the way the rest of the world works, including many
"western democracies" using Napolionic law. There, a judge hears the
evidence, determines guilt and passes sentance. The accused may or may not
be invited. Happened to a dude I knew - got drunk and wrecked his car in
Mexico and did a year. In Afghanistan the judge is likely some local tribal
elder but he has the same authority. Bottom line is if you want US/UK
justice don't get drunk and wreck in Mexico and don't go making trouble in
Afghanistan.

So, no you realize that Rumsfeld *did* give the orders? Only you think
it's OK because he changed his mind... sort of?

Sure, I simply dispute whether the things he OK'd are torture.



Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?


I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with
psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices"
he
attributes to God that tell him to do things. I never heard anyone deny
that these foreign government practiced torture, just that these
governments
had promised not to torture the ones we deported to them.


Yeah right.

Never mind, I'm not interested in arguing with your "voices."

DSK

And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?


Vito wrote:
Yes.


Where?


I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.


Like I told Dave, you keep looking for a US or UK type trial with all the
hoopla, but that's not the way the rest of the world works

Yeah, I' sure... blah blah blah.

There is no evidence that even a rudimentary tribunal has been held for
even a small minority of these prisoners. The U.S. gov't and the
military has not made any such claim.

You're pushing hot air, buddy. You have no facts and you can't admit the
truth, same as our discussion on Viet Nam.

Bye. I hope you and your voices have a good time together.

DSK

"DSK" wrote
Where?
I'm sorry, I thot you'd read it. Musta been on reeky motorcycles.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 4 defines POW.

Also: "Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its
jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity
card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental,
personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The
identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or
both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party
to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed
forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be
issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war
upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him"

Note that those held at Gitmo do not meet these criteria.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied
that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in
activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person
shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present
Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person,
be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a
spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile
to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases
where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having
forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

Full text
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...s/geneva1.html

Enjoy!

BTW

Art. 4. 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.

Thus a Saudi (for example) caught in Afghanistan and held by the US is not a
"protected person" because we have diplomatic relations with the Saudis.