Ping ATB.

Ken Ehrett wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


According to the Geneva Convention, the prisoners you take while
invading countries have the right to legal representation and POW
status.

I would also like to point out that the Geneva Convention also states
any enemy combatant captured while engaging in hostile action against
another military's forces who is not in uniform can be executed as a
spy.


Can you describe the Afghanistan Taliban uniform?
Any soldier who conforms to the Taliban's uniform standards cannot be
deemed to be "out of uniform".


According to the rules of this Geneva Convention you are so fond
of we can line them all up and shoot them. They should be thankful we
are sticking them all in Gitmo in the first place.

Defending one's country cannot be described as a "hostile action".

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

Sarah Czepiel wrote:

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:47:46 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

:"Mr. Travel" wrote:
:
: Greg Procter wrote:
:
: According to the Geneva Convention, the prisoners you take while
: invading countries have the right to legal representation and POW
: status.
:
: Don't these rules apply to the recognized military of a country?
:
:You chose not to recognise them.

I think then you should be able to answer Mr Travel's questions which
follow:

1. : Which country's soldiers are being held?


Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Really? Uniformed soldiers from these countries are having their Geneva
convention rights violated? Please cite.

Try a head count of those individuals removed from their
country/countries by the US invaders.


Do you happen to know whether Iraq and Afghanistan follow the Third
Geneva Convention? Did you pay any attention at all to the
documentation I posted regarding the criteria?


There is no call for nations that are not signatories of the Geneva
Convention to follow the Conventions.
OTOH those nations that are signatories are honour bound to follow those
conventions, whether the nations they invade are signatories or not.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Ken Ehrett wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:06:25 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

2. Conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of
war.


Don't forget the fact they are not allowed under the Geneva Convention
to hide military operations or store munitions at facilities such as
hospitals, schools or mosques.

That falls under the criteria listed. They are NOT conducting their
operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


They were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Nor were they
invading anyone or carrying out war against any nation.

On Feb 5, 4:12 am, Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

Sarah Czepiel wrote:

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:47:46 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

:"Mr. Travel" wrote:
:
: Greg Procter wrote:
:
: According to the Geneva Convention, the prisoners you take while
: invading countries have the right to legal representation and POW
: status.
:
: Don't these rules apply to the recognized military of a country?
:
:You chose not to recognise them.

I think then you should be able to answer Mr Travel's questions which
follow:

1. : Which country's soldiers are being held?

Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Really? Uniformed soldiers from these countries are having their Geneva
convention rights violated? Please cite.

Try a head count of those individuals removed from their
country/countries by the US invaders.

Oh boy. A fan of Mr. Pineapple (Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega).

On Feb 5, 4:14 am, Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Ken Ehrett wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:06:25 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

2. Conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of
war.

Don't forget the fact they are not allowed under the Geneva Convention
to hide military operations or store munitions at facilities such as
hospitals, schools or mosques.

That falls under the criteria listed. They are NOT conducting their
operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Nor were they
invading anyone or carrying out war against any nation.

So who are they? They're most definitely not nations, countries or
even rebel forces.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


There's the right to legal representation.

I am a bit confused.

That's obvious!

You stated our Constitution limited our rights.
The right to legal representation is in the constitution,

So the only right you consider to be required is the right to legal
representation!
Amazing.


The 6th Ammendment, which is part of the basis for the Supreme Court's
Miranda decision, states "... to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense.


Who is Miranda?

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:26:50 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:

:Waiving the right to remain silent, Sancho Panza
:said:
:
: On Feb 5, 4:14 am, Greg Procter wrote:
: "Mr. Travel" wrote:
:
: Ken Ehrett wrote:
:
: On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:06:25 -0800, "Mr. Travel"
: wrote:
:
: 2. Conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and
: customs of war.
:
: Don't forget the fact they are not allowed under the Geneva
: Convention to hide military operations or store munitions at
: facilities such as hospitals, schools or mosques.
:
: That falls under the criteria listed. They are NOT conducting their
: operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
:
: They were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Nor were they
: invading anyone or carrying out war against any nation.
:
: So who are they? They're most definitely not nations, countries or
: even rebel forces.
:
:Enemies of the US, and therefore, friends of Groggy.

" An enemy of my enemy is my friend. "

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:12:34 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

:"Mr. Travel" wrote:

: Do you happen to know whether Iraq and Afghanistan follow the Third
: Geneva Convention? Did you pay any attention at all to the
: documentation I posted regarding the criteria?
:
:
:There is no call for nations that are not signatories of the Geneva
:Convention to follow the Conventions.

:OTOH those nations that are signatories are honour bound to follow those
:conventions, whether the nations they invade are signatories or not.

Uh,no they're not. Ken gave you an example involving the Waffen SS
in WWII.

Larry in AZ wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, Sancho Panza
said:

On Feb 5, 4:14 am, Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Ken Ehrett wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:06:25 -0800, "Mr. Travel"
wrote:

2. Conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.

Don't forget the fact they are not allowed under the Geneva
Convention to hide military operations or store munitions at
facilities such as hospitals, schools or mosques.

That falls under the criteria listed. They are NOT conducting their
operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Nor were they
invading anyone or carrying out war against any nation.

So who are they? They're most definitely not nations, countries or
even rebel forces.

Enemies of the US, and therefore, friends of Groggy.


It's the US who has deemed them "enemies" and the US that has invaded
their country.
Are you saying that people don't have the right to defend themselves
against invading forces???

Sarah Czepiel wrote:

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:26:50 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:

:Waiving the right to remain silent, Sancho Panza
:said:
:
: On Feb 5, 4:14 am, Greg Procter wrote:
: "Mr. Travel" wrote:
:
: Ken Ehrett wrote:
:
: On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:06:25 -0800, "Mr. Travel"
: wrote:
:
: 2. Conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and
: customs of war.
:
: Don't forget the fact they are not allowed under the Geneva
: Convention to hide military operations or store munitions at
: facilities such as hospitals, schools or mosques.
:
: That falls under the criteria listed. They are NOT conducting their
: operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
:
: They were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Nor were they
: invading anyone or carrying out war against any nation.
:
: So who are they? They're most definitely not nations, countries or
: even rebel forces.
:
:Enemies of the US, and therefore, friends of Groggy.

" An enemy of my enemy is my friend. "


That's why you yanks supported Saddam Hussein!