Ping ATB.

Greg Procter wrote:

Your failing to honour your acceptance of the Geneva Conventions removes
your citizens' rights to be accorded the rights of the Geneva
Conventions in present and future wars.

Did you read the statements from the 1949 Geneva Convention that I posted?
The people we were fighting did not meet the criteria that are listed in
the document


Of course they do - check out that clause you keep quoting me in regards
to other rights not being restricted ...

Has any member or former member of the NZ military ever violated a term
in the Geneva Convention or other convention relating to war?

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:52:38 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

:Sarah Czepiel wrote:
:
: On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:55:33 +1300, Greg Procter
: wrote:
:
: :Sarah Czepiel wrote:
: :
: : On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:58:24 +1300, Greg Procter
: : wrote:
: :
: : :Mr Travel wrote:
: : :
: : : Greg Procter wrote:
: : :
: : : Mr Travel wrote:
: : :
: : : Greg Procter wrote:
: : :
: : :
: : : The UN requires all nations to have a Bill of Rights.
: : :
: : : Really. Do you have a cite for this?
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : : No. Possibly it is just a recommendation.
: : :
: : :
: : : I see, you did just make it up.
: : :
: : :
: : :You don't understand "No"???
: : :Can't say I'm surprised.
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : : I also asked you which rights NZ'ers have the Americans don't and you
: : : said "all of them",
: : :
: : : So, did you mean, for example, NZ'ers have freedom of speech and
: : : Americans don't? iF not, then what did you mean?
: : :
: : :Thjat would be one right.
: : :(see McCarthy)
: : :
: : :There's the right to legal representation.
: : :There's the right to the Geneva Conventions.
: :
: : The right to the Geneva Conventions?
: :
: :I'll say this for you Sarah, on a very good day you're quick!
:
: What Conventions specifically, groggy?
:
:
:Basically; all of threm.

Well then give me three specific examples please.

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?

2 : Getting back to your original comments about the US
Constitution
limiting our rights. Even if they were members of a country's
military force, What does prisoner of war taken in another
country have to do with our rights being restricted to those
listed in the US Constitution. Why would the US Constituion have
any bearing on the rights of non US citizens NOT in another
country?

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

Your failing to honour your acceptance of the Geneva Conventions removes
your citizens' rights to be accorded the rights of the Geneva
Conventions in present and future wars.

Did you read the statements from the 1949 Geneva Convention that I posted?
The people we were fighting did not meet the criteria that are listed in
the document

Of course they do - check out that clause you keep quoting me in regards
to other rights not being restricted ...

Has any member or former member of the NZ military ever violated a term
in the Geneva Convention or other convention relating to war?


That would be the action of an individual and against the rules of the
nation.

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.

2 : Getting back to your original comments about the US
Constitution
limiting our rights. Even if they were members of a country's
military force, What does prisoner of war taken in another
country have to do with our rights being restricted to those
listed in the US Constitution. Why would the US Constituion have
any bearing on the rights of non US citizens NOT in another
country?

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. 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.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....4e24d9718d8971

"Bugger the happy buying experience thing, just make as much money as you can
with the least amount of effort... The world is full of customers."

Euromerc on business ethics.

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

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


The right to the Geneva Conventions?


I'll say this for you Sarah, on a very good day you're quick!

Greg, perhaps you can explain what you meant?

Please identtify the specific Geneva Convention you are referring to and
the specific parts of the document that are being denied people in the US?



No, you ****wit, you are signatories of the Geneva Conventions and yet
you deny the citizens of nations you attack those rights. As the Geneva
Conventions are maintained by honour, trust and co-operation you have
removed the right of US citizens to be given the rights of those
conventions in any future war - as a nation you are without honour.


Let's pretend for a moment, you mean the 1949 Convention.
Given the description below, do you really believe the people captured
and held at Gitmo, for example had:

1. A fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
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. These two are frequently violated by
people who don't wear uniforms or otherwise identify themselves as
your enemy. They torture and murder our captured soldiers who are
clearly wearing uniforms and insignia and then dump the bodies on the
streets of Baghdad. During WW-II the Waffen SS did not take prisoners
on the battlefield and because of that practice we did not spare the
lives of any Waffen SS troops we engaged in battle ourselves. As far
as I'm concerned because of the way the enemy treats our soldiers we
can do whatever we like with their prisoners and so far their
treatment at Gitmo is far better than any of them deserve. The Geneva
Convention is a huge joke with fanatical Moslems.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....4e24d9718d8971

"Bugger the happy buying experience thing, just make as much money as you can
with the least amount of effort... The world is full of customers."

Euromerc on business ethics.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:14:03 +1300, 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.

Message-ID:

: 2 : Getting back to your original comments about the US
: Constitution
: limiting our rights. Even if they were members of a country's
: military force, What does prisoner of war taken in another
: country have to do with our rights being restricted to those
: listed in the US Constitution. Why would the US Constituion have
: any bearing on the rights of non US citizens NOT in another
: country?

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.

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?

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.