The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
How can Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi (the two brits in Guantanamo Bay) confess to a war crime when America is denying that the conflict in Afghanistan was ever a war?
There have been great pains taken to describe the men held in Guantanamo Bay as "Illegal non-combatants", thus allowing them to be held without any reference to the Geneva Convention. If they have to confess to war crimes, does this mean that they or any other interested party can also have members of the US government arrested for the war crime of Mistreatment of Prisoners?
And if they are saying that it is for the conflict between the Taliban and Northern Alliance prior to Sept 11th, then will anyone in the US government be held accountable for the millions in military aid given to the Taliban?
There have been great pains taken to describe the men held in Guantanamo Bay as "Illegal non-combatants", thus allowing them to be held without any reference to the Geneva Convention. If they have to confess to war crimes, does this mean that they or any other interested party can also have members of the US government arrested for the war crime of Mistreatment of Prisoners?
And if they are saying that it is for the conflict between the Taliban and Northern Alliance prior to Sept 11th, then will anyone in the US government be held accountable for the millions in military aid given to the Taliban?
Page:
Okay, definition of war crime;
Article 8
War crimes
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
* (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention . . . .
* (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
* (iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
* (v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
And, in the Geneva convention there is this critical section..
Article 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.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Those men are by the geneva definition, war criminals, but seeing as the Taliban never signed up to the Geneva Convention ("if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof") and also the Geneva convention can be applied to armed conflict, not just war.
Bah, it's all a mess.
Article 8
War crimes
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
* (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention . . . .
* (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
* (iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
* (v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
And, in the Geneva convention there is this critical section..
Article 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.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Those men are by the geneva definition, war criminals, but seeing as the Taliban never signed up to the Geneva Convention ("if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof") and also the Geneva convention can be applied to armed conflict, not just war.
Bah, it's all a mess.
Hmmm
It's a case of "Do as I say, not as I do".
How can Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi (the two brits in Guantanamo Bay) confess to a war crime when America is denying that the conflict in Afghanistan was ever a war?
There have been great pains taken to describe the men held in Guantanamo Bay as "Illegal non-combatants", thus allowing them to be held without any reference to the Geneva Convention. If they have to confess to war crimes, does this mean that they or any other interested party can also have members of the US government arrested for the war crime of Mistreatment of Prisoners?
And if they are saying that it is for the conflict between the Taliban and Northern Alliance prior to Sept 11th, then will anyone in the US government be held accountable for the millions in military aid given to the Taliban?
There have been great pains taken to describe the men held in Guantanamo Bay as "Illegal non-combatants", thus allowing them to be held without any reference to the Geneva Convention. If they have to confess to war crimes, does this mean that they or any other interested party can also have members of the US government arrested for the war crime of Mistreatment of Prisoners?
And if they are saying that it is for the conflict between the Taliban and Northern Alliance prior to Sept 11th, then will anyone in the US government be held accountable for the millions in military aid given to the Taliban?
Page: