• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Reshaping international law

#1
The Fourth Geneva Convention was the result of WW2, today with the face of new players such as the apearence of suicide bombing, is it a time to reshaping international law? Suicide bombing is peculiarly horrific because it is susceptible to no normal deterrence. Martyrdom cannot be deterred. British policy in Northern Ireland was never so threatened as during the Maze hunger strikes. America was traumatised by the September suicide hijackings. Israel may kill selected Palestinian leaders, but against the bombers trained by Hamas and Islamic Jihad it cannot defend itself, only vent its rage in reprisals that fuel more attacks.Those who welcome death in this way cannot be deterred even by death.

By the way, having no uniform or recognisable command structure, is the definition of ‘illegal combatant,’ under the terms of the Geneva convention.



Into the abyss
Louise Christian is horrified by US lawyer Alan M Dershowitz's book on reshaping international law, Preemption

Louise Christian
Saturday June 10, 2006

Guardian

Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways
by Alan M Dershowitz
192pp, Norton, £15.99
Lawyers are often used by governments attempting to justify their actions, but the growth of international law holds out the hope that lawyers of all political persuasions may be able to agree on fundamental principles. Such hopes, however, are dashed by this book, which spouts dangerous, muddled nonsense about the necessity for "a new jurisprudence" to justify what is described as pre-emptive government action. A respectable attempt to justify the Iraq war or even the actions of the state of Israel (which the author, a Harvard law professor, obsessively admires) would have dealt with the existing law. Instead Alan M Dershowitz repeatedly confuses that which is allowed and that which he would like to see allowed.

Dershowitz quotes at great length an article by himself asserting, in relation to the killing by the Israeli government of the Hamas leaders Sheikh Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi, that "no reasonable argument can be made that the decision to target these combatants ... is unlawful under the laws of war or under international law". Despite the liberal use of footnotes this breathtaking assertion is not accompanied by a single legal citation. There is an opaque attempt in the rest of the book to justify the designation of an unlawful combatant as being protected neither by the laws of war as a prisoner of war nor by human rights law as a suspected criminal - the legal black hole of Guantánamo Bay. However, it now appears that this legal black hole is a basis not just for detention but for assassination.

Dershowitz attacks Jack Straw for condemning the killings of the Hamas leaders on the basis that the British government, by its involvement in the war on terror, is committed to "the killing of terrorist leaders who threaten British interests". Nothing could speak more eloquently of the moral and legal abyss into which our government has led us by its support for President Bush's foreign policy. I remember feeling chilled when the innocuous John Kerry committed himself to "killing terrorists" during his second televised debate with Bush, and Dershowitz cites this, too, as proof of the acceptance of the need for government assassinations.

Elsewhere in the book Britain's liking for "pre-emptive detention" is placed approvingly alongside that of Israel. But Dershowitz is ill-informed. He dismisses the House of Lords ruling that the indefinite detention of terror suspects is unlawful by saying the British government "refused to release them" - not quite an accurate description of the subsequent history of control orders and certainly not an adequate response by a lawyer to the ringing tones of the judgments. Similarly, the refusal of the Supreme Court in the case of Rasul v Bush to accept it had no jurisdiction over Guantánamo detainees hardly merits a mention. In its concluding chapter the book goes so far as to suggest that theories of "chromosomal abnormality" should be pursued as predictive of violent crime to justify long-term detention.

Most good international lawyers (such as Philippe Sands, the author of the excellent Lawless World) would agree that there is a legitimate debate to be had about the legal justification for pre-emptive wars, although most would want it to buttress, not to dismiss (as Dershowitz does), the authority of the UN. There is the conundrum that while "hawks" want preemptive wars to justify preventive strikes against states with WMDs, "doves" want humanitaritan intervention to stop genocide. If one is being charitable to John Reid, an informed debate is all he was suggesting when he recently called for the re-examination of the laws of war. However, he would do well to consider the real agenda of those to whom Dershowitz is a cheerleader. There are a lot of hawks in this book (with a whole chapter on possible justifications for attacking Iran) and little sign of the doves. This may be why the author's view of the new jurisprudence he considers necessary amounts to little more than a nonsensical cost-benefit analysis coloured by his own highly contestable views of what is already acceptable. The chilling nature of the various misreadings of international law in this book and its moral equivalence add weight to calls for Britain to withdraw its support from US foreign policy and the promulgation of the legal ideology that underpins it.



http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1793858,00.html
During more than 50 years after the Second World War atrocities continued. Among the best known are the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan and Sierra Leone. Despite these horrific breaches of the Geneva Convention, which was adopted in 1949, regarding the protection of civilians in times of war, the contracting parties were never convened to discuss them. The only time this happened was in December 2001 when the contracting parties to the Convention gathered in Geneva to accuse Israel of human rights violations and breaches of the Convention.
 
#2
mora said:
The Fourth Geneva Convention was the result of WW2, today with the face of new players such as the apearence of suicide bombing, is it a time to reshaping international law? Suicide bombing is peculiarly horrific because it is susceptible to no normal deterrence. Martyrdom cannot be deterred. British policy in Northern Ireland was never so threatened as during the Maze hunger strikes. America was traumatised by the September suicide hijackings. Israel may kill selected Palestinian leaders, but against the bombers trained by Hamas and Islamic Jihad it cannot defend itself, only vent its rage in reprisals that fuel more attacks.Those who welcome death in this way cannot be deterred even by death.

By the way, having no uniform or recognisable command structure, is the definition of ‘illegal combatant,’ under the terms of the Geneva convention.



Into the abyss
Louise Christian is horrified by US lawyer Alan M Dershowitz's book on reshaping international law, Preemption

Louise Christian
Saturday June 10, 2006

Guardian

Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways
by Alan M Dershowitz
192pp, Norton, £15.99
Lawyers are often used by governments attempting to justify their actions, but the growth of international law holds out the hope that lawyers of all political persuasions may be able to agree on fundamental principles. Such hopes, however, are dashed by this book, which spouts dangerous, muddled nonsense about the necessity for "a new jurisprudence" to justify what is described as pre-emptive government action. A respectable attempt to justify the Iraq war or even the actions of the state of Israel (which the author, a Harvard law professor, obsessively admires) would have dealt with the existing law. Instead Alan M Dershowitz repeatedly confuses that which is allowed and that which he would like to see allowed.

Dershowitz quotes at great length an article by himself asserting, in relation to the killing by the Israeli government of the Hamas leaders Sheikh Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi, that "no reasonable argument can be made that the decision to target these combatants ... is unlawful under the laws of war or under international law". Despite the liberal use of footnotes this breathtaking assertion is not accompanied by a single legal citation. There is an opaque attempt in the rest of the book to justify the designation of an unlawful combatant as being protected neither by the laws of war as a prisoner of war nor by human rights law as a suspected criminal - the legal black hole of Guantánamo Bay. However, it now appears that this legal black hole is a basis not just for detention but for assassination.

Dershowitz attacks Jack Straw for condemning the killings of the Hamas leaders on the basis that the British government, by its involvement in the war on terror, is committed to "the killing of terrorist leaders who threaten British interests". Nothing could speak more eloquently of the moral and legal abyss into which our government has led us by its support for President Bush's foreign policy. I remember feeling chilled when the innocuous John Kerry committed himself to "killing terrorists" during his second televised debate with Bush, and Dershowitz cites this, too, as proof of the acceptance of the need for government assassinations.

Elsewhere in the book Britain's liking for "pre-emptive detention" is placed approvingly alongside that of Israel. But Dershowitz is ill-informed. He dismisses the House of Lords ruling that the indefinite detention of terror suspects is unlawful by saying the British government "refused to release them" - not quite an accurate description of the subsequent history of control orders and certainly not an adequate response by a lawyer to the ringing tones of the judgments. Similarly, the refusal of the Supreme Court in the case of Rasul v Bush to accept it had no jurisdiction over Guantánamo detainees hardly merits a mention. In its concluding chapter the book goes so far as to suggest that theories of "chromosomal abnormality" should be pursued as predictive of violent crime to justify long-term detention.

Most good international lawyers (such as Philippe Sands, the author of the excellent Lawless World) would agree that there is a legitimate debate to be had about the legal justification for pre-emptive wars, although most would want it to buttress, not to dismiss (as Dershowitz does), the authority of the UN. There is the conundrum that while "hawks" want preemptive wars to justify preventive strikes against states with WMDs, "doves" want humanitaritan intervention to stop genocide. If one is being charitable to John Reid, an informed debate is all he was suggesting when he recently called for the re-examination of the laws of war. However, he would do well to consider the real agenda of those to whom Dershowitz is a cheerleader. There are a lot of hawks in this book (with a whole chapter on possible justifications for attacking Iran) and little sign of the doves. This may be why the author's view of the new jurisprudence he considers necessary amounts to little more than a nonsensical cost-benefit analysis coloured by his own highly contestable views of what is already acceptable. The chilling nature of the various misreadings of international law in this book and its moral equivalence add weight to calls for Britain to withdraw its support from US foreign policy and the promulgation of the legal ideology that underpins it.



http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1793858,00.html
During more than 50 years after the Second World War atrocities continued. Among the best known are the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan and Sierra Leone. Despite these horrific breaches of the Geneva Convention, which was adopted in 1949, regarding the protection of civilians in times of war, the contracting parties were never convened to discuss them. The only time this happened was in December 2001 when the contracting parties to the Convention gathered in Geneva to accuse Israel of human rights violations and breaches of the Convention.
If You want to changev the Conventions just to save the prosecution of rogue elements in the IDF then You are onto a hiding to nothing, Mora. I have a lot of time for the Israeli soldiers but, like the Americans, they have an undisciplined section (small, but still there). The Conventions are there to protect the general public from the extremes of that small section.

As for fighting suicide bombers, they are not soldiers, they do not have an army or a government to fight under therefore they are not complient to - or protected by (as a countries armed forced are) - the Geneva Conventions. Prosecute any You catch under criminal law since they are criminals, just make sure You catch them before they start wearing lumpy waistcoats :wink:
 
#3
"By the way, having no uniform or recognisable command structure, is the definition of ‘illegal combatant,’ under the terms of the Geneva convention. " MORA
- Just looked through the Geneva Convention & protocol texts & couldn't find "illegal combatant": are you sure this isn't from the Dubya Convention?
In which case why change a perfectly good set of texts on the "Rules of War"? As you pointed out, many don't respect the Geneva Conventions & protocols and nobody forces them to apply these texts. What changing the texts to suit those Sovereign States that don't respect them means giving a carte blanche to act like terrorists & those same states our countries fought in WW2 (apart from the Zionist & Irish "freedom fighters" who were too busy fighting the Brits to care about the Nazi atrocities...).
And just because a terrorist/combatant doesn't enter under a specific category in the texts is NO excuse to totally ignore them - if you are a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, you are supposed to respect them regardless of what the other side does - that's what separates the good from the bad, isn't it?
 
#4
The broad thrust of reshaping of international law by Dubya and Bliar appears to be:

1. We can do what we want without accountability. A German citizen kidnapped in a case of mistaken identity in a CIA "rendition" has had his lawsuit thrown out by US courts. Torture is viewed as acceptable as long as it does not lead to death or multiple organ failure - which it has done, on occasion, without prosecution. US soldiers cannot be tried by the International Criminal Court.

2. If you are an "A-rab" then you can do what we tell you that you can do, but even then you may be locked up with or without trial, shot by police (also Brazilians) or blown up accidentally, or shot by US marines.

3. If you wear a British uniform, you are subject to both 1 and 2 above and will be shafted by the MoD and Crown Prosecution Service.
 
#5
Frogslegs said:
What changing the texts to suit those Sovereign States that don't respect them means giving a carte blanche to act like terrorists & those same states our countries fought in WW2 (apart from the Zionist & Irish "freedom fighters" who were too busy fighting the Brits to care about the Nazi atrocities...).

read some history
 
#6
Jewish terrorism in palestine during WW2.
From:- The Origins of Middle Eastern Terrorism by T J Nelson (2002)
http://brneurosci.org/israel-terrorism.html



Jewish Hanagah terrorists also killed over 200 Jewish immigrants by blowing up and sinking the immigrant ship Patria in 1940 after the British ordered the immigrants transported to detention camps in Mauritius, and were suspected of blowing up the ship Struma in 1942, in which 769 Jewish immigrants died. The Irgun finally broke the truce with Britain altogether in 1943 after Manachem Begin was released from Siberia as a result of the Soviet-Polish treaty and became leader of the Irgun Zvai Le'umi in Eretz Israel.

On February 1, 1944, the Irgun under Begin declared a revolt against British rule over Palestine and demanded that the British leave the country immediately. After blowing up an immigration office and a tax office, Begin's militants bombed the British Intelligence Headquarters in Haifa and Jerusalem, killing a British officer. The Hanagah tried to stop the Irgun attacks, threatening civil war. The Irgun responded by murdering Lord Moyne, the British official responsible for implementing the White Paper policy, in Cairo.
 
#7
By the way, having no uniform or recognisable command structure, is the definition of ‘illegal combatant,’ under the terms of the Geneva convention.
The Geneva convention does not define illegal combatant/unlawful combatant/unprivileged combatant/belligerent or any other version.

The only thing that the GC has to say on the matter is :

Prisoners of war,

e) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
What the US should have done is claimed that these people were being held under Article 42 and 43 of the GC.

The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.
Problem solved..
 
#8
Mora -
Some of us know our history better than you, it appears. We also understand the difference between Jewish people and Zionist "Freedom Fighters", which is much the same as the difference between Irish people & Irish "Freedom Fighters". How strange that you didn't mention or post links about the many Irishmen who fought & died for the Allied cause - I wonder why?
There would probably be a lot less bloodshed if more people understood that a Jew is not necessarily an
Israeli who is not necessarily a Zionist who is not necessarily someone who blows up or shoots people to make a political point, and the same goes for Muslim/Arab/Fundamentalist...
Back to the REAL subject of this thread - where are your references in the Geneva Conventions & Protocols to "illegal combatants"?
Or do you admit that this is a "Dubya" special?
ps I would guess by your reaction to my post that you're either Israeli or American - am I right?
 
#9
Mora, before I respond to what you have posted, could I respectfully ask the following:

1. Do you have a point?
2. If so, would you be so kind as to explain it to us?

I can think of at least 20 different directions I can take this thread right off the top of my head, but I'd like to know what you find interesting about your latest cut & paste job. If you're not articulate enough to explain what's on your mind, please go away.
 
#10
Oh, 'crab'. Your post is like waving a soviet flag at a passing sirloin on the hoof.....You just know you are going to get a 3,000 word cut-n-paste ramble in reply.
Every one of 'mora's threads are the same - Israel is the centre of the universe, it is always right and, anyway, it's all the fault of the British.
Also, if you disagree with her you are anti-semitic.
However, I do agree it's fun winding the troll up.....
 
#11
crabtastic said:
Mora, before I respond to what you have posted, could I respectfully ask the following:
crabtastic, before I respond to what you have posted, could you use your mod ability and take HVH off my back.


thanx
 
#13
crabtastic said:
1. I'm not a Moderator.
2. I happen to agree with his post.
so bugger off along with him

crabtastic said:
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:19 pm

Speak for yourself. Aside for the usual criticism of bulldozing of houses, shooting 10yr old kids on their way to school and shelling of beaches in the middle of summer, they're absolutely fcuk-all fun on the lash. A more miserable bunch of insular cnuts you will not find anywhere. They just stayed in the corner, playing pool- without knowing the rules (and it wasn't as if they knew a different set of rules- every controversy spurred a full-fledged committee meeting and much gesticulating and jabbering on in Hebrew.)

Granted the guys we ran into were IDF/AF at Rhein-Main AB, but close enough for my money.
after this filth, who want to argue with you any way
 
#14
:lol: The Grauniad on the US, pre-emption and Israel? That's pretty much their Holy Grail/trifecta of left wing outrage. I'm surprised the computers didn't blow a fuse at all the righteous indignation when they wrote it.

As for 'international law', what bloody interntional law? All it really boils down to is smile and do what the nice man with the very large gun tells you to. Whoever has the most cash and firearms wins.
 
#15
Brick said:
:lol: As for 'international law', what bloody interntional law? All it really boils down to is smile and do what the nice man with the very large gun tells you to. Whoever has the most cash and firearms wins.
True, but just because very few people/states obey them, does that mean we should chuck the Geneva Conventions out the window? I think that the principle is great and many armies respected certain codes of war even before they were written down - didn't they? Of course there have always been people who couldn't give a s**t too.

I liked HVH's articles for the new Dubya Convention, can anyone think of any more?

Such a pity Mora can't hack a reasoned, documented argument or 2... guess I'll die of old age before she(?) answers my question!
 
#16
mora said:
crabtastic said:
1. I'm not a Moderator.
2. I happen to agree with his post.
so bugger off along with him

crabtastic said:
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:19 pm

Speak for yourself. Aside for the usual criticism of bulldozing of houses, shooting 10yr old kids on their way to school and shelling of beaches in the middle of summer, they're absolutely fcuk-all fun on the lash. A more miserable bunch of insular cnuts you will not find anywhere. They just stayed in the corner, playing pool- without knowing the rules (and it wasn't as if they knew a different set of rules- every controversy spurred a full-fledged committee meeting and much gesticulating and jabbering on in Hebrew.)

Granted the guys we ran into were IDF/AF at Rhein-Main AB, but close enough for my money.
after this filth, who want to argue with you any way
Best stay out of the NAAFI bar then (where I posted that comment), if you're of such a sensitive disposition. And you lot are sh1t company when on the pish- deal with it.
 
#17
LOL 'crab', I can just imagine her frantically searching through your posts(all 2390 of them) to find some anti-Israeli comment to hit you with...and that was the best she could manage - she's giving trolls a bad name!
 
#19
mora,

Are you just plain stupid, or do you actually believe the wibble you write?

As others have pointed out, you tell us to "read history" and to "look at the facts", and yet it is YOU who fail miserably to do so. When others quote history, you ask for their posts to be deleted - because they make you and your kind look hypocritical. And that's the very point of the matter. You are a smelly hypocritical TROLL.

In other threads you have discussed the idea that the UK and others should change their law because it is awkward to Israeli citizens, on the otherhand you preach that Israel can and should do what it wants internally without interference. Now, you want the 4th GC to be amended, because it's inconvenienent to you. So you only want to respect the 'law' when it suits you.......

And, if you want to spread your deliberate half-truths and outright lies, I suggest you go elsewhere and do it where people have little or nothing between their ears. As others have pointed out, "illegal combatants" are a GOP collective invention and have nothing to do with the UN or the 4th GC.

Go and find another damp, dark and smelly GOP/Zionist blogging forum to spout your wibble.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts