Reshaping international law

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by mora, Jun 12, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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.

    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. 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. read some history
  6. Jewish terrorism in palestine during WW2.
    From:- The Origins of Middle Eastern Terrorism by T J Nelson (2002)

    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. 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 :

    What the US should have done is claimed that these people were being held under Article 42 and 43 of the GC.

    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, before I respond to what you have posted, could you use your mod ability and take HVH off my back.

  12. 1. I'm not a Moderator.
    2. I happen to agree with his post.
  13. so bugger off along with him

    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. 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!