[plug] [OT+link] Feeling secure? Want to stay that way? Then don't read this.

[Shayne O'Neill]

Anyone recon there ought to be a [plug-ot] list?

(Apoligies for this rant. It's hit a sore spot for me)

> And quite rightly I reckon.

No! Recent reports have come out suggesting that possibly up to 59% of
people in Camp X-Ray where sent there against the recomendations of
intellegence agencies, as being of no interest to intellegence agencies
as mere soldiers.

A few commentaters have notedthat GWB , Rumsfeld and clan would do well
NOT to leave the US once there terms are over and diplomatic immunity
wears off as the case for a Hague prossecution over camp X-Ray is seen as
a pretty open and shut case.

Although the US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention (not the '77
ammendments however), they are obliged to treat those prisoners as POW's ,
meaning NO torture, trial by impartual court (nottribunal), and immediate
release at the end of hostilities. This does not apply to the conspiritors
in the bombing of the WTO, but no one has seriously suggested that the
majority of the Camp X-ray gang knew about it... If they did, CIA would of
as well..

The US backed out by saying that the combatents where in disguise by
having beards and no insignia... Of course the same applied to the
Northern Alliance(!). This was an opt out designed to allow criminal
prosecution of spies and mercinaries and people that can not be identified
as enemy soldiers.. The US claims the Talisban army where not soldiers but
spies!

Thus the US finds itself in this bind.
Either
(A) The US executive have breached international war crime laws by illegal
detention and torute (they have admitted this) of talisban soldiers by
denying the geneva convention.. The same stuff they got Pinochet on.
*OR* The international courts accept the talisban where all spies and
mercinaries , thus
(B) The millitary bombardment of afganistan was thus believed to be an
attack on civillians which just co-incidently happened to hit those spies,
thus opening the US executive to trial on "Crimes against Humanity", stuff
they also got pinochet on....

It's a bad bind, and more than a few legal experts have pointed out that
at some point in the future , the US millitary command may find themselves
in *deep* shit.

Either way, I can not abide myself or others to take the lives of other
human beings for reasons other than morals. The attack on Affganistan was
waranted. There was no doubt about that. International treatys DO allow a
country to be attacked if a country aids and abbets terrorists. *However*,
those rules of engagement on how to treat POW's have saved the lives of
countless US, and yes! Australian POWS since WWII. If the biggest kid on
the block has now decidedthat the geneva convention is over, expect Iraq
to kill any captured US & Aussie prisoner, which will inevitably happen in
an actiondesigned to take baghdad (City wars are a *lot* bloodier than
desert stuff). Remember in the Gulf war, Sadamm alowed the Red Cross
accessto his American Prisoners, and released them post war. Something the
US hasn't done with the Talisban conscripts it's detained in Cuba.

> Dont piss them off. Quite simple really.

That's fine if your a terrorist. Sucks if your just a lowly conscript.

> You can walk around trying to be subtle, being diplomatic, trying to talk
> it out. But sometimes the gloves come off, and I can tell you that the US
> has a better record at being a nasty peace of work than any other country
> in the world. When theyre nasty, theyre *nasty*.

And this is good? We certainly don't find this a redeeming feature in
Osama. If "nasty" is good, I propose we are all doomed.

> As long as I dont have to witness the horror of a man being tortured, and
> am allowed to continue in my own little peaceful world, I am forever
> indebted to these people.

It would of been nice if it panned out that way. How sad our heros became
the worst bloody offenders of the lot. *AND WITH FREAKING IMPUNITY!*

> Do you reckon my grandfather, or several people I have known over the
> years, went to WW2/vietnam/korea to be nice guys? War is war. They went,
> killed a lot of people, suffered enormously, and those that are still
> breathing are still suffering (like my mate who wakes up screaming nearly
> every night post-vietnam). And theyd do it again. They did it so people
> like ourselves can sit chatting aimlessly on a mail list about things we
> cant comprehend. They paid the price for our freedom.

Vietnam was an immoral war that ruined the life of good young soldiers to
appease the political will of a paranoic US administration. If you promise
a country independance in exchange for helping fight japs, don't change
your mind and invade them just because the french get indignate. That
however does not denigrate the fine legacy of the soldiers involved. It's
the leaders that get my goat.

> I take my hat off to all of them, and the current US action. If it means
> that my daughter can grow up without worrying about being the target of a
> terrorist attack, I back them fully.

It won't. I'm sorry. WHen you kill a young lads father on a battle field.
That young lad grows up hating you. Simple as that.

> The absolute truth is that I would prefer that 100 terrorists were killed
> or tortured to my family suffering any harm whatsoever. I dont even mind
> if some of them are wrongly accused.

Sure. I'm with you there. Doesn't justify human rights abuses
against non terrorists however. A mere few months pre S11 , a film whose
name eludes me speculated big terror attacks on the US, Habeus Corpus is
lifted and the US military start rounding up foreigners into camps and
torturing them.

Currently the US government has just began rounding up thousands of people
from Iran, Iraq and various middle eastern countries, on no charges other
than visa iregularities.... No torure , although the news reports at the
moment indicate lawyers have lost contact with the people involved. This
is all in the last two weeks. There has been some pretty big riot-y
demonstrations in the US about this... Scary time to be an american.


> A man with bamboo under his fingernails is more likely to talk than if you
> simply say 'please'.

And tell you what you want to hear... "Er sure I know who did it *OUCH* It
was , um, um, Habib... Yeah... Habib over the road. Can you stop now!"

> > Of course, if they're prepared to down such basic and obvious freedoms
> in the
> > name of national security, are they going to blink at downing a freedom
> which
> > allows Linux to flourish? [you just read the on-topic 1%]

Odd point. But it's the same thing. Basic freedoms can not be revoked.
Only violated.

> woaah. Way off. Do you think Linux would flourish in a world run by
> terrorists? They are *protecting* your freedoms, including the freedom to
> develop linux.

By passing things like the Patriot act that specifically revokes freedoms
to 'protect against terrorism'. It's like something I read on Declan
McCullochs list. You have far more likelyhood of being violated by your
government than by terrorists because of these laws. *FAR* more people are
being detained without charge in the US than where killed in the S11
tragedy, not because they are suspects, but because they *might* have info
that is usefull.

Wow. Osama actually won. The US government has decided to 'cancel' the
freedoms that made the US famous.

> Personally I think the gonoeva convention is a crock. Its war. You want to
> be nice, stay at home. Unless youre willing to commit completely to the
> horror that is war, you dont care enough about the topic at hand.

And if you are nice and end up being tortured for no reason because you
went to the same church as a terrorist then you may actually wish the
Geneva convention WAS followed.

> > a two-pronged system of government which gives it the appearance of
> > gentleness, but is really nasty at heart. Which kind of matches the USA.
> eh? Go have a lie down Leon :D

Actually, I suggest it's an apt observation.

> >We
> > have these laws under which everyone gets a fair deal and nobody gets
> > tortured, aren't we great?' Land of the free, rah rah.
>
> Freedom has its limits. You want to fly planes into large buildings, or
> bomb a night club full of drunk Aussies, then I think perhaps you have
> defaulted your rights to protection under the 'rules'. If youre nice and
> peaceful and good to your fellow man, then you have nothing to fear.

Well dude, my family suffered a couple of losses in bali. I can tell you
these war-pigs do NOT speak for me. Sure the Terrorists can get what's
coming to them. That should not apply to simple soldiers and civillians.


> > ...which is exactly where Palladium and the SSO projects like Passport
> are
> > headed...

Bit nutty. But I supose

> >     Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of
> >     the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six
> >     hundred threescore and six.

And at this point the conversation turns teapot. :)
<snip!>
...and returns to less teapot.

> I find it interesting that someone (and Im not singling you out Leon, dont
> get me wrong) can sit in a nice home, in a nice city, in a nice country,
> playing on a nice computer, reading information on an unrestricted
> internet connection, with a full stomach, and with little to no fear of
> harm, all of which has been afforded them by the sacrifices of the many,
> many people who have fought and died for these privileges, and come to the
> conclusion that the people who are making those sacrifices are evil.
>
> I think the young people in this country need a good dose of national
> service to wake them up - I dont want the next generation of leaders to
> let the country become overrun with terrorists and extremists just to
> avoid offending someone..... :D

I do not think self sacrifice is an ignoble thing simon.

But I assure you, no government will return warmong^H^H^H^H^H national
service without the grave risk that "young people" will riot.

Forget it. It's a DAMN good way to get pretty much every young dude in the
country breaking things and lighting fires in canbera if we return to
forcing people against there will to engage in acts of killing.

Simon. There is an entire generation of young folk that think human
life is a precious thing, and thus will have no truck with war. Even in
the US population, the sentiment against war is overwhelmingly high.
Deal with it.


Shayne.