> 
> 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.
> 
mere soldiers? OK, I can see where this is going.


> 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..

As I said before, its war, so all bets are off. Id ignore the geneva 
convention too if it suited my purpose.


> 
> 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!

Either way, Im happy.


> 
> 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....
> 

War Crimes? Crimes against Humanity? Did the USA lose a war I didnt hear 
about?

Win a war you are a hero. Lose a war and youre a war criminal. Try to keep 
up.


> 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.

I dont see how. They can make the rules up as they go along. Who is going 
to tell them otherwise?


> 
> 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. 

What is all this International Treaty stuff? As I said before, in war 
there are no rules. There is no guide book.

>*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 

Sure. It will happen. But again, it is war. Dont like it? Stay at home.


> 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.

Im sure they are feeding them tho.... probably more than Id do.

OK, answer this, what do you

a) believe they should do once they catch Osama?
b) believe they will do once they catch Osama?

for me

a) shoot him dead
b) shoot him dead

> 
> > Dont piss them off. Quite simple really.
> 
> That's fine if your a terrorist. Sucks if your just a lowly conscript.

Aha! Here we are! I was expecting the 'Im just a poor old grunt with a 
gun, I cant think for myself, please be kind to me' angle at some time. :D

Everyone has choices. 

> 
> > 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.

Nasty aint good always, but when someone is nasty to you Id prefer to out-
nasty them :D Otherwise you spend your life being a victim.


> 
> > 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!*

Yes. Because they won. See above.


> 
> > 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.

Yes. I agree.

You dont want to know my plan to fix 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.

How is that relevant? 

> 
> 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.
> 

oh! :D thats the connection.

And once the US is happy that these people are regular little vegemites 
theyll let them go. No harm, no foul.

> 
> > 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!

perhaps we should both study modern torture techniques and the resulting 
accuracy before we take this one further - Im sure they dont use bamboo 
anymore :D


> 
> > > 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.

And who are these people? Random guys off the street? Id venture that 
perhaps most of the people being detained could possibly have some form of 
connection to certain groups. I could be wrong tho.

Generally I think that if you havent done anything, and are a happy little 
camper, you have nothing to fear. 


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

How so? 

> 
> > 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.

I wouldnt attend a church in the first place :) especially one attended by 
terrorists.


> 
> > > 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.

Can I get in on whatever you guys are smoking? :D


> 
> > >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.
> 

again with the simple soldiers? wow

"and to those people living in those countries, I say 'move! the bombs are 
coming!'"


> 
> > > ...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!>

bwhahahah... my thoughts exactly :D



> ...and returns to less teapot.

good luck!

> 
> > 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.

Sure, I agree. 

But get behind me when Indonesia invade. Ill have forgotten what youve 
said by then. Ill try to keep them from slitting your throat while you 
moan that its all not fair :D


